Expectations

[MagicGM]

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

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

[OldCelticsGM]

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

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

[Todd]

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.

[Darren]

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.

[ExPacersGM]

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.

[MagicGM]

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.

[WizardsGM]

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.

[MagicGM]

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.

[Jeff]

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."

[MagicGM]

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.

[BucksGM]

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.

[BucksGM]

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

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

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.

[MagicGM]

I wholeheartedly agree with Jazz and Celtics' posts.

[WizardsGM]

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.

[BucksGM]

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.

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.