Silver~, could you edit your post please?
23yrwej
offline
offline
Originally posted by purehatred
Originally posted by Jed
Okole's right. At least then the new owner has a shot to put together a team while if the players don't like it, they can get out at the end of this season.
From a "good of the game" standpoint, Okole's right.
But let's be real: nothing that Shagg has said is against the rules, there's tons of precedent for this kind of pseudo-gutting in this very league, and every time something like this comes up you'll get 30 people squealing about how "it's the fair thing to do ! think of the players' rights! wah!"
Can't really justify stopping the Novas fromdoing something so many other teams have done.
It does suck, however.
Does it suck to see the Novas go? Absolutely...I really like Shagg but I think he is doing what's right...I'd hope an owner would have enough loyalty to me as a player to give me the right to choose my own team if he was leaving.
Originally posted by Jed
Okole's right. At least then the new owner has a shot to put together a team while if the players don't like it, they can get out at the end of this season.
From a "good of the game" standpoint, Okole's right.
But let's be real: nothing that Shagg has said is against the rules, there's tons of precedent for this kind of pseudo-gutting in this very league, and every time something like this comes up you'll get 30 people squealing about how "it's the fair thing to do ! think of the players' rights! wah!"
Can't really justify stopping the Novas fromdoing something so many other teams have done.
It does suck, however.
Does it suck to see the Novas go? Absolutely...I really like Shagg but I think he is doing what's right...I'd hope an owner would have enough loyalty to me as a player to give me the right to choose my own team if he was leaving.
Jed
offline
offline
Originally posted by purehatred
But let's be real: nothing that Shagg has said is against the rules, there's tons of precedent for this kind of pseudo-gutting in this very league, and every time something like this comes up you'll get 30 people squealing about how "it's the fair thing to do ! think of the players' rights! wah!"
Yea, I'm not saying it's against the rules, I'm just saying that he has the chance to do what's right and most fair to everyone involved.
But let's be real: nothing that Shagg has said is against the rules, there's tons of precedent for this kind of pseudo-gutting in this very league, and every time something like this comes up you'll get 30 people squealing about how "it's the fair thing to do ! think of the players' rights! wah!"
Yea, I'm not saying it's against the rules, I'm just saying that he has the chance to do what's right and most fair to everyone involved.
CTap
offline
offline
Why not see if one of the team's many GMs would be willing to keep it going and run it henceforth? I believe Bort would let you sell it to them if it would keep the roster intact.
CTap
offline
offline
Originally posted by Silverhand
I thought BSB was built through gutting... funny. 'do what I say but don't do what I do'
This doesn't make a bit of sense... BSB was an existing team that was in another league. We were already dominant in every league we competed. I had one guy on Frankel's team and he decided to "merge" it will Denver and move his players off the roster. Yes it left us gutted, but neither myself nor Okole had anything to do with that. I took over the team so that it didn't have to be a complete rebuild job and we let outgoing players pick their destinations... honestly all it did was get us here like a season early.
I thought BSB was built through gutting... funny. 'do what I say but don't do what I do'
This doesn't make a bit of sense... BSB was an existing team that was in another league. We were already dominant in every league we competed. I had one guy on Frankel's team and he decided to "merge" it will Denver and move his players off the roster. Yes it left us gutted, but neither myself nor Okole had anything to do with that. I took over the team so that it didn't have to be a complete rebuild job and we let outgoing players pick their destinations... honestly all it did was get us here like a season early.
Last edited Aug 11, 2008 15:46:33
23yrwej
offline
offline
Originally posted by CTap
Why not see if one of the team's many GMs would be willing to keep it going and run it henceforth? I believe Bort would let you sell it to them if it would keep the roster intact.
I think they disallowed that.
Why not see if one of the team's many GMs would be willing to keep it going and run it henceforth? I believe Bort would let you sell it to them if it would keep the roster intact.
I think they disallowed that.
sirmoz
offline
offline
Originally posted by Silverhand
I thought BSB was built through gutting... funny. 'do what I say but don't do what I do'
Gutting; The fishmonger throws the carcass in the garbage after the innards are ripped out. BSB was professionally aquired, cleaned, rebuilt and reasonably competitive within 5 mins.
I'll let CTap speak for BSB. He's less abrupt
I thought BSB was built through gutting... funny. 'do what I say but don't do what I do'
Gutting; The fishmonger throws the carcass in the garbage after the innards are ripped out. BSB was professionally aquired, cleaned, rebuilt and reasonably competitive within 5 mins.
I'll let CTap speak for BSB. He's less abrupt
Last edited Aug 11, 2008 15:45:53
CTap
offline
offline
Why would they think gutting a roster to be a better solution than just changing the owner to a GM who likely does a ton of work to run the team anyway?
That makes no sense whatsoever IMO...
That makes no sense whatsoever IMO...
purehatred
offline
offline
Originally posted by Jed
Yea, I'm not saying it's against the rules, I'm just saying that he has the chance to do what's right and most fair to everyone involved.
Then you get intoa debate of "what's right for the league" vs. "what's right for the players on the team."
I tend to agree with you but so far the game leans towards keeping the players on the team appeased.
Yea, I'm not saying it's against the rules, I'm just saying that he has the chance to do what's right and most fair to everyone involved.
Then you get intoa debate of "what's right for the league" vs. "what's right for the players on the team."
I tend to agree with you but so far the game leans towards keeping the players on the team appeased.
Last edited Aug 11, 2008 15:45:52
drazz00
offline
offline
No, GM's still have preference over others, at least they did at the end of last season.
bigtisme
offline
offline
why not stick it out??
You started wit 6 dynamite teams...but that means down the last 10 games you have the chance to pick up alot of wins.
You started wit 6 dynamite teams...but that means down the last 10 games you have the chance to pick up alot of wins.
CTap
offline
offline
Originally posted by bolstersam
West is just falling apart now...
East all the way!
That makes no sense... IF Shagg does gut the roster, that just leaves the West very closely resembling the East. A couple of crappy teams and a bit top heavier than expected...
West is just falling apart now...
East all the way!
That makes no sense... IF Shagg does gut the roster, that just leaves the West very closely resembling the East. A couple of crappy teams and a bit top heavier than expected...
Jed
offline
offline
Originally posted by jrry32
Originally posted by CTap
Why not see if one of the team's many GMs would be willing to keep it going and run it henceforth? I believe Bort would let you sell it to them if it would keep the roster intact.
I think they disallowed that.
No, if it's a long-term GM, it's still allowed. That's the ONLY way it's allowed, though and has to be a long-term, well-established GM.
Originally posted by purehatred
I tend to agree with you but so far the game leans towards keeping the players on the team appeased.
Yea, which is why I think resigning everyone who doesn't end before day 40 to to day 40 contracts is a far compromise. But I hear ya, I can already imagine some of the headaches from people whining that they want off a team in that situation
Originally posted by CTap
Why not see if one of the team's many GMs would be willing to keep it going and run it henceforth? I believe Bort would let you sell it to them if it would keep the roster intact.
I think they disallowed that.
No, if it's a long-term GM, it's still allowed. That's the ONLY way it's allowed, though and has to be a long-term, well-established GM.
Originally posted by purehatred
I tend to agree with you but so far the game leans towards keeping the players on the team appeased.
Yea, which is why I think resigning everyone who doesn't end before day 40 to to day 40 contracts is a far compromise. But I hear ya, I can already imagine some of the headaches from people whining that they want off a team in that situation
Sam Bolster
offline
offline
Originally posted by CTap
Originally posted by bolstersam
West is just falling apart now...
East all the way!
That makes no sense... IF Shagg does gut the roster, that just leaves the West very closely resembling the East. A couple of crappy teams and a bit top heavier than expected...
Tecmo, SuperNovas.... teams are just dropping over there.
East > West
If that didn't make sense I am sorry
Originally posted by bolstersam
West is just falling apart now...
East all the way!
That makes no sense... IF Shagg does gut the roster, that just leaves the West very closely resembling the East. A couple of crappy teams and a bit top heavier than expected...
Tecmo, SuperNovas.... teams are just dropping over there.
East > West
If that didn't make sense I am sorry
You are not logged in. Please log in if you want to post a reply.
