Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 22:10:40 GMT -5
First off, about time. Rob, you've always seemed like a good guy but this isn't for you. Here's an idea, let's cut Hunter some slack and give him Pitt instead of that sad Detroit roster. And then fold Detroit (sacrilegious I know) and one other team... We have cut it down to 24, and a dispersion draft for 2 rosters. I like that idea, I'd prefer not to start again. Do a dispersion of 2 teams draft style, maybe based on standings later or end of this season....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2015 23:20:13 GMT -5
I'll go along with whatever we decide but I agree with Joe. I think contraction may be the way to go. Kind of the best of both worlds. We already contracted 4 teams. Who's gonna decide who goes if we contract, and who stays. I rather have more gm's then less. Let's expand and have an expansion draft, that will increase trading and activity. I don't think expansion is even possible, most teams at this point are close to the minimum amount allowed and the unassigned list is at bare bones. In 2004 I had no clue what I was doing but after years of drafts, trades and waiting for players to come up through the ranks, I do NOT want to give up on my team now. I've literally been rebuilding for 11 years. Contraction is 1 of 2 ways to go, the other is a new GM. We got lucky that Hunter accepted the Detroit roster and Jeremy taking over the Islanders. The last thing I'd want to do is reboot, I'd prefer disbanding Pittsburgh and having an odd amount of teams, if that was an option. I'm just not sure who else would be on the cutting block in Jon's eyes. I think the league has become stagnate because teams are satisfied with what they have and want to wait to see what happens (trade me Kreider Jon) no one trades just to trade and sometimes when they do pull the trigger that's when the arguments happen. It's just a question (to me at least) do we have an odd amount of teams or do we gain another GM and hope for the best. There is a reason why the majority of the GMs in this league have been here for 8 or more years. I hope this made some sense, I've been drinking a little .......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 0:41:22 GMT -5
I'm down with contraction. Just like my balls when I get out the pool y'all.
|
|
|
Post by MontyBurns on Oct 9, 2015 10:47:25 GMT -5
What a shame. He was a good GM back in the day.
I am not in favour of a reboot, even as my team is getting stripped down. Im also not really in for contraction, though of the two contraction is better (not sure how we would choose another GM to get booted though...?).
I can offer Jon all the platitudes in the world, but I can see how it would be incredibly frustrating to do things for people who dont fully appreciate them (myself included), I would like to see us simply replace rob if we can. TBF he was getting attacked for inactivity for a long time. But his team isnt terrible by any means, so i dont see why we cant get a new GM?
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 9, 2015 11:03:35 GMT -5
I think it is clear you made the right decision Jon. Rob's participation level has fallen year after year to the point where he just didn't really manage the team anymore. He has a decent team, but it has been slipping for a while and he probably should have made some changes in the last few years.
I would support a re-start. I put as much effort into my team as any other GM in the league, but in my opinion one of the major issues with the league is a complete lack of parity. It has taken many years to develop, but right now we have more rebuilding teams than ever with little hope of competing with playoff teams for several years.
I don't really want to see a contraction. Personally I don't like having fewer teams because every team just ends up stacked. It also won't do much to increase parity in the league. If we contract one thing is for sure - we will not inject new blood into the league. We will not find new great GMs (they have to be out there!). That being said, this may be the easiest decision for now and I like Eug's idea of giving Detroit the Penguins.
I would prefer expansion. To achieve that we could either start over, or we can do an expansion draft that allows teams to protect say 3-5 players.
|
|
|
Post by gmcanucks on Oct 9, 2015 11:40:01 GMT -5
What a shame. He was a good GM back in the day. I am not in favour of a reboot, even as my team is getting stripped down. Im also not really in for contraction, though of the two contraction is better (not sure how we would choose another GM to get booted though...?). I can offer Jon all the platitudes in the world, but I can see how it would be incredibly frustrating to do things for people who dont fully appreciate them (myself included), I would like to see us simply replace rob if we can. TBF he was getting attacked for inactivity for a long time. But his team isnt terrible by any means, so i dont see why we cant get a new GM? After reading Shawn's post I wanted to clarify my own. My first choice would be to simply replace Rob and proceed if possible. I only favour contraction if the only other option is a reboot. Although I do enjoy this league and would go along with it if an overwhelming majority thought a reboot was the way to go. But I think we should develop clear expectations and responsibilities for all GM's, let everyone know what they are and advise them if you don't meet them this season, their membership in this exclusive club will be revoked. Then we will have a better of idea of what type of committed GM base we have to work with moving forward. This will allow us to better decide what comes next Anyone who has a franchise in this league has certain responsibilities that must be met. We're talking minutes a day, not hours, to meet the minimum requirements. If you can't do that small amount, than you owe it to yourself and the other GM's to step aside. You're obviously not getting any enjoyment out of it and you're negatively impacting everyone else's enjoyment by hanging around. And please don't feed me that line about it's only a hockey sim league and there are more important things in life. I agree 100%, but if that's your stance, you really should be spending your time on those things and not wasting your time and our time as part of this league. Life is all about choices and if you can't choose to spend the minimum amount of required time on this league, you should give your spot to someone who can. End of sernon for today
|
|
|
Post by Sharky on Oct 9, 2015 12:39:17 GMT -5
The more I think about it, the more I think contraction shouldn't even be considered as an option. Reducing the number of GMs is not going to make this league more active.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 9, 2015 13:43:35 GMT -5
I appreciate all the suggestions and feedback! I'd still like to hear from a few more guys like Wpg, Min, Bos, Stl, Buf as well. Even though Det and NYI are new, if they like the league so far and plan on sticking around then your opinion is just as important, it doesn't matter if you've been here 5 weeks, 5 months or 5 years.
I have to agree with some posts that the main focus (at least mine is) is to increase activity and participation. Bringing in a new GM for Pitt, expanding to more teams or contracting to less teams isn't going to make someone post on the board who doesn't like to post on the board. I don't think you can "force" someone to post but I just get a little tired of the ghost GMs that do as least as possible to stay "active". It also drives me crazy when the sim has to auto-line a team.
I don't think it's unrealistic or out of line to expect GMs to log in at least once a week and submit lines when needed. If making that a minimum requirement is too demanding for anyone then I really think you're in the wrong place.
I don't think parity is a big issue really because it's all due to choice. Teams like myself, LA, Mtl, TB, Wpg etc..I know my perspective is different because I run the league but I don't think I would be more active if my team was great and less active when they suck. I think it really comes down to a persons personality but people need to understand that like links in a chain, everyone is as responsible as the next to keep the life of the league breathing. The league is only as active as everyone decides to make it and if you don't want to be part of the solution and don't share the same overall "vision" for what we are all involved in then maybe you're better off in a fantasy league with a bunch of strangers that all you have to do is set your lineup once a week and walk away.
As far as giving Hunter the Pens, are they really a "better" team? Player for player, prospect for prospect, picks vs. picks I think it really depends on your perspective and would you rather be more competitive now or later?
It seems the general concensous is against a re-boot which is fine, but obviously an option that had to be discussed. Expansion would be tough for a few reasons, need to find 2 new GMs that are willing to have crappy teams for the next few years, people will complain about not being to able to protect all their players, and we'd have to have some sort of system for prospects because we can't create 2 new teams with a zero prospect pool, and again teams would get upset when they got cherry-picked. I'm also not a fan of contraction, in one aspect I look at it as a failure which I really don't like and ever since season 3 when we cut 4 teams I've always hoped that one day we'd bring it back up to 28, but that goes back to the prior mentioned issues. But again, none of those options really address the current "staleness" of the league.
I think we need to set some sort of bar for participation, and knowing that bar if you feel you can't meet those expectations then maybe it would be time to move on. What those requirements should or would be to bring a little life back in, I don't know, but it seems in the past when I tried putting something like the 3-strike system there were a few who did not like it all.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 14:21:15 GMT -5
I think the minimum should be submitting lines when there is an issue (ie. no auto-lines), voting on trades (reasonable time frame I know there have been votes I missed because they had enough votes so quickly they passed right away), submitting votes for awards, responding to PM's.
I don't like the idea of a strict 3 strike system because I think there are examples of times where a guy could get a strike or multiple strikes that has nothing to do with them being "out" of the league or absentee GM's. For example, I think Chris had some auto-lines this year because of his issue with a Mac computer. But you could see it was the same issue not resolved not a case of Chris repeatedly ignoring issues.
Maybe this puts too much pressure on Jon/Gavin but I think it should be more up to them (or a veteran committee) to decide if guys are doing enough. I think it becomes pretty apparent (Pitts for example) when guys are out and doing much less than the bare minimum.
|
|
|
Post by Hawks on Oct 9, 2015 18:12:06 GMT -5
We could attempt to do a big recruitment drive and expand, its an idea. I don't mind the idea of contraction either, I think it would stir up the league a great deal and I think that is what is needed most to renew a lot of interest. Things get boring when they get stale. I see most are not in favor is re-booting and thats okay, I understand, again it was an idea for stir things up. I'm in favor of really anything that has a positive influence on the league as a whole.
I'd be okay with offering Hunter Pittsburgh's roster before we contract it however. Detroit isn't that exciting, especially for a new guy. But its his choice ultimately. Feel free to respond Hunter, would you prefer Pittsburgh if it was offered to you?
We do need at least 1 other GM to remove before contraction is possible though, and there might be conference shift as well. What impact does this have on the season? Are we going to auto pittsburgh/ Detroit (if he swaps) all year and contract at the end of the season?
|
|
|
Post by CanesGM on Oct 9, 2015 19:09:36 GMT -5
I am for getting a new GM or contracting...No way for a reboot. It would help me , but unfair to other GMs who worked hard to tear down their teams and rebulid. I am in a league that had to contract down to 20 and now they have a solid group of GMs that are always doing what is needed.
|
|
|
Post by CanesGM on Oct 9, 2015 19:13:25 GMT -5
If contraction is the go, I am up for whatever you decided.....waiting until next season or scrapping this season since we are only 9 games in and doing it now.
|
|
|
Post by AvsGM on Oct 9, 2015 19:15:31 GMT -5
Do you guys in favor of contraction really think that's the solution to increase league activity and participation? I don't see the connection.
|
|
|
Post by CanesGM on Oct 9, 2015 19:28:06 GMT -5
No, I do not see it increasing e activity, but it should eliminate those GMs that do not answer or participate.
|
|
|
Post by SensGM on Oct 9, 2015 19:47:12 GMT -5
We could attempt to do a big recruitment drive and expand, its an idea. I don't mind the idea of contraction either, I think it would stir up the league a great deal and I think that is what is needed most to renew a lot of interest. Things get boring when they get stale. I see most are not in favor is re-booting and thats okay, I understand, again it was an idea for stir things up. I'm in favor of really anything that has a positive influence on the league as a whole. I'd be okay with offering Hunter Pittsburgh's roster before we contract it however. Detroit isn't that exciting, especially for a new guy. But its his choice ultimately. Feel free to respond Hunter, would you prefer Pittsburgh if it was offered to you? We do need at least 1 other GM to remove before contraction is possible though, and there might be conference shift as well. What impact does this have on the season? Are we going to auto pittsburgh/ Detroit (if he swaps) all year and contract at the end of the season? Yea I'd swap if that option was available
|
|