Expectations

[MagicGM]

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.

[OldCelticsGM]

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.

[BucksGM]

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.

[MagicGM]

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.

[CavsGM]

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

[OldCelticsGM]

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.

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.

[MagicGM]

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

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.

[CavsGM]

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

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

[BlazersGM]

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

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?

[WizardsGM]

"And crap fucking bed could doit."

[Steve]

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.

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

[CavsGM]

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

[BlazersGM]

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

Put the bottle down.

[Steve]

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.

[MagicGM]

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