|
Post by BluesGM (Senators) on Mar 23, 2014 19:36:58 GMT -5
Are any of the real ****ty teams available? If so maybe we should swap out some of the better "2nd teams" to make it more attractive to recruit people. Also if we narrow down a team list I can try and recruit some friends as well but I'd like to show them the available rosters... ie: no one is going to join for Tampa or a hopeless team.
I remember the years when Tampa was a top team filled with old vets, but now the rooster came home to roost.
|
|
|
Post by Capyotes on Mar 24, 2014 16:38:53 GMT -5
Are any of the real ****ty teams available? If so maybe we should swap out some of the better "2nd teams" to make it more attractive to recruit people. Also if we narrow down a team list I can try and recruit some friends as well but I'd like to show them the available rosters... ie: no one is going to join for Tampa or a hopeless team. I remember the years when Tampa was a top team filled with old vets, but now the rooster came home to roost. there are some pretty decent teams available e.g. Dallas, Winnipeg, Buffalo. IMO, I don't think the team quality is why we're not getting GMs. We're just not getting the type of people who will commit to anything. Wally, what were you waiting for to recruit your hockey contacts? I live in ATL so I don't meet many hockey enthusiasts, but when I do, I always ask if they would be interested in a keeper league. You guys in hockey country, is it really so hard to find someone? I think if we tried a little harder to get people, we would fill GM roles.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Sabre GM on Mar 24, 2014 19:48:51 GMT -5
So there are 2 teams that have absolutely no GM, Detroit and Colorado. Every other team is assigned a GM, the problem is several of those GM's have not logged in since last year. So with that being said here is a list of teams that have not logged in at all this year or have no GM:
Detroit, Boston, New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, Colorado, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Anaheim. Every other GM has 2 teams and has at least logged in this year. What I'd like to do is compile a list of those teams that the GM is willing to give up. For example, I'm GM of Buffalo and Minnesota. Minnesota is my original team but for the good of the league, I'd give up either team and take the other if it means we can attract some new GM's. So to all of you other active GM's which team(s) are available to give up for a new GM. I'll add Minnesota and Buffalo to the above list, so there are some decent teams available.
So here are teams available: Anaheim Boston Buffalo Colorado Detroit Los Angeles Minnesota New Jersey New York Islanders New York Rangers Ottawa Phoenix Vancouver
|
|
|
Post by Capyotes on Mar 24, 2014 20:16:49 GMT -5
So there are 2 teams that have absolutely no GM, Detroit and Colorado. Every other team is assigned a GM, the problem is several of those GM's have not logged in since last year. So with that being said here is a list of teams that have not logged in at all this year or have no GM: Detroit, Boston, New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, Colorado, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Anaheim. Every other GM has 2 teams and has at least logged in this year. What I'd like to do is compile a list of those teams that the GM is willing to give up. For example, I'm GM of Buffalo and Minnesota. Minnesota is my original team but for the good of the league, I'd give up either team and take the other if it means we can attract some new GM's. So to all of you other active GM's which team(s) are available to give up for a new GM. I'll add Minnesota and Buffalo to the above list, so there are some decent teams available. When we implemented the two-team system, it was with the understanding that a new GM could take anyone's second team at any time. We're just the guardians of those teams until another person wants to take it. PHX is also available to anyone interested. Also, I think we can pretty much count out the GMs who haven't logged in for over 6 months. I don't think it really makes sense to protect a team for someone who never participates.
|
|
|
Post by Wild Sabre GM on Mar 24, 2014 21:18:53 GMT -5
So there are 2 teams that have absolutely no GM, Detroit and Colorado. Every other team is assigned a GM, the problem is several of those GM's have not logged in since last year. So with that being said here is a list of teams that have not logged in at all this year or have no GM: Detroit, Boston, New York Islanders, New Jersey Devils, New York Rangers, Colorado, Los Angeles, Vancouver, Anaheim. Every other GM has 2 teams and has at least logged in this year. What I'd like to do is compile a list of those teams that the GM is willing to give up. For example, I'm GM of Buffalo and Minnesota. Minnesota is my original team but for the good of the league, I'd give up either team and take the other if it means we can attract some new GM's. So to all of you other active GM's which team(s) are available to give up for a new GM. I'll add Minnesota and Buffalo to the above list, so there are some decent teams available. When we implemented the two-team system, it was with the understanding that a new GM could take anyone's second team at any time. We're just the guardians of those teams until another person wants to take it. PHX is also available to anyone interested. Also, I think we can pretty much count out the GMs who haven't logged in for over 6 months. I don't think it really makes sense to protect a team for someone who never participates. Yes that was the understanding. I'm just saying if any of those GM's are willing to give up their original team, that is fine too. I'm willing to give up Minnesota as they are in better shape than Buffalo, if it means we get more GM's. Not saying every GM has to do that just an option. All the teams I listed above are the teams where GM's have not logged in this year. All other GM's have at least logged in this year so that is 10 teams there and then approximately 10-14 teams could be available from the "active" GM's.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Mar 24, 2014 22:11:02 GMT -5
Are any of the real ****ty teams available? If so maybe we should swap out some of the better "2nd teams" to make it more attractive to recruit people. Also if we narrow down a team list I can try and recruit some friends as well but I'd like to show them the available rosters... ie: no one is going to join for Tampa or a hopeless team. I remember the years when Tampa was a top team filled with old vets, but now the rooster came home to roost. Wally, what were you waiting for to recruit your hockey contacts? I live in ATL so I don't meet many hockey enthusiasts, but when I do, I always ask if they would be interested in a keeper league. You guys in hockey country, is it really so hard to find someone? I think if we tried a little harder to get people, we would fill GM roles. I honestly couldn't tell you. But hopefully we add some new people.
|
|
|
Post by Carolina on Mar 25, 2014 0:14:08 GMT -5
Well we better get something fixed or I'm going to cry. I've been rebuilding for what 8 years? Next year my team will finally be decent!
|
|
|
Post by BluesGM (Senators) on Mar 26, 2014 1:34:31 GMT -5
Ottawa is also in decent shape of it comes down to it I I'd give it up.
|
|
|
Post by Carolina on Mar 27, 2014 22:29:27 GMT -5
I think this may have been mentioned but whats the leagues feelings on folding the teams that don't have managers and allowing new managers to enter what would essentially be an expansion draft? This would throw a wrench in the draft of course with the movement of picks in those teams and determining their order in the draft. perhaps handing out their draft position in the expansion draft based on their entry draft position? Another option on top of that would be to combine it with contraction and entering existing teams into later rounds of that draft. I think keeping dedicated GM's is going to be easier if the GM's had a chance at working with a team that they have built. It's hard to come into the league and try to make a team your own when nobody is making major moves.
|
|
|
Post by Capyotes on Mar 29, 2014 9:51:07 GMT -5
I think this may have been mentioned but whats the leagues feelings on folding the teams that don't have managers and allowing new managers to enter what would essentially be an expansion draft? This would throw a wrench in the draft of course with the movement of picks in those teams and determining their order in the draft. perhaps handing out their draft position in the expansion draft based on their entry draft position? Another option on top of that would be to combine it with contraction and entering existing teams into later rounds of that draft. I think keeping dedicated GM's is going to be easier if the GM's had a chance at working with a team that they have built. It's hard to come into the league and try to make a team your own when nobody is making major moves. I'm fine with this idea, but again, we will have the same issue of finding people. If the league members aren't actively trying to find friends, contacts, etc. to join now, how will it suddenly change if we implement this format? This will also require slowly accumulating GMs, and then telling them to be on hold for however it takes to get enough for a draft, which could take months. As we've learned, when the league is latent (no commissioner, no draft, site down for a long time, etc.) GMs lose interest and never really come back. It will be a real challenge to coordinate a draft like this and still keep the interest of new GMs.
|
|
|
Post by Carolina on Mar 30, 2014 17:50:06 GMT -5
nothing that would legitimately save this league would be anything resembling easy.
|
|
|
Post by Leafs/Flames on Mar 31, 2014 23:25:35 GMT -5
Ottawa is also in decent shape of it comes down to it I I'd give it up. Calgary is as well. I'd do the same.
|
|