Warrior General Games

As one of the players, OT Patrick Mahjer, formerly a member of the Mozilla Firefox I think I can speak on this particular "gutting" with a lot more clarity than most. The team was not gutted because we weren't winning. Xuchal no longer had the necessary points to extend his ownership of the team. He didn't immediately break up the team. He asked if anyone currently on the roster wanted to take over. No one stepped up, but many spoke out against playing for another owner that they didn't choose. He promised that he would release the entire team by the end of the season. I would really appreciate it if all those assuming(wrongly) why the team was "gutted" would apologize for slandering him. The team was given to him and he attempted to keep it together. In the end he did exactly what he said he'd do for HIS players.

Those who think it is unfair to other owners aren't thinking about the players. When a new coach/GM take over in the NFL, they usually release a few marquee guys to establish their control. What if someone had been under contract through next season and the new owner didn't want them? He wouldn't keep them so why should the player not be allowed to choose an owner he wants to play for instead of hoping that the new owner wants to keep him?

You could have played out the season and then released everyone after week 16.

Name me the last NFL GM who was hired and then released "a few marquee guys"????

"Gutting" usually refers to harvesting players form one team to boost another team, meanwhile the farm team leftover players get the shaft. This may not have happened in this case, however the jump ship mentality ruins the integrity of the league and can possibly give an unfair advantage to some teams IMO.

Originally posted by Row Berr
one thing that i thought of that wouldnt totally alleviate the problem but would leave the new owner with some players and the old players with a chance to move on would be that when a team is sold to a new owner, every player on that teams current contract is reduced to expire at the end of that season (unless they were to expire before that date). This would give the new owner time to build rapport with his players and find new ones while still keeping the team at least somewhat competitive. Then, at the end of the season, the players can either leave or resign if they still like it. It cant be too much to ask for someone to stick around for the rest of the season as most of the gutting takes place later on in the season and not after game 1 or 2.

Just a thought. Waiting anxiously to see all of the people slam my idea like they do every other idea that has been brought up in this thread

That is a great idea.

Originally posted by wombat killer
Originally posted by Row Berr

one thing that i thought of that wouldnt totally alleviate the problem but would leave the new owner with some players and the old players with a chance to move on would be that when a team is sold to a new owner, every player on that teams current contract is reduced to expire at the end of that season (unless they were to expire before that date). This would give the new owner time to build rapport with his players and find new ones while still keeping the team at least somewhat competitive. Then, at the end of the season, the players can either leave or resign if they still like it. It cant be too much to ask for someone to stick around for the rest of the season as most of the gutting takes place later on in the season and not after game 1 or 2.

Just a thought. Waiting anxiously to see all of the people slam my idea like they do every other idea that has been brought up in this thread

That is a great idea.

co-sign.

Originally posted by Truistwon
He promised that he would release the entire team by the end of the season.

It was not the end of the season.

Originally posted by HaplosDog
Originally posted by Truistwon

He promised that he would release the entire team by the end of the season.

It was not the end of the season.



He didnt say AT the end of the season. He said BY the end. BY the end of the season could be either before or at the end.

Originally posted by wombat killer
Originally posted by Row Berr

one thing that i thought of that wouldnt totally alleviate the problem but would leave the new owner with some players and the old players with a chance to move on would be that when a team is sold to a new owner, every player on that teams current contract is reduced to expire at the end of that season (unless they were to expire before that date). This would give the new owner time to build rapport with his players and find new ones while still keeping the team at least somewhat competitive. Then, at the end of the season, the players can either leave or resign if they still like it. It cant be too much to ask for someone to stick around for the rest of the season as most of the gutting takes place later on in the season and not after game 1 or 2.

Just a thought. Waiting anxiously to see all of the people slam my idea like they do every other idea that has been brought up in this thread

That is a great idea.

Really great idea!

Originally posted by TubbyChooChoo
Originally posted by wombat killer

Originally posted by Row Berr


one thing that i thought of that wouldnt totally alleviate the problem but would leave the new owner with some players and the old players with a chance to move on would be that when a team is sold to a new owner, every player on that teams current contract is reduced to expire at the end of that season (unless they were to expire before that date). This would give the new owner time to build rapport with his players and find new ones while still keeping the team at least somewhat competitive. Then, at the end of the season, the players can either leave or resign if they still like it. It cant be too much to ask for someone to stick around for the rest of the season as most of the gutting takes place later on in the season and not after game 1 or 2.

Just a thought. Waiting anxiously to see all of the people slam my idea like they do every other idea that has been brought up in this thread

That is a great idea.

Really great idea!




Yes, agreed. I would support the implementation of this idea. Great suggestion!

Yes. Great idea. If the new owner is good then maybe he'll be able to talk the remaining players to stay. If not, they would be in re-build mode regardless.

And, as mentioned, the team remains competitive.

Originally posted by futbol
And frankly, I wouldn't take FairForever's advice ever, even on naming a wood nymph or helping me create a unicorn on my lite-brite.

Bort! You need better advisors!

Yet another gem of wisdom in this thread!

Is this all going to be a moot point if a minimum 40 person roster is implemented?

Originally posted by Truistwon
As one of the players, OT Patrick Mahjer, formerly a member of the Mozilla Firefox I think I can speak on this particular "gutting" with a lot more clarity than most. The team was not gutted because we weren't winning. Xuchal no longer had the necessary points to extend his ownership of the team. He didn't immediately break up the team. He asked if anyone currently on the roster wanted to take over. No one stepped up, but many spoke out against playing for another owner that they didn't choose. He promised that he would release the entire team by the end of the season. I would really appreciate it if all those assuming(wrongly) why the team was "gutted" would apologize for slandering him. The team was given to him and he attempted to keep it together. In the end he did exactly what he said he'd do for HIS players.

Those who think it is unfair to other owners aren't thinking about the players. When a new coach/GM take over in the NFL, they usually release a few marquee guys to establish their control. What if someone had been under contract through next season and the new owner didn't want them? He wouldn't keep them so why should the player not be allowed to choose an owner he wants to play for instead of hoping that the new owner wants to keep him?

Exactly.

I think it's ridiculous how a lot of guys can't see how this directly affects the PLAYERS. It's not a case of moving all the players to one team. The guys were released and allowed to go wherever they wanted... that's allowed.

Anyway, don't retire your player

Originally posted by FairForever
Exactly.

I think it's ridiculous how a lot of guys can't see how this directly affects the PLAYERS. It's not a case of moving all the players to one team. The guys were released and allowed to go wherever they wanted... that's allowed.

Anyway, don't retire your player

No. We're not stupid. We all understand how this affects the PLAYERS on the team ("What happens if the new owner sucks???" etc).

But the current argument is that the needs of those players somehow supersedes the opinions of the rest of the owners and players in the league that are affected by a team, all of a sudden, in the middle of a season, deciding to throw in the towel.

This wasn't a case of gutting, but it still screws up the league.

I think it's ridiculous you don't see that.

Originally posted by purehatred
Originally posted by FairForever

Exactly.

I think it's ridiculous how a lot of guys can't see how this directly affects the PLAYERS. It's not a case of moving all the players to one team. The guys were released and allowed to go wherever they wanted... that's allowed.

Anyway, don't retire your player

No. We're not stupid. We all understand how this affects the PLAYERS on the team ("What happens if the new owner sucks???" etc).

But the current argument is that the needs of those players somehow supersedes the opinions of the rest of the owners and players in the league that are affected by a team, all of a sudden, in the middle of a season, deciding to throw in the towel.

This wasn't a case of gutting, but it still screws up the league.

I think it's ridiculous you don't see that.



Well, apparently Bort "doesn't see it either." (as in, we all see it)

The fact is that if someone doesn't want to play anymore, you can't force him to play. Again, Bort said it's a good thing the team was released... would it be better for an inactive team to stay in the league in the long-term?

The fact is, the players are the ones who put the most in the game. And you group the "rest of the owners and players in the league" as one entity... it's clear that there is a divide, and that many of us believe nothing wrong was done (including an admin himself). I'm sorry, if a team suddenly gets better in the middle of the season by adding a couple of key starters, making the team a much more difficult draw, how is that different? Or if a couple of marquee players (QB/HB for example) hold out on a team and get a release, making the team much weaker... how is that different either? Some teams will have to face a stronger team, some face a weaker team. Unless you want to lock rosters mid-season, teams will change every game.

I see what it is, but I also see the alternative as much worse. Players being forced to play with owners they don't know, etc.

How would you feel if monkey sold the team without telling you, another guy bought it, held your players hostage, and removed you from GM?

Originally posted by FairForever
Originally posted by purehatred

Originally posted by FairForever


Exactly.

I think it's ridiculous how a lot of guys can't see how this directly affects the PLAYERS. It's not a case of moving all the players to one team. The guys were released and allowed to go wherever they wanted... that's allowed.

Anyway, don't retire your player

No. We're not stupid. We all understand how this affects the PLAYERS on the team ("What happens if the new owner sucks???" etc).

But the current argument is that the needs of those players somehow supersedes the opinions of the rest of the owners and players in the league that are affected by a team, all of a sudden, in the middle of a season, deciding to throw in the towel.

This wasn't a case of gutting, but it still screws up the league.

I think it's ridiculous you don't see that.



Well, apparently Bort "doesn't see it either." (as in, we all see it)

The fact is that if someone doesn't want to play anymore, you can't force him to play. Again, Bort said it's a good thing the team was released... would it be better for an inactive team to stay in the league in the long-term?

The fact is, the players are the ones who put the most in the game. And you group the "rest of the owners and players in the league" as one entity... it's clear that there is a divide, and that many of us believe nothing wrong was done (including an admin himself). I'm sorry, if a team suddenly gets better in the middle of the season by adding a couple of key starters, making the team a much more difficult draw, how is that different? Or if a couple of marquee players (QB/HB for example) hold out on a team and get a release, making the team much weaker... how is that different either? Some teams will have to face a stronger team, some face a weaker team. Unless you want to lock rosters mid-season, teams will change every game.

I see what it is, but I also see the alternative as much worse. Players being forced to play with owners they don't know, etc.

How would you feel if monkey sold the team without telling you, another guy bought it, held your players hostage, and removed you from GM?

Players get stuck playing for horrible owners all the time through no fault of their own. How would this be any different?