2010 wrote:TheBluest wrote:I'm still irate about the whole B.A.T. especially how things went down in the early going. The ideas I brought up around Mid Thread were only the beginning of things that need to change. If we do your idea of keeping a team for 2yrs it also allows better flexibility on trades(which the following year picks would be inclusive on deals). I never quite understood the even swap trade thing either, I would have been more encouraged by 2 for 3 deals or deals with the ability to acquire at most 1 additional assets of value across a trade.
Agree with everything stated here. But the powers that be have doomed my keepers league idea to failure (without even being willing to give it a try). What would be the downside of giving it a shot? So what if there's heavy GM turnover. If anything I Am Ra has proven the job can be just as fun in inheriting a franchise and turning it around for the best. Kind of like what Donnie Walsh is doing after Scott Layden and Isiah Thomas. Then it was said that a 2yr league wouldn't be fair to GM's who want a shot but miss out on being awarded a team initially. But to that I say it was an outright contradiction as if it was previously stated that high-GM turnover was an issue then wouldn't others who initially miss out eventually be getting their fair shot??? *DUH* Then we got schitted on for the idea of a committee. I just want to let it be known I wasn't trying to step on toes or usurp anyone's authority by trying to talk of organizing a committee. I just think if the more active GMs contribute with a voice in the rule setting process and with who gets awarded a franchise it'll make things run smoother.
A committee is absolutely a sign of wisdom
Keepers league is a solid idea too. I mean that's why there's value(should be mandatory-required) in having assistant GMs or positions in waiting right. Matter of fact say we started another B.A.T. today and 30 teams filled up with qualified GMs but there were 15 GMs left out in the cold. Well those 15 in waiting should be automatically assigned a GM position or I guess give them the option to put their name next to the team they'd like to Ast GM.
Here's another idea to cut out all the Ast/GM popularity clique crap....... instead of revealing what GM has what team just do a number 1-30 place holder system GM/Ast GM. Then as GMs state their place holder post put FILLED next to the number(mod keeps a unrevealed log in the background of who has stated Place Holder Posts) until all positions are filled and this would spill over into Ast GMs. Basically what I'm getting at is GMs and Ast GM should be joined together in accordance to their Place Holder post position.
For example
GM/Ast Gm Place Holder Position
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
30.
You're the first to post in the thread PLACE HOLDER, then I post PLACE HOLDER, then I am Ra post PLACE HOLDER up to 30GMs.... then TKF post PLACE HOLDER, then wtfbosh post PLACE HOLDER, then sonny post PLACE HOLDER waiting for 27 more PLACE HOLDER posts to fill Ast GM positions
GM/Ast Place Holder
1. FILLED/FILLED
2. FILLED/FILLED
3. FILLED/FILLED
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
30. FILLED/Ast GM
At that point once all positions are filled reveal who the GMs/Ast GMs are. After the first year is over if all or lets say the majority of GMs are still participating.... the GM/Ast GM can agree to swap positions or keep things the way they are if they're happy with everything going into the following year of managing the team. If I get stuck with KLN or he gets stuck with me so be it. IMO this probably would result in improved Managing and Assisting of board relationships... lol
