Next GM A Team - RULES discussion

[lukekarts]

Note: This is NOT a sign-up topic.

Basically, the purpose of this topic is to discuss the current issues, good and bad, with GM-a-Team games, so we can get everything ironed out before the next one starts.

IMO, issues to discuss are:

Trades before the game starts - One issue we have is that most people start talking to each other before we even have a full set of GM's, so the 'early-birds' often have trades lined up for the day trading opens. This is good for them, but for the guys that sign up last, they're already at a disadvantage - how do we stop this?

Timescales - we seem to have a different one for each game. What works best? Should we have a fixed timescale for each game?

Vetoes - does the veto system work? Is it necessary? Should people playing be able to veto, or should someone not actively playing be the person to authorise trades?

FA Trading - always an issue up for discussion but never quite resolved. Should we be able to trade players signed in free agency?

Rankings - Rankings are usually 'win now', 'win future' and 'best overall'. Criteria for Win Now is quite concise, however the future category and overall are quite vague. Do we need to be more specific with creteria here? It's also hard, as teams such as the Suns are probably never going to be in a position to win either. Do we need to reward progress rather than just rank based on success?

Please feel free to add your thoughts etc. below.




I've assembled a list of rules below for reference. Please let me know if I've missed anything!

Rosters

- Shamsports http://www.shamsports.com/content/pages/data/salaries/index.jsp is used for player salaries
- Salaries must be listed for 4 seasons
- Totals and subtotals (excluding team options) must be included
- Waived players with guaranteed contracts must still count towards total salary.
- Draft picks must be listed.
- Trade Exceptions (if already existing, or created during game) must be listed on rosters

Trades

- Trades must work within the rules of the current CBA, salaries must be posted. Take note of BYC players.
- Each team must post their rationale for agreeing to the trade.
- Rosters must be up-to-date before trades can be approved
- Back to back picks are allowed to be dealt
- With the exception of the free agency period , trades must see both teams remain within the roster limit of 12-15 players
- Vetoes sent to the commissioner
- 5 Vetoes = automatic trade cancellation
- 24 hour period before trade is approved

Game Schedule

Order as follows:

1. Trading period
2. Rankings sent in
3. Draft
4. Free Agency
5. Trading period
6. Writeups
7. Final Rankings

Salary Cap

Typical salary cap rules as follows:

- Salary Cap - $58-60m (at discretion of commissioner)
- Luxury Tax - $68-70m (at discretion of commissioner)
- Hard Cap - (optional) ~$100m
- Mid-Level Exception - $5.8m
- Bi-Annual Exception - $1.8-2m

General

Roster Page should consist of:

- Team Name / Logo
- GM contact details (email, AIM if possible)
- Salaries (inc totals)
- Draft Picks
- Trade Exceptions
- Trades (listed in clear format)

- Rosters must be updated frequently. This makes the game easier for everyone

- There will be 4 topics. Discussion / Trades / Rosters / Writeups. Each should be self-explanatory.

- Please only sign up if you have intentions of seeing the game through! IF you are planning on leaving, tell the commissioner, rather than waste everyone's time trying to get in touch with you.

[Miller4ever]

From now on, an excel spreadsheet could be kept on editgrid or something that shows all assets and owners so there can be one easy place to find everything, while the roster page will be for promotion of the team. No more weeding through 3 pages of rosters with a lot of decorative junk, just one place where all the rosters are updated and everything.

I also think that the vetoes were ridiculous this time around.

[roc]

Timeline I would like to see set in stone is...

3-4 weeks trading > 2 days to rank > 2 days for draft > 1 week FA > 1-2 weeks trading > 2 days write ups > 2 days ranking

This should hopefully help keep GMs from losing interest and bailing.

also

I like Miller's idea as long as we have someone that can implement it properly. Mascot did something like this when he was commish and he also made the 1st roster page team list linked to each team.

I suck at that stuff but others here are good at it.

[Mascot]

Timeline I would like to see set in stone is...

3-4 weeks trading > 2 days to rank > 2 days for draft > 1 week FA > 1-2 weeks trading > 2 days write ups > 2 days ranking

This should hopefully help keep GMs from losing interest and bailing.

also

I like Miller's idea as long as we have someone that can implement it properly. Mascot did something like this when he was commish and he also made the 1st roster page team list linked to each team.

I suck at that stuff but others here are good at it.

yea i had EVERYONES roster in excel sheet and posted on google docs.....took an amazing amount of work on my part to do it. But as Commish it was so much easier for approving trades and such....but a LOT of work.

the link thing i can easily do, actually i had one made up for this game but with people dropping out it moves all the posts so when a roster is removed it dosent work for all the links after it.

[MadNESS]

I also most def. think the veto thing needs to be reworked. And yes even ppl who say they dont veto trades, do. Wont mention any names, but there were ALOT of vetoes. I think it either needs to be put on the GMs not to make a terrible trade and they should be held accountable, or it needs to get put up to like 8 for a cancell. 5 is to easy to acheive, as this would weed out some weak vetoes.

Also, i know this game dragged out along time, but thats what happens when you run game with a huge holiday break in the middle of it

what moron would do something like that?

I just want to thank on this thread publicly, for everyone playing my commished, GM a Team. I think it went okay. Not the greatest, but okay. IM happy with it. I will most likely never be the commishioner again, but it was all good. Thanks to those who stuck with it, and kept their rosters up to date as well as responded to emails promptly. Most of us had fun.

Also, theres rumors that Roc would like to be the next commish and let ME handle FA this time. Dont know if theres truth to it or what....LOL.

[Karmaloop]

The trade veto is the biggest issue I had. It's in there for a reason, but I feel like some GMs abuse it. I mean there were at least a half a dozen trades that ended up getting vetoed that IMO should have been passed. Maybe something like a trade council that is made up of a certain notable posters not participating in this game gets to make their decision after the regular five (or whatever the new amount is) vetoes. It's really just too easy right now to get a trade vetoed because you could have beat that offer.

[sterncohen]

Agree re the veto issue needing to be fixed. I'd set out a clearer standard for veto: trade so bad that it distorts the game. To me that means that we have to flip the voting system - it should take a clear majority of players, rather than a small number, for a veto to go through. Or, as others have noted, a small group of experienced posters who aren't participating in the game would be fine, as long as they go in understanding that we want vetoes to be really rare events.

Not that I have any hard feelings about my Blake Griffin deal being vetoed, or anything like that.

Re the question on trades being made before the game starts: also worth fixing. I suggest that we sign up players without teams (i.e. posters say "I want in" but without announcing their teams publicly), and send private e-mail to the commissioner listing their three or four top choices. The commish can then post who's got which teams on the day the game begins, so everyone gets the information at the same time.

[dan_atko97]

Re the question on trades being made before the game starts: also worth fixing. I suggest that we sign up players without teams (i.e. posters say "I want in" but without announcing their teams publicly), and send private e-mail to the commissioner listing their three or four top choices. The commish can then post who's got which teams on the day the game begins, so everyone gets the information at the same time.

+1000

[babyjax13]

Re the question on trades being made before the game starts: also worth fixing. I suggest that we sign up players without teams (i.e. posters say "I want in" but without announcing their teams publicly), and send private e-mail to the commissioner listing their three or four top choices. The commish can then post who's got which teams on the day the game begins, so everyone gets the information at the same time.

+1000

That, or just wait till there is the necessary amount of GM's before choosing teams.

[lukekarts]

Re the question on trades being made before the game starts: also worth fixing. I suggest that we sign up players without teams (i.e. posters say "I want in" but without announcing their teams publicly), and send private e-mail to the commissioner listing their three or four top choices. The commish can then post who's got which teams on the day the game begins, so everyone gets the information at the same time.

+1000

That, or just wait till there is the necessary amount of GM's before choosing teams.

+1

[Mascot]

maybe assign random teams such as a # and name out of hat actually. I know for certain that some players always take the same teams and/or take a team that already has a championship build which makes it much easier to win now than the other mediocre teams there are.

[MadNESS]

Re the question on trades being made before the game starts: also worth fixing. I suggest that we sign up players without teams (i.e. posters say "I want in" but without announcing their teams publicly), and send private e-mail to the commissioner listing their three or four top choices. The commish can then post who's got which teams on the day the game begins, so everyone gets the information at the same time.

+1000

But then what's the reward for winning? Most of the time if you win a category you got first choice......

[sterncohen]

Winners can still get first choice - but the commissioner privately assigns them their first choice, and they don't know what team everybody else has got, so no trading happens until all the teams are announced at the same time.

One more thought, back to the veto question. As I see it, the real problem is rarely individual trades that are so bad they should be vetoed. It's that, in most rounds of the game, there are a handful of owners who consistently make poor trades; by the end of the game their teams are in ruins. Whoever gets at them first has an advantage, and that's not good for the game.

So what if we said that (now, before we know what the rankings are) that for next round, anybody who finishes in the bottom five on "most improved" has to sit out a round, and we bring in new players to replace them? I'd bet that would do more to keep the game fair, and challenging, than the vetoes do. Not suggesting we have to get rid of vetoes altogether - just that more attention to the quality of players is more important.

[Gremz]

I veto all these rool changes!

[babyjax13]

Winners can still get first choice - but the commissioner privately assigns them their first choice, and they don't know what team everybody else has got, so no trading happens until all the teams are announced at the same time.

One more thought, back to the veto question. As I see it, the real problem is rarely individual trades that are so bad they should be vetoed. It's that, in most rounds of the game, there are a handful of owners who consistently make poor trades; by the end of the game their teams are in ruins. Whoever gets at them first has an advantage, and that's not good for the game.

So what if we said that (now, before we know what the rankings are) that for next round, anybody who finishes in the bottom five on "most improved" has to sit out a round, and we bring in new players to replace them? I'd bet that would do more to keep the game fair, and challenging, than the vetoes do. Not suggesting we have to get rid of vetoes altogether - just that more attention to the quality of players is more important.

I don't like getting rid of active players, but the ones that did not post a writeup should have to sit out in the next one, at the very least.

[Crispy]

I think for vetoes, only the commish should be able to veto it. Most of the time GMs veto it's because they don't want that team to get better than them. Everything else seems pretty good to me.

[nba_addict]

I know this is not a sign-up thread but incase the new game starts pls hit me. Its been almost a year of leave from this game.

nbaaddict99@gmail.com

[Mascot]

the thing is we cannot limit players, whoever wants to play should be allowed to play.....and any person can only have ONE team, some people had like 3 or 4 this time around, that was crazy. Find new players, if they dont be active find antoher replacement. Once we keep doing this we will eventually end up with 30 active players for every game.

[skflives]

I haven't done one of these in a bit but I had done a few on this forum previously. I would be willing to do so again.

yankees7448@yahoo.com

[why22]

can i get a date for when we start signups, for the past few games i wanted toronto and i couldnt get them i REALLY wanna gm toronto