Discussion on improving the league.

[savemedrzaius]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

Fake cash (cap) might be better than a pick as an incentive. It means that the top four teams are better positioned to hold onto a veteran and increase the value of vets slightly in the league as a side benefit.

Also, easy to implement.

I think this is a good idea. And also the year after their successful year it's very possible they don't make the Top 4 so they have to make moves to get under their reduced cap. I think it would create a lot of player movement in the league.

[MJK]

[QUOTE=Jiri Hrdina;8500462]

Originally Posted by Cambam8

The value of picks and prospects is less about playable ratings and more about trade capital. It's the asset value that matters.
As GMs trade that stuff they are constantly reducing their future trade capital.

Not if you get enough in return!

[Cambam8]

[QUOTE=MJK;8500463]

Originally Posted by Cambam8

Hey buddy, sent you a message about your 1st….

Well you are the 1st one to do so, I'm always open to discussions.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Macho0978

Option 3. Stockpile draft picks and prospects then flip the switch and build a winner by using those assets as currency

Young feller, that’s the same as option 1!!

[Jiri Hrdina]

[QUOTE=MJK;8500463]

Originally Posted by Cambam8

Hey buddy, sent you a message about your 1st….

We got some crazy quoting #### going on.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by savemedrzaius

I think this is a good idea. And also the year after their successful year it's very possible they don't make the Top 4 so they have to make moves to get under their reduced cap. I think it would create a lot of player movement in the league.

4 years ago when we confronted this we implemented a series of things. And it worked to some extent.
I'm in favor of systematic changes to address asset imbalance more than one-time big bang moves.

For me I would rather focus on answering the question
- How do we create more asset balance in the league to promote engagement and GM retention
v.
- Should we expand

The former question is more how I think we build a league that is sustainable and more fun for more GMs. And it could involve several big and small steps to achieve that. AND if we do it right, it paves the way for future expansion.

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

For me I would rather focus on answering the question
- How do we create more asset balance in the league to promote engagement and GM retention
v.
- Should we expand

You just can’t see a path where question 2 (expansion) can answer question 1 can you?

I do.

[Swayze11]

Originally Posted by MJK

You just can’t see a path where question 2 (expansion) can answer question 1 can you?

I do.

How does question 2 help the current asset depleted teams?

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Swayze11

How does question 2 help the current asset depleted teams?

It doesn't. It just potentially takes more away from the rich teams, to bring them closer to the mean.

[Jiri Hrdina]

Originally Posted by MJK

You just can’t see a path where question 2 (expansion) can answer question 1 can you?

I do.

I can’t but if you can then outline it

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I can’t but if you can then outline it

An easy way to do it would be pretty hard on the rich teams. An expansion team needs about 50 players, so they take one (unprotected) from every team in the league, and then 22 from anywhere they like (unprotected).

[MJK]

This guy gets it.

A MILLION ways to do it

[MJK]

Originally Posted by Jiri Hrdina

I can’t but if you can then outline it

That’s for a committee member to do.

I already got cut.

[MJK]

If it’s something the majority wants a committee if formed to put forward options. League decides best option then it’s tweaked.

Go from there.

I’m not outlining anything right now because as far as I can tell it doesn’t matter what is posted it ain’t going anywhere.

[SportsJunky]

Originally Posted by MJK

That’s for a committee member to do.

I already got cut.

That's 2 minutes for being passive aggressive.

[Knut]

I Personally think Veteran GMs switching to low asset teams is the way to do it. Ravi did it, Cheese has done it. I took on the absolute mess that was Columbus.

Personally it’s more fun to blow up a team. Collect assets and then try and build a winner.

If there is expansion (max 2 IMO) there should be vet GMs in place thetr.

You also don’t need 50 players in expansion. 28 is more than enough. They will have Tonnes of money to spend in free agency and can try and collect picks. 50 is way too many picks.

[Harry Lime]

I'm not sold on expansion. I do think that the difficulty level needs to be increased for a couple of teams. It's an interesting discussion on how to go about it.

[Macho0978]

I don’t know why we would penalize anyone for being a better GM than others? Also not sure why anyone gets into this league then complains their team sucks. This league feels like a long term league and not really for casual players. There are enough rules in place that committed GMs can turn any pile of crap in time.

A few rules to promote winning is good but making long term owners take weak teams doesn’t change much. Over time the weak GM will run their team into the ground and the good GM will recover.

Maybe when a new GM is asked to join the league we let them review their team to decide. If they quit because their team sucks see ya later and move to the next guy?

[BagoPucks]

It is a tough game to get really good at and the sim is another thing to learn that most of us havent yet figured out. I find that GMs push to win too soon without understanding how the league and sim works. It almost seems ideal to have rookie GMs rewarded for a wait and see approach more than win now at all cost mode.

I almost feel like we keep pitting building assets vs winning when really they are two different things. I just think the 'how' on that needs to be transferred to new GMs.

[Goffie]

I have been meaning to weigh in on this topic for a while, but every time I attempt it, I have to catch up on the 100 posts and then I run out of time. I love it! It is great to see so much activity!

My initial thoughts were that expansion was the way to go. I saw expansion as a way to jumpstart league activity and inject some life into the stagnant trade scene. I looked at the extra teams as extra trade chips. I honestly did not see any negativity in doing this.
Now I am seeing both sides of the equation a little clearer. We have taken steps to even the playing field. We have a stable crew of GMs now for the first time in years. Do we want to mess with that? For years, we have had rotating doors on certain clubs. It is great that we do not have that issue. Will two new teams bring back that issue? I do not know.

I do like the idea of the draft and some asset distribution. However, I do not look at it as a way to bring parity to the league. It will not. One thing I have learned in this league is there will always be good GM’s, mid tier GMs and short-term GMs. It is what it is. Not to generalize, but with my experience, Good GMs will put in the work to make their team better, lots of trades, knowing when to buy low and sell high, knowledge of prospects and most importantly not scared to take risks and lose trades here and there. The middle tier seem quite content being “Ok” and scared to make a mistake, will only make a trade if it favours their squad clearly and overall not as active as the top group. The lower tier is the group without a vision and makes all their moves for short term gain and do not have a goal for their team. This group usually has a shorter shelf life.
I think the expansion is a fun thing to do, I do not see it hurting the league, but I do not see it as a solution for more parity. If anything, I think it widens the gap. In the words of Macho Man, “the cream of the crop always rises to the top.” That will happen again. If anything, I see the asset distribution as getting wider.

My personal opinion is “let’s do it”. I am a gambler and enjoy the activity of the league when the trade scene is alive. I think it should be weighted towards the better teams exposing more assets. I think it will be fun. I do not think we should do it if the only reason is to bring parity. As mentioned above I do not think it will. Would I will be willing to expose more assets than a weaker team, 100%; would I take on an expansion club or asset poor club? Not, I paid my dues over my time in the league and would not have the proper timeline to put into running a team like this.

I do think it would be fun, but I do not see it as anything other than a fun change. I don’t think it will negatively affect the league, and short term I see it as fun, long term it really does nothing other than add more teams to talk with, and that is not a bad thing either. I also think the guidelines and criteria need to be very well thought out.

That is my long-winded two cents, I am not sure if it makes any sense.