RBSL Forums

All,

I've done a bit of recruiting and have a few GMs with significant sim league (and in some cases, FBB) experience who are interested in joining up.  We don't have any "vacancies" right now in that most everyone is pretty active, but I just wanted to reiterate my goals for the league and expectations for GMs (that I hope are shared by everyone in the league).

The end goal is a league full of championship-caliber GMs. First that means replacing pretty inactive folks.  I don't see any teams I think would be "inactive" - some guys haven't submitted as many DCs but they comment in threads and make trades and just forgot to post "same." I really want to get those numbers up but whatever.

My bigger issue is that there are some teams which are just perennial bottom feeders.  Haven't gotten out of the first round of the playoffs in 20 seasons, and only made the playoffs like 20% of those seasons. And - at what point is it better for the league to replace an admittedly active GM with a new GM with the hopes that it can be turned around?

I'm not anticipating like, cutting 8 active GMs or anything, but there are a few cases which I'm honestly struggling with whether it might be better for the league if we give some new blood a shot over a handful of teams who have failed to do anything to make their franchise even relevant for 20 seasons and are perennially just complete bottom-feeders.

All comments on this issue are welcome, either in the forum or in private message.

I've always thought that it would be interesting if there was a way for GMs to be 'fired' for consistent poor performance.  The main reason in my mind was always as an anti tanking method rather than promoting participation though.  (although both are valid concerns)

If we ever went down this road I would like for a very clearly outlined demerit point system be put in place so you know exactly what would cause someone to be replaced. 

Example:
Finish bottom 4 = 100 points
Finish bottom 5-10 = 50 points
Finish bottom 11-13 = 25 points
Missing more than 4 DC's in a season = 50 points  (perhaps commish could waive this as he sees fit due to vacation, etc.)

If you accumulate 400 points you are fired.  If you make the playoffs all points get cleared and you start at 0 again.
(details can be tweaked, this is just a general idea)

I think it would be very interesting (and realistic) to see more teams competing for playoff spots rather than many teams thinking that if they are not .700+ they might as well tank for a top pick.

I would also suggest that if anyone was ever 'fired' they should be welcomed back with open arms if they want another chance with a new team.

I think this is kinda a cool idea, feasible or not. Makes it very cut and dry.

I like this too - the one thing I don't like is "make the playoffs? Wiped clean," because then you're incentivizing just hitting 8th. Maybe you lose 100 points or 1/2 your points, whichever is greater? I like the idea of some kind of a formula but we have to figure it out.

Idk. I don't like u could b kicked for having 4 bad seasons.

I agree 100%.  I tried to make it as simple as possible just to make sure the point got across.  

But i agree one 8th place finish shouldn't wipe it clean.  At the same time though, I would not want to make it too difficult to stay in the league.  The hope would be that any GM that put a reasonable effort and had remotely decent GM skills would not be fired.  I'm sure we could find the right balance.

If you finish bottom 4 in the league 4 YEARS IN A ROW you have done something MASSIVELY wrong.  But yeah, we would need to tweak it.

u draft that shitty pg 1st and crap fucking bed could doit

Are you drunk?

"And crap fucking bed could doit."

why would someone want to come back? they were fired by the league

Who was that pg 1 overall out of league 3 yrs.

Put the bottle down.

I think if you find someone that is not really trying, then they should be replaced.

I mean they can try to make changes but u cant force other teams to give up their players for the sake of helping someone not to get fired.
or if they are bad at making bids to free agents, plus the drafts picks don't pan out. any team that goes thru that is gonna be bad, but the guy is trying his hardest to makes changes, who are we to tell someone that they are not a good GM?

that's why I go back to my 1st statement. that is the only reason someone should be replaced.

How do you test that?  Tanking to get a pick/get FAs is a legitimate strategy for a year or two. The problem is the teams that never actually rebuild and are in perpetual tank mode.

So one bad pick means you are bottom 4 FOUR STRAIGHT YEARS?

If I was fired I would come back.  I don't look at it like the league is firing you because you are a bad person, or they hate you.  It's like in real life.  If you were a GM and finished dead last 4 years in a row you would be fired**.  It's not personal.
We could add in some safeguards to make sure that people aren't getting fired every season.  It should be something that happens extremely rarely (if ever).
I think just by having the rule in place at all, GMs would change their behavior to ensure that anyone who wanted to be in the league, wouldn't get fired.

Example:  If I decide to rebuild in 2-3 years, the best path is to sell off every asset that I have (even for pennies on the dollar) and sign 15 PGs to my roster and finish dead last.  Maybe I would rethink that strategy if I knew that intentionally finishing dead last would put a couple of strikes against me, and then add a little bad luck to that and I would lose out on all of the benefits of tanking for 5 years.



**Real life 76ers GM excluded

Then why don't we kick out the ultra lucky then, too.

Cuz its the random shit that makes dynasties....and luck doesn't take anymore effort.

I think this is something we should explore, but let's be careful---this is the kind of rule that could alienate some people and delegitimize a legitimate way of team building. I know it's not the purpose of the suggestion, but pushing GMs to create treadmill teams isn't any better than what's happening in the league right now. I only have Dalessio on my roster because I made a conscious decision to let my team be really bad rather than just mediocre bad, and the same could be said for how Jabari ended up in Utah, how Houston got the top two picks in the same year, etc.

Apparently the all the rage in FBB leagues now Is GM contracts. Something like 4 seasons. Every year that you don't win 42 or make the playoffs, 1 year is taken off the contract. If/when you do hit one of those marks, the contract resets back to 4 seafood again. If you get down to 1 and fail hit one of those marks for a 4th year in a row, you're gone.

Not necessarily crazy about it, but it's out there.

I don't hate that idea. Very simple and frankly, realistic.

If it takes me 6 seasons to win 55 games, I'd rather take that path than 3 seasons to 42. Not a fan, but won't be the first or last time someone won't agree with me.

Have you ever missed 42 or a playoff spot 4 years in a row though? I'd be curious to see who this would even catch.

I think after last night, we call all see that this league is a crapshoot, especially when playoffs roll around.
Getting into the playoffs means you have a chance, whether you are the defending champion and #1 see *cough* Jazz *cough* or the #8 seed and seemingly an afterthought/speed bump on the path to a back-to-back championship *cough* Jabari sucks....Noel for MVP *cough*

But honestly, once the playoffs start, anyone has a shot to win. It's a simulated league, and the Grizz showed last night that whether you are a top 3 team in the league or the 16th best team in the league, you can win at least one round, if not more. I just have never understood how anyone can be content on losing/rebuilding for more than 3-4 seasons anyways. Honestly, if you are fully involved in the league, it will bother you to lose that long, which is why I think that the perennial teams (we all know who they are) that are content being at the bottom, really aren't 100% involved, or really haven't grasped how to rebuild at all, and whether anyone wants to admit it or not, it does hurt the league.

Now, I think obviously there are certain circumstances where we need to look at things differently. There could be just shitty luck with draft picks, or injuries, or inheriting a team without first round picks for 2-3 seasons, where a rebuild becomes that much more tasking, especially for a new GM to the league.

My thought is that if this does go through, that the league votes on a 5 person panel made up of veteran GMs who can decide on whether a GM is replaced if they hit the required amount of "points" or whatever means we come up with to grade success/failure in their GM duties. That way if someone comes into a shitty circumstance where they are without picks for 2-3 seasons, but are actively making trades trying to improve, and gather assets to help the team, then they can be given some cushion and an extra season or two to turn it around. I think the veteran guys, especially the commish, will notice who is being very active and putting forth an effort to improve their team, and can give them more time, and vice versa if they are just posting "same" and barely are on the boards and really doing nothing but checking in every 2 days to get their bonus "DC DOLLARS" for "perfect attendance."

There are only 5 teams who didn't make the playoffs or have 42 wins in the last TWO years.

3 teams didn't make the playoffs or have 42 wins in the last 4 years - Wiz, Mavs, Clippers.  Again, not saying they're bad GMs or anything, the rule wasn't in place, I'm just saying "this is what it would have looked like."  Obviously the strategy would have been different.

It's obviously a tricky subject. But I think the main crutch here is: what's the incentive to be good? I think there's a lot of "championship or bust", because what do you get for even a conference finals appearance? It's really nothing; people barely remember champions or finalists year to year. That's what we're seeing from Sam Hinkie in the NBA; championship or bust. The 76ers just sell and stockpile assets until they can throw a godfather offer for a disgruntled star. If you ONLY care about a championship, it's a very valid strategy. In RBSL, you blow it up, wait until one of your rookies is great, and then throw the assets.

The problem is, this isn't a strategy that's conducive to a healthy league. You get guys making horrible rosters for YEARS. At least in the NBA, there are financial incentives for a team to win/make the playoffs, and GMs/coaches can get fired for doing poorly. In RBSL there's none of that. There is ZERO downside to tanking forever until a rookie turns into a star. It's a race to the bottom for lots of teams.

I think what people are missing is that if you have every team trying to win, the draft picks don't go away. They're still there. The picks just go to better teams. This makes the entire league better, and actually gives high picks to teams that NEED it, not teams that did the best job of intentionally creating a horrible team on purpose.

Also in this environment, getting stuck with a meh team is a much more tenable situation. If you end up with a "treadmill team" now, you're kinda boned because half the league has no desire to trade for your players because you're tanking, and contenders probably have nothing worthwhile to give you or straight up have better players than what you're offering. In a situation where everyone is trying to win, the market for players opens up dramatically. Also, the "contender" picks are more valuable, as with more competition there's more potential for a contender to take a step back. It makes it much easier to move assets around and pick up value. It just would create a much healthier league.

Yeah, it might suck to have a treadmill team for a few seasons, but it's for the good of the league. Also, maybe just be a better GM and build something better than a treadmill team. If you need 4 seasons of bottom 4 to turn it around or whatever we decide, maybe "treadmill team" is your ceiling.

Also Celtics is absolutely right. It's not about firing anyone; it's about putting measures in place (with the threat of firing) that modifies GMs' behaviors. The sweet spot is where no one gets fired, but the possibility keeps everyone fielding competitive teams. If you don't care enough or are so bad that you can't field barely competitive teams, you get removed.

I wholeheartedly agree with Jazz and Celtics' posts.

I understand that there's a set of written and unwritten rules that we all should & need to follow. I just don't agree with firing someone because computerized athletes can't put together a mediocre, 42-win season, while that GM may be pumping the league with activity.

If something is blatant, then a board of GMs should decide on that. I am 100% on board with that idea.

The rules ideally will be set so that it would be VERY, VERY hard to get fired if you're actually trying. You, for example, had everything with your team go wrong and you're what, bottom 8? The problem with a board of GMs deciding something is it becomes arbitrary and possibly personal. With a clear rule set there is no possibility for bias or making judgement calls.

9th. With top 8 protection on my 1st, so yes, everything went wrong. :(

If we can't have a board of GMs that can't be unbiased about a simulated basketball league then we have issues lol
Honestly, there are GMs that I deal with all the time, and others that more often than not, I don't see eye to eye on trade value so I rarely, if ever, trade with them. But never would I take this league so much to heart that I would have a vendetta against a GM that I have never even met before lol
I just think that using Brian's case as an example since you two have been discussing it. I don't think any veteran GM would say he isn't trying to get better, regardless of whether they maybe don't like him or whatever the case might be (and don't worry Brian, you are a good guy!)

I think I explained myself poorly. It just gets into judgement calls about guys, and I really would not want to be part of that process. You get Chris going to people and saying "we talked about it and you suck, bye". Then the door is open for questions like "GM X sucks, why are you booting me and not him!" and stuff like that. With a very cut and dry rule there's no second guessing, there's no wondering if you're going to get kicked, there's "if you don't meet this criteria you are removed." Manually removing people would cause so much drama.

I'm with Jazz. I would be uncomfortable telling GM X they were gone because some board of GMs said that it was OK, but GM Y (with the exact same stats) is OK because "he's trying."

That's a fair argument, and my idea was that the panel of GMs would only need to be in place IF the person reached the criteria to get replaced (whether we use a point system or whatever). So it's not like they would have to come together at the end of each year and evaluate who stays and who goes. It would only be if a team hit the criteria to be replaced, then the panel could look at it and say ok he has had a string of bad luck, or was dealt a shitty hand with no picks when he took over, but he has been making trades, acquiring assets, etc. and give that GM an extra season or something.
But like if a team is that bad for 4-6 seasons and legit aren't making trades, and are just posting the same garbage DC and saying "same" each sim for 4-6 seasons in a row, then clearly there would be no argument to be made to give them more time. I think that is what we are trying to differentiate.

I think what you had posted earlier about how if like 3/4 of the league was trying, instead of only like 5-6 teams going Championship or Bust each year, was extremely on point (or on fleek for my buddy Louis!). I have been offered picks from GMs that I know will never in a million years have a shot at being a lotto pick because there was no way that their team would be surpassed by 8 teams so that it could be a potential lotto pick. Now if there were 10-12 teams in the conference that were trying pretty hard, then I would maybe have thought twice about taking a chance on that pick being late lotto if the team slipped a bit.

When I first started in this league, there were always teams trying so hard and the league was pretty tight with the exception of maybe 4-5 teams at the bottom.

For example, when I won the title in 2031 (feel free to joke about how long ago it was), I was 4th in the East at 45-37, which is only 8 games above .500. 3rd place through 8th place was separated by only 3 games!!! In the West that year, only 6 games separated 6th and 13th place in the West. That is nuts! 13th place in the West that year had a record of 37-45 (.451%). Moral of the story, there were a lot more GMs trying to win and make the playoffs than not.

But in a scenario where it was a GM who had been here for like 15+ seasons and wasn`t making trades or doing anything but posting SAME for 4-6 seasons vs a GM who was new, had no picks when he started, and was actively making trades, trying out new DCs, etc. I don`t think I would feel uncomfortable telling someone they weren`t doing enough to try and improve.
I think we can all agree that this isn`t about kicking out GMs just for fun. It is about improving the quality of the league, and even by having a rule like this in place, it might provoke a bit more effort from some teams that have been floating by for a number of years.

New GMs would obviously be immune from the rule for 2-3 seasons or something to get their feet wet.  I think the problem behind a board is you're going to have people saying "hey Jeff is great we should never kick him."  So people's biases (particularly about who's more active/friendly/etc) work into this.  The point is no franchise would suffer four straight years out of the playoffs or even an even record.  That's a pretty good barometer, I think.  And I think the league would be better for it if you had a reason to be halfway competitive instead of tank for 10 years until you hit the jackpot with a once in a lifetime player.

I agree with the Jazz.

We need to make it very difficult to get fired, but the possibility alone would change behavior.

I don't want to remove anyone just for having 4 40 win seasons in a row with no playoffs.
However a 10 year span of 25 wins each season should be enough to get fired.

Somewhere in between those two extremes I think there's a system we could design that would make sense. 

My hope would be that just by having the system in place, behaviors would change and nobody would get fired (unless they truly didn't care about putting in any effort at all).  I'm thinking that if 1 GM got fired every 5-10 years that would be a lot.  My hope is that it would be very very very rare to see that happen at all.

Agree with Celtics that the hope is that no one gets fired (or that it happens once every 20 seasons or something) and that this changes behavior.  I like the 4 year thing because it's simple, but we can tweak it to get it right.

What about less than 35 wins for four straight years, then a board of 3 or 4 GMs votes on whether they should/shouldn't get a 5th season.

I get what you are saying....I am pretty awesome!  ;D
But honestly I think there is a reason where some people might not get booted, whether it is me, Lou, Todd, Chris, etc. And it has nothing to do with being more well liked, it has to do with continuous success. Sure, at one time or another we have all rebuilt, but overall, the successful GMs are the ones that tend to be well liked and respected.
I honestly have zero issues with any GM in this league. And yes, I am an extremely passive guy generally, but to me, nobody has insulted me or done anything to me personally that would warrant me holding a bias against them. With that being said, I can think of a couple teams that could definitely do a lot more to improve their yearly standings and also to help make the league more competitive and active.
It's not a fluke that the guys who are more active and respected tend to be the guys that have a lot of success. Jazz and Celtics pump out crazy stats, and they each won their respective conferences this year, and have been very successful overall for quite a while.

In many ways I agree with Jeff's reasoning behind having a panel, but I also see Chris's side of it. I do think having a panel would help cover some of the extenuating circumstances we've discussed that could lead a team to being poor for a handful of consecutive seasons.

Using my team as an example: I rejoined in '62, taking over a roster with zero total assets. '62 and '63 were spent trying to rebuild my war chest so I had some assets to play with. In '64, I leveraged those assets to pick up Taylor Omeara. I spent all of '64 and '65 trying to add another star to play with Omeara, but with a real draft looming and some ridiculous trades setting the market, everyone wanted crazy packages for their players that I wasn't willing to move. Seeing that I wasn't going to be able to make a reasonable trade and having struck out completely for two straight years in the FA market, I decided to tear down again. I've been asset building again in '66 and '67.

Over that six year period, my best record was 33-49. I would argue that thoughout that time, I've made legitimate decisions with the intent of improving my team in the short and long term.

Based on the rules we've discussed, I would've been fired. Alternatively, I could've made trades that I knew wouldn't have been good long-term deals for players I knew weren't worth the asking price for the sole purpose of improving my roster for the immediate season in order to keep my team. I would argue that's not good for the league.

All of this is to say that I like the idea of having a panel in place. If a GM has met the criteria for firing, I think it'd be beneficial for him to be able to make his case why he made the moves he made and why he deserves to remain in the league. A good GM should be able  to explain why the moves he made were beneficial even if it didn't result in a winning roster.

The funny thing is that since 2062, you only accumulated 350 points based on the Celtics proposed point system, and if we are using a 400 point and get replaced then you would still be good.
But I understand your reasoning and what you are saying, which is why I say that a panel might not be a bad idea. And in all honesty, hopefully there is never a need for a panel.
If you look at the Celtics point system, you could finish bottom 5 two years in a row, then slightly improve to the bottom 6-10 range for 3 years, and then miss the playoffs in the 11-13 range the next year and you still would only be at 375 points. And that would span 6 seasons. And in those 6 seasons, you realistically could have 5 lotto picks, none of which would be outside the top 10.
So it's kind of a situation where there is a lot of leniency for those that are out of the playoffs for over 5 years as long as you aren't a bottom 5 team for all 5 of those seasons, which I don't think is too much to ask.

Lol.. doesn't that become incompetency then?

Here's an idea of what a demerit point system could look like:

The scale goes from 0 to 600 points
Every team starts with 400 points.
You can go as high as 600 points (think of this as 'banking' some of your good performance)
Any GM that gets down to 0 points would be replaced.
New GMs get a 2-3 year grace period (they do not get any negative points).

If you miss the playoffs, you get one of the following deductions:

<41 wins = -25 points
<37 wins = -50 points
<33 wins = -75 points
<29 wins = -100 points
<25 wins = -125 points
<21 wins = -150 points
<17 wins = -200 points

Submitting less than 8 DC's = -50 points

If you make the playoffs, you get one of the following additions:

Make the playoffs: +50 points
Win at least 2 playoff games: +100 points
Win 1 round: +200 points
Win 2 rounds: +600 points  (Your points are set the max of 600)

Using these parameters it would be very hard to get fired.  However, it does encourage teams to avoid purposely losing as many games as possible (a 20 win tank job has a much higher penalty than finishing with 40 wins). 

I like it, I think it needs to be tweaked, but I like it in principle and I think the numbers are pretty close.  I think you should tweak the "going back up".  I think if you make the playoffs, you should be set at 225 points or you gain +50 points, whichever would leave you with a higher number (essentially, you COULD NOT go from playoffs to out of the league in one year), and stuff like that.   

It's pretty complicated but it's more fair than the "4 years of playoffs or you're out".  It recognizes that only having 35 wins is not nearly as bad as only having 20 wins.

The only issue I have is, we're getting rid of people that have dedicated years towards this league. Some of us have been here for 6 or 7 years, and they're going to be fired?

 There are some people that are content with tanking every season. I get the purpose behind it. But firing people may be extreme. What if we put measures into place for teams tanking on purpose. Something along the lines of;

- You fail to make the playoffs or purposely tank for X amount of time, you get penalized through draft picks or losing a top player.

- You come in the bottom 4 of the league for X amount of time, you get demoted to assistantgm for X amount of time.

I get wanting 'championship gm's' in the league, but who's to say we are bringing them in? I'm not sure how many new GM's we've brought in that have come anywhere near competing.

There are a ton of things we could implement to avoid stupid shit in this league. One thing that annoys me, and that I've been guilty of lately is large 1 year contracts taking players off teams.

100% agree with that concept.  That's an improvement for sure.

Here's an idea of what a demerit point system could look like:

The scale goes from 0 to 600 points
Every team starts with 400 points.
You can go as high as 600 points (think of this as 'banking' some of your good performance)
Any GM that gets down to 0 points would be replaced.
New GMs get a 2-3 year grace period (they do not get any negative points).

If you miss the playoffs, you get one of the following deductions:

<41 wins = -25 points
<37 wins = -50 points
<33 wins = -75 points
<29 wins = -100 points
<25 wins = -125 points
<21 wins = -150 points
<17 wins = -200 points

Submitting less than 8 DC's = -50 points

If you make the playoffs, you get one of the following additions:

Make the playoffs: +50 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 300)
Win at least 2 playoff games: +100 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 400)
Win 1 round: +200 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 500)
Win 2 rounds: +600 points  (Your points are set the max of 600)

Using these parameters it would be very hard to get fired.  However, it does encourage teams to avoid purposely losing as many games as possible (a 20 win tank job has a much higher penalty than finishing with 40 wins). 

just tweaked it.  Of course we can continue to play with the numbers, but I added in Chris's idea.

I think if we set it right, you would need to either be blatantly, harmfully terrible at this game, or paying so little attention that you can't complain about getting booted. The rules should modify behavior with the threat of getting kicked. Taking draft picks could work as well though. Then I would just recommend we tighten up the DC attendance policies which would hopefully take care of anyone who just isn't paying attention (I don't think we have anyone like that ATM though).

I agree with you on 1 year contract stuff. It's just shitty because the game doesn't give any added boost to long contracts so you can just overpay for a year and swipe dudes. The game seems to just weigh average contract value instead of giving any preferential treatment to longer contracts unless they average out to more money. Not sure how you fix that though. You'd either have to set rules on the max value of 1 year contracts or have some super complicated system where the commish does weird stuff with bids.

The way to fix that is the maximum offer for a 10 year player is 16.8m if you offer 3 years or more, but [14.4m] if you offer 1 or 2 years.  You make a 1-2 year deal max be 80% of a 3+ year max or something. We could do it if we wanted to.

The most recent GMs:

Bucks and Pistons are just getting back on their feet from inheriting truly awful situations.  Pistons made the playoffs once with his team and they have both made decent trades. 

I don't think anyone would argue that Brian isn't loads better than the last 4 Wizards GMs or so, unless I'm forgetting someone.  He went to the Finals.  I don't remember who the last PelicansGM was (was it you, Blazers? I forget) but Josh has been pretty competitive too.

I'm unwilling to allow terrible GMs to stay around because there's no guarantee that new guys will be better.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a minute:

If you have been here 6 or 7 years and don't know how to build a playoff team yet, then I'm not sure that bringing in fresh blood will make it any worse. And maybe a new GM won't win a title immediately, but odds are they will be equally as good, if not better than someone who hasn't been able to put together a playoff team in that stretch of time.

Taking away draft picks or a top player will only make the situation worse. Where does that draft pick or player go? If it just disappears and everyone shifts up a position in the draft, then it really does not help the bottom feeder team get better, and only hurts the league more by preventing that team from possibly acquiring a halfway decent player in the draft.

As for the large 1 year deals, they suck but we tried to phase them out as much as possible when we lowered the hard cap from 90mil to 80mil a number of seasons ago. They are inevitable. However, my thinking is that with more teams being forced to compete and not just tank for 4-5 seasons, that shitty teams won't just sign whoever is left each year when they are sitting on 30-40mil in cap space and hope to flip them for picks. Because like 10 teams seem to tank each year, we get that amount of teams, if not more with max cap space or more, which just isn't realistic. When half the league has max cap space or more, FA is going to be a shit show. Making the league more competitive will likely solve that problem somewhat.

Are we in a position as far as people waiting to be able to so this anyway? Better to have a tanking GM than no GM

I have 5 people that want in.  3 of them have sim league experience and 2 have FBB experience.  I would not kick someone if we didn't have a replacement.

Here's a potential solution for the 1 year contract issue:

 We only allow multi year offers on day 1 and 2 of FA.
i.e.
Day 1 offers must be 3 years or longer
Day 2 offers must be 2 years of longer
Day 3 and beyond you can offer whatever you want

I think this favours weaker teams because they are usually the ones who have cap space and should be looking to poach talent (i.e. they should be legitimately looking to add significant pieces to thier roster for long term development)
I think this would force GMs to act a little more realistically.  Historically in pro sports I dont see too many top or even mid-tier FA's jumping at 1 year deals unless they have not been offered multi year deals  (current NBA situation excluded because the cap is about to explode in the NBA)

Certainly not a perfect idea but I think it's the best balance to lessen the issue.

I also think this is similar in that it would change behavior as well.  Many teams are constantly signing one year contracts and taking a stab at the FA market, and then rinsing and repeating every season.  This forces you to make some sort of commitment to building an actual team for 2-3 years at a time rather than 1 year championship or bust rosters.  It also closes a big loophole because let's face it: a 1 year 10M offer should not beat a 6 year 9M offer for most older players.  And it's balanced because it does not restrict teams from filling out their roster with 1 year deals just like real teams do at the end of FA when they take a stab at older and lower end FAs.

I like Celtics' idea but I think you should be permitted to bid 1 or 2 years for your own player.  Maybe you need bird years to do that.  I dunno.  But you should be able to retain your OWN 33 year old on a 1 or 2 year deal.  Not poach someone else's - your own guy you should be able to keep.

I feel like this is targeted at a few people. Why are we pussyfooting around, making points systems, etc., instead of just calling these GMs out?

Out of curiosity, how do they have FBB without sim league? Or do you mean 2 of.the 3 with sim league exp were in FBB?

Think he means the software it's self

The latter - experience with FBB.

I agree with heat on this one, who are the gms not carrying their weight?

I made this point in the chat like, a week ago, and people basically told me I couldn't kick a few GMs for being bad without setting a standard first.

And if I call out individuals and say "I think you, specifically, aren't up to standards" it irrevocably changes the relationship.

I think all of this gets kind of messy, to be honest.  I concede, when running a league, that there are going to be a few GMs who just aren't as experienced/knowledgeable when picking up the game.  We sometimes invite them in when we need to fill the league and they stick around (or they don't).  Unless they're sabotaging via trades or messing with the imbalance elsewhere, I think the most fair thing to do is keep them.  Losing continuously is never really fun, and they sometimes fade out or they don't and they learn at their own pace.  I - personally - as a commissioner only look at activity when evaluating a current Manager.  As a league, certainly, we have to look at how competitive it is.  Our GMs have learned an awful lot over the years and we've developed an extremely competitive Sim League.  Is there/has there ever been a more competitive one?  I'm not so sure.  Obviously, there's a little room for improvement but I think the onus should be on who we recruit and let in.  If we let in inexperienced or unknown managers because we have no other options, that's on us.  If they're active, I don't feel that it's fair to set up a system where we kick them back out.  That's just me.  But I get where/why it's under discussion.

Maybe a private message then? This sounds like my office - if someone is always late or sucks, I'd rather go talk to them then send out a vague email to all 50 staff. Just let them know. Not saying what you're doing is wrong - I think most would do it this way, I just think there are a lot of unintended consequences to making a change like this.

Then again, I just got a write-up at work for speaking the truth, so what do I know.  ;D

Probably me.  I'm actually trying to win right now, somewhat.

Honestly it's not even about people specifically, really. People are building their teams within the rules that we have; I just think that setting some rules about team success in order to promote a healthier league would be a benefit. Since everyone is active, if we institute some rules that eliminate constant tanking, no one will constantly tank and there won't be a problem. It's just about promoting competition since inherently there isn't any benefit to winning besides whatever karmic joy you get out of wins.

I agree with Jazz - I don't "want" to kick 5 GMs or expect that we would.  It's about encouraging more competitiveness and that the league is better for it. You need rules to discourage perennial tanking.

I want comments specifically on Celtics' most recent proposal (copied below).  I want to implement this and will be implementing some version of this given the comments I've received.  It won't "start" until next year (obviously this year's performance can't count).  I think it needs some tweaking but I want to set it up now, subject to minor tweaking.

Here's an idea of what a demerit point system could look like:

The scale goes from 0 to 600 points
Every team starts with 400 points.
You can go as high as 600 points (think of this as 'banking' some of your good performance)
Any GM that gets down to 0 points would be replaced.
New GMs get a 2-3 year grace period (they do not get any negative points).

If you miss the playoffs, you get one of the following deductions:

<41 wins = -25 points
<37 wins = -50 points
<33 wins = -75 points
<29 wins = -100 points
<25 wins = -125 points
<21 wins = -150 points
<17 wins = -200 points

Submitting less than 8 DC's = -50 points

If you make the playoffs, you get one of the following additions:

Make the playoffs: +50 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 300)
Win at least 2 playoff games: +100 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 400)
Win 1 round: +200 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 500)
Win 2 rounds: +600 points  (Your points are set the max of 600)

Using these parameters it would be very hard to get fired.  However, it does encourage teams to avoid purposely losing as many games as possible (a 20 win tank job has a much higher penalty than finishing with 40 wins).

Oh man.  I'm gonna be the first to get kicked.  But I'm game.

Might be a tie. I'm down for whatever.

To add to my last post, can we institute this when I get a first rounder back?

The point deductions look a bit steep, no? Two terrible seasons in a row would get you replaced. I know two seasons in a row with 17 or fewer wins means you have to be really bad, but that's not at all out of the realm of possibility. One really bad season without your pick the next year and you're screwed.

If the goal really is to have GM replacement be super rare, then the point system needs to be adjusted. I don't think you should be able to lose more than 100 points in a season. But maybe I'm too nice.

For reference, there have been 2 sub-17 win season since 2060 (last real draft year): Blazers with 15 in 2060 and Magic with 14 in 2064. I tanked my HEART out in 2060 and got 19. You have to be so bad it's actually criminal if you try to win AT ALL and end up with sub 17 two years in a row.

Seems fair to me. I went 34-48 this past season (which sucks) and it'd take 8 of those seasons in a row to get fired, to put it into perspective.

Lol, we are taking this league a tad too seriously now.

Chris spends hours doing all the commish grunt work for us. It's the least we can do to try and make it worth his while.

Firing people in a fantasy basketball league?

Making sure half the league isn't an abject dumpster fire?

Because it is now?

Just as an FYI.  I looked over the past 20 seasons before setting the values.  I made sure that you would not have lots of teams getting the large penalties.  It's actually very hard to win less than 25 games and incur the really large penalties  (In most cases those teams appeared to be tanking on purpose).  And look at how the positives are set up.  Just one half way decent season could literally wipe out 10 years of not making the playoffs (or 5 years of being absolutely terrible)

And to me the purpose is to make the league more fun for everyone, not even to put a target on anyone's back (I don't want anyone to be replaced, I only want everyone to try to win as many games as possible every season). 
This will cause more teams to be trying to win games, which makes the league more competitive.  Also it gives teams something else to chase aside from championship or bust.

Celtics is exactly right here. It's theoretically possible to be replaced in just two seasons but you would literally have to be on fire.  People tank intentionally all the time and only two teams in the last 6 or so seasons did it AT ALL.  And as one of those teams, let me tell you, it was quite intentional. I'm totally fine with there being incentive for me to not do that TWICE IN A ROW.  That's bad for the league.

In the chat you brought up how you want discussion.

Do you think this should be started in 2068, or 2069 to give everyone enough time to prepare for the drastic changes (for whatever reason that may be).

I think 2068 is soon enough, but I'm open to comments.  I'm open to adding +25 points for each year of 11 or more DCs. 

I really think this is a substantially good change for the league and I don't want to delay a full year unless people think that's critical.

I thought about it a while and I understand my opinion might not mean as much as Chris' or Lou's because I'm newer to the league, but I think this change is excellent for the league, accepting the fact that I could be an early victim. It's healthy for the competition level.

I think articles/rankings should count too. There's only so many people that post quality stuff, if we lose them, we got nothing. Maybe you get to choose if you get TBD or "GM points".

How about the following:

Maximum of +25 points if you either have 11 DCs or more, with an article "counting" as 2 missed DCs.

This way you can't keep yourself in the league just by churning out articles but it's a good incentive to get the points if you forgot a few DCs.

I don't want activity alone to essentially negate the rule. But I agree that incentivizing articles should be good - but there has to be a cap.

I say start it next season, but non playoff teams get charged 50 points less than the 'normal' rate for the first two seasons (as a phase in for the teams who were already planning to rebuild).  So less than 33 wins would be only -25 points, <29 wins would be -50 points, etc.   Missing the playoffs with 34 wins or more would not cost you any points.
You can still earn positive points during this time.
I think this is a pretty fair phase in.

Participation is a tough one because I think we already give more than enough incentive for articles imo, and some of the articles seem like quick cash grabs to me.  I do agree with the spirit of what Heat/Chris are saying though.
It might sound a bit more complicated but I say we handle it like this:
If you ever drop to 0 (up for removal from league) and you can point to $1000 TBD worth of earnings from articles/DC submissions over the past X number of seasons then you can pay that $1000 TBD for a 'get out of jail free' card and stay in the league one more year (note: it has to be dollars that you 'earned' not from a trade).  This is one more added safety net for consistent participators, but would be a little harder to just quickly write one random article to save yourself for a season.

I think we should just remove people that are not active

It's not about active everyone is.

It's not about activity. It's about improving the league and this will do that.

I like Celtics' fix - 50 less points for 2 years or something as a phase in.  I prefer my fix for incentivizing articles - I don't like the get out of jail free card idea, personally, but open to other comments/ideas.

Get ready for two Dustin Hiscock articles per year.

So if yiu miss the playoffs but win 43 games you dont lose anything?

Yes.

So now we're implementing a "system" to kick out - in reality - an arbitrary number of GMs now?!!!?

Honestly it's a game. You don't win anything in life except maybe a bit of bragging rights even if you win the league 10 years in a row. Why does it really matter if "the competition is better" or "the league is better if you have better GMs"? I can't agree with this whole line of thinking. I highly doubt your level of enjoyment re the sim league will change based on the quality of GMs.

Are these GMs cheating? No? Then they have every right to stay. Unless they egregiously violated league rules, I don't see any reason for any system that seeks to eliminate existing GMs. If there are others lining up to play, they'll have to wait their turn.

Suns (I think) bring up a great point. Despite what we tell ourselves, this is a game determined MASSIVELY by luck. I have multiple top 3 picks shit the bed (Brow, Moiso, Francis off the top of my head) that I seriously considered or did waive after 2 years. I was in line this year to win #1 pick but Rockets took both #1 and 2 and I dropped to #4. I don't think I've ever hit an FA jackpot.

I'm not complaining about it - them's the brakes and I accept it. But to punish someone because something they can't control? That's bullshit.

I want to build champions and not treadmills. That's my philosophy - so now people want to dictate HOW and WHY I play?!

Obviously I'll be on (or extremely close to) the chopping block if anything is going to be implemented. I've been here literally since day 1 and won two chips very early on.

I've had disagreements with people here and also had some good laughs.

But if anything like this gets approved, I'm gone. I don't need this sort of pressure in my life.

To quote my 3 year old nephew, you're not my boss  :P

You don't think it's better for the league if someone who's a bottom feeder for a decade is replaced?

The league is better with better GMs. If this league was complete monkey scrubs who did nonsensical shit and I won a title 2 out of every 3 years I would be bored and quit.

I agree with Chris' most recent proposal in WhatsApp that a board of GMs gets together and votes on whether or not to give you another chance if you run out of "GM points." It's an outside-the-box way to make the league better and I'm all for that.

For example, the Sixers won 28 games this year, which would be -100. They have the fifth best odds to win the #1 pick.
Based on the Celtics proposed half-off deal for the first two seasons, it'd only be -50 points. So, a GM would need to go 28-54 like Philly did:

Season 1: -50
Season 2: -50
Season 3: -100
Season 4: -100
Season 5: -100

If we start at 400 total points, that's zero. THEN, a group will get together to give you the opportunity for another year. Now, Idk how many points you'd be granted? Maybe that's part of the roundtable discussion.

Fact of the matter is, anybody in this league should be able to pull out ONE season that gets you your points back in a 5 year span. You might have to mortgage some shiny toys, but it'd be a necessity. I'm in a shitty spot to start, but I think that might make my side of the argument a bit more compelling than someone who's winning 55 games a season and doesn't have shit to worry about right now.

And remember that under Celtics' proposal, you lose 25 less points or whatever it was than you otherwise would for the first two years so everyone who was in tank mode isn't adversely affected.

I am fine with a group of 5 voting to give a GM a one-time only one-year extension.  Basically that means the team needs to make the playoffs or be done.  They could obviously come back when there's an opening.

You get my point. -25, not half off.

or you could just stop losing games on purpose... but each to their own...

Thank you for proving my point.

That's just... like... you're opinion man.

There's always guys who for whatever reason rage quits (Pistons, anyone?) or stop playing. If you have a reason to quit, you will. But it's YOUR call. YOUR freedom and liberty. Not somebody else's.

I'm gonna name some names here. Jazz got lucky because the year he tanked he got great prospect so he improved instantly. Rockets was stuck in lottery for a long time (even predating getting the gift of Bill Sachs I think). You can bet your bottom dollars if he didn't get the 2 great prospects last year, he would have continued to tank. And on and on.

And hey guess what, I dropped to #4 again this year. Does that mean something? Maybe. Maybe not. But I defend my right to play however I want to.

PS If you're saying you would've kicked someone out around 4-5 years, I think you might have qualified when you first joined LOL  :D

Do I think so? No. But you're entitled to your opinion and that's your freedom of choice.

You know what, I don't really feel like wasting time debating this shit when I'm in beautiful Europe right now.

Let's just put it to an anonymous, mandatory voting off the board in Google Docs and get it over and done with. This way no one can get pressured into voting one way or another. If you wouldn't mind, Chris, please pin that thread.

Once it's approved then you guys can figure out the details. Meanwhile I'll move on - doesn't sound like I'll be missed anyway for speaking the truth hah.

I've created the anonymous voting on Google Docs. It's in this topic:

http://rbslforums.phillyarena.net/index.php?topic=17338.0

Uhh... Just try to win once in awhile?

I was nowhere near being kicked when I first joined...first off there's the 2 year moratorium, and then I was like the 8-11 seed a bunch. I didn't super tank.

I'm fine with anonymous voting.

Just for shits I wanted to see what happened when I first joined.

First two years moratorium (but I was 8th and 9th anyways...)

2045 I had 36 wins: -50
2046 I had 35 wins: -50
2047 I had 34 wins: -50
2048 I won the division and a playoff round: Back to 500.

Good try though! Even if it started at 400 and had no bonus for DCs, I was still less than halfway to being fired.

where can someone find the historical records?

http://rbsl.phillyarena.net/rbsl/[INSERT YEAR]/html

Or there's a thread here with them. http://rbslforums.phillyarena.net/index.php?topic=9921.0

Not all are archived, but you can figure it out by comparing Historical Team Performance, but it's a bit of a pain.

Just though I would summarize where I think this is at so far.  Also I've made a couple of small tweaks (bolded) that may or may not make it into the final version.

Here's an idea of what a demerit point system could look like:

The scale goes from 0 to 600 points
Every team starts with 400 points.
You can go as high as 600 points (think of this as 'banking' some of your good performance)
Any GM that gets down to 0 points would be replaced under normal circumstances.  Exceptional participation (as deemed by commish and/or commitee) can lead to 1 year extension before removal.
New GMs get a 3 year grace period (they do not get any negative points).

If you miss the playoffs, you get one of the following deductions:

<41 wins = -25 points
<37 wins = -50 points
<33 wins = -75 points
<29 wins = -100 points
<25 wins = -125 points
<21 wins = -150 points
<17 wins = -200 points
Either of the following reduces your penalty by 25 points
-- Improving your win total by at least 4 wins from the previous year
-- Submitting more than 10 DCs

Submitting less than 8 DC's = -50 points (can be waived at commish discretion for good reason.... i.e. vacation)

If you make the playoffs, you get one of the following additions:

Make the playoffs: +50 points +100 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 300)
Win at least 2 playoff games: +100 points +150 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 400)
Win 1 round: +200 points (Your points are set to a minimum of 500)
Win 2 rounds: +600 points  (Your points are set to the max of 600)

Using these parameters it would be very hard to get fired.  However, it does encourage teams to avoid purposely losing as many games as possible (a 20 win tank job has a much higher penalty than finishing with 40 wins).

I like these changes, particularly the "improving your win total by at least 4 wins".  That's great.

I'd like to see a "11 DCs or more = +25 points" or something.

Added this to the 4 win idea above.  It might be too much if you get 25 for each, but how about improving your win total OR showing strong DC participation reduces the penalty by 25 (so you cant stack them)

I think these are good ideas.  Another little life line for GMs who are actually trying.

This compromise works for me. 

I love those tweaks, for what it's worth.

Thanks - it's important to get this right.  All comments and suggestions welcome.

Do it up.

I really like the changes as well.

The changes are great.

As mentioned, I'm not a fan of adding the kick-out clause... it seems like just another job to add to an active GM.  BUT, obviously, after reading the rules, I think it's safe to say that it would take a lot of purposeful tanking or an incredibly inactive/poor GM to get cut.  As far as purposeful tanking, obviously, myself and a lot of our senior and best GMs have done it.  It can be an effective/necessary strategy at times.  And - if you're going to do it - you might as well be good at it.  This doesn't prevent that.  But, certainly, you only have a few seasons of it with these new proposed rules.  Which is fair.  We all are working within the rules right now.  I've tanked longer than most people have liked, including myself.  It really isn't a fun phase.  And, as Mavs mentioned, sometimes we get lucky in the draft and/or FA to speed up that process.  But, make no mistake, these new proposed rules aren't just targeting inactive/shitty GMs.  They're putting a cap on hard tanks for even our best GMs.  I'm okay with that.  I expect myself and other senior or strong GMs to continue to push for a championship and not be afraid to rebuild when it's necessary.  But, we now have a limit on that asset building phase.  With these new rules, I'd hope that we can recruit a new GM (not adding more to Chris' plate) to manage them and provide yearly totals to make it easy for GMs to calculate where they are at and strategize accordingly.  

And - to be honest - I also feel that there should be some sort of reprieve for Manager's like Knicks who have traded away future picks and are bound to struggle in the long-term with these new rules in place.  Obviously, the trading pick caps helps protect the long-term success of a franchise, which works well when/if these new rules are put into place.

Thanks for the comments.  Jazz has graciously offered to keep track of the totals along with the bank.  And, hopefully the two year introductory points phase will help Knicks out. And he might not have picks but he has a decent team.

This comment is exactly what I'm thinking about.  "They're putting a cap on hard tanks for even our best GMs.  I'm okay with that."

All of us hard tank because it's a legit strat. But this keeps you from doing it EVERY YEAR.  Which is necessary because that would be very bad for the league.

Very well said Rockets (even though we disagree on the overall topic at hand).  I think that's a point that may have been missed by some.  This is not an attack on bad GMs in my mind.  And personally, I do not want to see a single GM removed.  It's about slightly changing the behavior of all GMs. 
It's the best GMs that will be impacted by this the most I think.  And what I mean by that is the best GMs know how to tank the best as well (meaning tank fast and hard on the way down, and then hope for a quick/fast rise with 1-2 high draft picks and 1-2 FA signings).  And of course if you strike out for 2 or 3 years, you just hang out at the bottom for 2-3 more years until the stars align for you.  This is harmful to the GMs who actually need those top picks because they have been legitimately struggling for a while.  I'm sure there will still be some degree of tanking going on, but it is a game changer if a GM like me wants to risk having a 15 win season to grab a superstar in the draft...  if that player is a bust I may regret losing those games on purpose... or better yet, I may decide not to try that strategy at all...

I've been reading this thread and keeping quiet so far, but I'm not happy about where this conversation is going.

Some folks talk as if this is just about the numbers and not targeted at anyone, but nobody is blind to who would have been affected had this rule been put in place earlier.  It's easy to adjust the numbers and add a +25 and -25 here and there, but behind the stats there are real, actual people playing this game.

I joined this league almost a decade ago as the assistant to MavsGM, when he won the first ever championship, and if it weren't for him, I would never have gotten involved.  It's been quite the ride.  There have been up years and down years, winning and rebuilding, but regardless of all of that, the best part has been the people here, the hilarious conversations, and even getting to meet a bunch of you in real life.

In the entire time that this league has been running, we've had a rule against tanking, and a GM can get kicked out for it.  But now we're talking about automatically kicking out players for doing poorly.  If the NBA had rules like this, teams like Minnesota and Sacramento would have been kicked out several times already.  Yeah, yeah, I'm sure you guys all think that you guys could have managed those particular NBA teams better.  I'm sure I could. :)

It's fun to yell at the TV and argue over how people should run their NBA teams, but it's not cool to do that here.  Because that's what these rules are doing.  These rules are punishing the losing teams and telling them that they need to play a certain way under threat of expulsion.  I don't agree with how everyone else runs their teams, but I can keep my opinion to myself.

Has this league gotten so bad that we need to start kicking people out?  Do a majority of GMs feel like a few people are out to ruin everyone else's fun by purposely losing?  I'm having as much fun playing with you guys as I ever have, and our league hasn't gotten so bad that GMs are quitting over a few losing teams.

Bottom line -- it's the people here that make the game great, and it comes across as really mean-spirited to talk about kicking some of them out.  I hope we could just end this thread here and go back to having fun.

Appreciate the comments but respectfully disagree.

Those NBA teams' GMs did get fired for mismanaging their teams, lol.

It doesn't matter which GMs would have been affected before - the rule will be in place now and everyone knows it.  People have plenty of time to change their strategies to abide by the new rule.  I've run it against some pretty unlucky streaks we've seen in recent memory and those folks didn't get anywhere close to tanking.  Honestly, so long as someone is not perpetually tanking, no one will be removed.  I'm hoping no one gets removed, and I doubt anyone will, frankly.  There are a ton of protections in here, and I think it will change the league strategy for the better.  Celtics' recent post I thought was right on point - we "can" tank and get 15 wins and etc., but there really ought to be something to keep us from doing that 3 years in a row.

I love the league and I'm having a blast too. But I think it's pretty clear that overall engagement isn't very high. I think having incentives to win something other than a championship would add a lot to this for everyone. It honestly is not about kicking anyone out; it's about removing years of intentionally tanking as a viable strategy. Don't do that and you won't get booted. You can still rebuild, you just need to eventually try to win some games.

Where can I find the roster pages?

XFD

As important and critical as I think this rule is, I don't feel comfortable implementing it with a bare majority.  I'm disappointed because I felt like Celtics' last proposal responded to a lot of comments and got people comfortable.

Please vote if you haven't, but just over 50% to me is not enough.

I'm open to any suggestions that improve the league, particularly anything that disincentives tanking and makes being an 8 seed something people want. Right now there is no incentive for that and the championship or bust mentality is not great.  I remember being a perennial 4-6 seed and it's frustrating feeling like that's just the worst spot to be. 

It's a shame this would make league better.

Hundred percent agree, obviously.

The rules do strictly say, "No tanking." But, what is tanking? Is it purposefully fielding a shitty roster for a high pick, or is it the intended meaning (no sabotaging a lineup for the benefit of draft odds)? I voted yes for the rule change, but maybe the overall result of the poll is telling. I think some form of change is needed. The purpose of the Celtics' Boston (T)ank Party was to eliminate the 10/20 effect that Lou brought up in WhatsApp last night; 10 of the same GMs competing every year while 20 kick the can down the sidewalk, so to speak. I think four GMs with totally different personalities, such as Chris, Jeff, Lou, Todd (that was an extremely random, but effective grouping) could get together at the end of each season and issue strikes if there's anything concerning going on. This wouldn't be a threat, but it would in some ways protect the landscape of the league. Chris, you asked for opinions, so just let me know what you all think.

There's no way we can enforce the purposefully shielding a shitty roster for a high pick. That's a legitimate strategy. 

I don't like the issuing strikes for tanking thing and I doubt anyone else would go for it either.  What would the penalty be? Why would it have any teeth?  After the season it's a slap on the wrist.

No one will go for any rule change lol so don't even bother thinking of any

Alright, my long awaited take on all this..  ;)

First off, this is being directed at specific GMs, whether anyone wants to say it or not. It's pretty obvious, and skirting around the issue only adds to the hostility of it all. The fact that people can be outraged over the fact that something is trying to be implemented to make them try is ridiculous though. I guarantee you even if you are the most incompetent GM out there, if you're trying to win you would NEVER hit the threshold that is trying to be set. This is to stop blatant losing, not people who just haven't figured it out yet.

All we do is babysit GMs, and every rule/change we've done for the last 30 seasons is to make the lives of everyone easier. God forbid something is trying to be put in that makes you try to win, how crazy is that notion?

That being said, this league is split into factions anyways. Every vote is always going to be split down the middle. The bigger issue here is the disconnect between the people who consistently try to win (let's call them the try hards), and the people who laugh it all up and call it just a fun little game they play. While the league is divided improvement will never happen. I'm as guilty as the next person on this, but I can see how both sides can't stand the attitudes of the others. Fix this, and maybe we can find some common ground.

I'm not voting on this, because frankly I couldn't care less either way. The people who want to shove this down people's throats and pretend it's not geared at people are wrong, and the people who are afraid to allow this because then they would actually have to give a shit are wrong too. There's bigger issues in this league, like people hating/resenting other GMs for their choices/lack of choices. Fix that, and maybe this league can go back to being fun.

If this increases the transaction activity, let's do this ASAP. The lack of trades and trade talk lately is horrendous.

Yep.  Something needs to be done.

It's always bad during real drafts.

If you're not blocking a superstar, it's impossible to get offers on anyone. I feel like a Jehova's Witness. DO YOU HAVE A MOMENT TO TALK ABOUT OUR LORD AND SAVIOR JAMAL FAVRE??? (props to the GMs who've actually messaged me about guys though)

It will hopefully pick up a bit after the real draft - teams will look to rebuild fast with their real draft guys.

I just the saw the poll, and I almost voted no because of how the question was worded...
I don't want to kick anyone out for poor performance...

What I do want is to set up enhanced anti-tanking rules to reduce the amount of purposeful stripping down of rosters for the purpose of guaranteeing yourself high draft picks (especially when the 'veteran' GMs do this, at the expense of new/learning GMs).  Currently our league rules allow this strategy.

There's nothing wrong with rebuilding through the draft, but this can be done without purposely losing games.  The teams that suck will naturally get the highest picks in the draft and still be able to rebuild that way.  There will always be a team that selects 1st overall (whether they have 20 wins or 32 wins)

This new rule would help to 'simulate' a real life environment where no owner would allow his GM to win 20 games year after year without being fired.  This should not be viewed as the league 'firing' a person (and thats why it should be entirely numbers based, not decided by a committee).  It should be looked at as 'you are still a welcome part of the RBSL but your poor performance and/or bad luck has costs you the job with Team X'.  So simply sign up again and try again with a new team.  Or think of it this way.  Imagine if the exact same parameters were programed into the sim program on day 1.  Imagine after the retirees came up, another screen came up and said the following owners have fired thier GM:  'Boston Celtics'.  It just becomes part of the game and you have to manage through it as best you can.  I would say shit that sucks.   Can I get a new team and try again?  Not the end of the world to me... just part the sim experience.

Maybe there are a couple of people who have already scoped out some GMs and can't wait for them to slip up and be removed, but I highly doubt that there are more than one or two people with that mindset (if any).  I think the majority of the people who like this idea want all 29 GMs to remain part of the league, and just slightly modify people's behavior to be a little more realistic (specifically to make deep/prolonged tank jobs unacceptable, but normal rebuilds should be perfectly acceptable).

Well said.

Really well said. There's been so much focus on the "kicking" part of this equation, and the opponents are glossing over that we want to make it really, really, really hard for anyone to ever actually be kicked, imo.

I can guarantee this will help pick up activity, and trades will increase.

-- more teams will desire to win games
-- less teams will be selling off all assets (less fire sales)
-- those that do decide to sell will have more potential trade partners, or more than 1 team bidding on players
-- with more competition, rebuilding teams will get better future assets for their players (not dramatically better but slightly better)
-- more competition for players will also affect the top teams because they will have a harder time picking off rebuilding teams and getting assets very cheap.  Also more teams will be putting an effort in during FA, so less of the rich getting richer through FA.  You will see less teams with .650-.800 winning percentages and less teams with .200 winning percentages as well.

This makes the top spots slightly more attainable if your rebuild goes right, and also means that you have to climb from 30 wins up to 42 wins to make the payoffs rather than climb from 20 wins up to 42.  A much more viable task which will allow more teams to be competitive more often.

I know I'm a broken record at this point but I need to keep voicing that I agree so wholeheartedly with Celtics in all of his posts. I really, truly, sincerely believe implementing these rules will make the game better for everyone, and never result in anyone putting in a minimum amount of thought being kicked.

I'm in for cracking down on chronic tankers, it's more realistic as it has been discussed. And based on what's discussed, there's plenty of wiggle room. Worst case scenario hang out until another team becomes available and become the new GM there. Even if a top 5 pick player isn't an instant hall of fame guy, he's still likely to be a starter or super-sub and just the fact that he's able to get a spot on your rotation is worth the top 5 pick....then you look to Free Agency, Cap Management to build around...you don't just say fuck this shit and tank again to gamble at another top 5 guy, chances are you'll get a 10-13th pick and pick up yet another rotation guy. Chronic tanking is worse than rage quitting. I am very aware that I'm pandemically 6-10th in the East, so I finally admitted that I needed a rebuilding year, and still ended up being 10th in the East lol. The "real drafts" and the chronic tankers both work to keep me in my place because it's the two aspects of the sim that can be gamed in unrealistic ways. You want to succeed in RBSL, be a good tanker, or position yourself for the next real player draft....all other strategies suck with the exception of a few instances of luck.

I couldn't even trade very some decent quality guys on my roster this year...for instance 0 offers on Christopher Cho (thanks, but I'll keep him now).

very well said and very true.

The question *was* definitely worded poorly.  Shocker. 

Anyone else with thoughts should chime in.

I'll say it again. I think it would be great for the league.

I think maybe we should run another poll and make sure to really nail down exactly where everyone stands on this. This is a really important discussion so we should really try to get it right. Something like:
"What is your stance on adding a overarching, record-based performance system, in the spirit of CelticsGM's proposal, to incentivize playoff appearances with the possibility of GM firing if the criteria is not met?"
A. Strongly desire such a system
B. Slightly prefer such a system
C. Strongly oppose such a system
D. Slightly oppose such a system
E. No preference

Feel free to suggest tweaks to the question to make it as neutral as possible.

It seems like we have some GMs who are VERY for or against this but it would be nice to see how many are on the fence or don't feel as strongly as many of the posters in this thread.

I would suggest adding "and disincentivize repeated, extreme tanking (e.g., less than [25] wins)" (wherever the negative gets seriously negative, maybe -100 points?)

My two cents instead of wasting your time with a point system just get 5 GM's together and vote on it. Because putting a point system could end up backfiring latter down the line no matter how tough you make it to get fired.

I believe there would be a staff to vote (after the point system was put into use/GM goes down to 0 points) for the purpose of making sure there'd be no backfiring. If you deserve to be here, you'll continue to be here. Celtics also made a valid point that it's not like you're banned. You could hop right back on and GM another team.

The benefit of the point system is everyone knows where they stand and it's 100% fair and objective.

Forget committee's. That's another nightmare waiting to happen.

Agree.  Then it looks personal.