Quote:
Originally Posted by TurdFerguson
I brought this up because it honestly was the first thing that came to mind when I read the post; i certainly did not dig for it. I am all for protecting new GMs, within reason; in fact, that was my argument during the Lack situation. I just dont think that different rules should apply to different GMs. The strength of a GMs roster should have nothing to do with the help or protection they get (waivers, trade reviews etc.).
I brought this up because its inconsistent with the league prior stance of "tough luck, lesson learned". I don't know how this scenario will be dealt with the next time it comes up.
|
I guess. But - if you are expecting consistency over a 3 year period across all cases I don't think that is realistic.
No matter how defined we make our rules, there will be situations come up that demand an ad-hoc ruling.
Part of the change in mindset is fueled by a general belief that the league struggles with having some have and have-not teams. I don't know if that was as much the case 3 years ago. If it was - it wasn't something that we had as much awareness as we do now.
Part if it is also recognizing how many GMs are coming in and are new. And when they come in. Coming in during the off-season is tough.
And yes - the overall state of the organization IS considered.
We will make the best decisions we can when these situations come up. And not everyone will agree.
No set rules cover every situation.
