Expectations

[MagicGM]

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

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

[BlazersGM]

Do it up.

[Adrian]

I really like the changes as well.

[WizardsGM]

The changes are great.

[Craig]

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.

[MagicGM]

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.

[OldCelticsGM]

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...

[OldGrizzliesGM]

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.

[MagicGM]

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.

[BucksGM]

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.

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.

[BlazersGM]

Where can I find the roster pages?

[MagicGM]

Where can I find the roster pages?

XFD

[MagicGM]

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. 

[CavsGM]

It's a shame this would make league better.

[MagicGM]

It's a shame this would make league better.

Hundred percent agree, obviously.