|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 17, 2022 17:14:41 GMT -5
Legacy NFL GM's,
A few GM's have brought up the idea, as we enter into year 10 of Legacy NFL, of the possibility of switching franchises. I am open to this idea, but I want to discuss the most ethical way we can do this. I am working on getting the league open as soon as I can, but for now a discussion on the matter would be most prudent. I want GM's to enjoy themselves, and rather than just react, lets see if we can do this in the most transparent way that we can.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 17, 2022 17:51:07 GMT -5
After 9 years I want a change. Want a team can build from bottom up.
The process of this was
1. Me reaching out to Frank saying I was looking to changing things up.
2. Me reaching out to Laura and seeing if this was something that interested her (swap of teams, no picks changing, no roster differences)
3. Once she agreed, we both reached out to Frank.
That was the steps. Not sure I did anything wrong with the process.
People may be wondering why did I reach out to Laura.
1. Knew I would get a response back, one way or another (not everyone responds to PMs)
2. It was a bottom 5 team last year and a rebuild.
I will give up my team for a bottom end team, and this one fit.
If we need to open up a pool of open teams im cool with that or some voting, No issue with that.
But I hope that the end of this “process” it could lead us to the same result….which was two teams mutually agreeing to switch teams, with 0 strings attached.
This was something I was really looking forward to.
Me giving up a top 5 team
and me getting a bottom 5 team.
I’d love to hear the concerns of the switch. If I need to settle for potentially an open team I will. This was one option that I saw to get me to a new team, another team that was a GO, and a tentative Frank approval, so went down this path.
I hope the league will allow this to happen.
Thanks to all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Jan 17, 2022 17:56:24 GMT -5
I personally don’t see an issue with this swap but I had a proposal to offer.
Have a “Team Switching Period” at the beginning of the offseason (maybe the first two weeks?) don’t open league trading until this period has passed.
During this period it’s almost like posting a trade.
One gm post the swap the other gm accepts it. Both gms have to give reasons for wanting to swap. Then there is a poll and the league votes on it. The poll stays open for the whole two weeks then the Commissioner will review polls and announce new gms. Once this is taken care of then trading can be opened up.
This would give teams the ability to vote on if they are ok with the swap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 17, 2022 18:19:37 GMT -5
I personally don’t see an issue with this swap but I had a proposal to offer. Have a “Team Switching Period” at the beginning of the offseason (maybe the first two weeks?) don’t open league trading until this period has passed. During this period it’s almost like posting a trade. One gm post the swap the other gm accepts it. Both gms have to give reasons for wanting to swap. Then there is a poll and the league votes on it. The poll stays open for the whole two weeks then the Commissioner will review polls and announce new gms. Once this is taken care of then trading can be opened up. This would give teams the ability to vote on if they are ok with the swap. I like this idea Blaine. Two teams make the decision to swap and league votes. Reasons as to why others would have issues with this are unknown. As long as no side deals, players changing, picks changing as a result of the swap. |
|
|
|
Post by Panthers GM (Jesse) on Jan 17, 2022 18:32:49 GMT -5
I have a hard time finding the negative arguments, especially in this case. Unless a great GM with a terrible roster is swindling an inexperienced GM with a great roster out of their team somehow, it would seem to me that all is fair. I completely understand Anthony’s motivation, it’s something I would heavily consider if I find myself with a loaded roster and a ring or two.
The area where it gets iffy, in my opinion, is if draft picks or players are leaving teams, therefore divisions. If Laura was bringing her Texans roster to the NFC East and calling them the Giants, maybe that causes balancing issues (maybe). But as it stands, Anthony faces the exact same hurdles to rebuild the Texans that Laura did, and Laura faces the same constraints associated with a top roster competing for a championship. I hope Laura is up to the challenge, would be a shame to see the Giants take a step back.
As far as process, Blaine’s idea looks great to me. Maybe commish approval plus a TAB vote on a switch similar to a trade. If other situations arise (GM agrees to take on awful open roster if he can bring his top LB to the new roster/Commish offers comp picks to established GMs to take over a bad roster so the league has a better roster to present to potential GMs) then a vote could help decloud the process
|
|
|
|
Post by Lions GM on Jan 17, 2022 18:54:50 GMT -5
I don't have any issues with switching teams and I also like blaines idea
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Jan 17, 2022 19:44:02 GMT -5
I also like the idea of GM being able to switch teams. Why I suggested this type of rule years back.... legacynfl.boards.net/thread/9514/gm-franchise-transferMy original idea for the rule proposal would be the thought process like the NFL does. When a NFL GM has shown multi years of team building skill he would be sought out from other teams who may need the help. Like a promotion of sorts when you've shown the ability to build competitive rosters over a period of time. Which in turn gives the GM a new challenge and helps with the health of the league by having more competitive rosters. My main issues are the process which the way it took place. And the idea of an inactive GM being involved with the switch. I can understand why Anthony would be looking for a new challenge of a rebuild. That's part of the fun of dynasty as well. Since he has shown the ability to build a powerhouse consistently makes sense to have him in the position to benefit the Texans which will benefit the AFC and league. I don't completely understand why the league should be willing to let a GM transfer who has put their original team in the state of needing the rebuild. It's rewarding a GM who has shown lack of activity when at the same time other GM's will now be punished with fines for the same inactivity. To me a GM transfer should be something that's earned by showing consistent commitment to the best overall health of their team and league. Not just because you were able to find someone who was willing to switch. Besides the concerns I mentioned above overall like the idea. I think Blaine's post of how to go about the switch is the best way to keep it open to all GM's who want to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Jan 20, 2022 12:39:21 GMT -5
I personally don’t see an issue with this swap but I had a proposal to offer. Have a “Team Switching Period” at the beginning of the offseason (maybe the first two weeks?) don’t open league trading until this period has passed. During this period it’s almost like posting a trade. One gm post the swap the other gm accepts it. Both gms have to give reasons for wanting to swap. Then there is a poll and the league votes on it. The poll stays open for the whole two weeks then the Commissioner will review polls and announce new gms. Once this is taken care of then trading can be opened up. This would give teams the ability to vote on if they are ok with the swap. I like this proposal. The only thing I would add, without seeing the flaws in presenting a new rule like this, is that we give a cap on how many years must a GM stay with the same organization. I dont want GM's proposing to switch teams every year, and maybe a period lock of every 3-4 years with the same organization. |
|
|
|
Post by Browns GM (Dan) on Jan 20, 2022 13:09:02 GMT -5
I agree with Ricky in that the way the exchange was handled is the only real thing that needs questioning here.
I would much prefer if teams who WANT to exchange teams make that intention public after the end of the season, after the league check-in, then a couple of weeks before the league opens the owners who want to swap teams plus LMs can negotiate the best way to swap teams with the full picture of the open team pool.
However if we knew all the open teams before any negotiations about who takes over what team happened then maybe a poorly run non-owned team would be available and a better option for a swap. Then a new owner can come and take over the Giants. This way we have an experienced owner taking over a rebuild which could otherwise be difficult to advertise to new owners, and an easy to advertise roster available to try and persuade a good owner to join the league.
Nothing personal against Laura as I know she will have been swamped with work, but letting her 'upgrade' to a perennial title challenger after issues with lineups, roster limits, etc. seems a little questionable.
I have no qualms with Anthony moving to the Texans as I think he'll do a great job and improve that roster which benefits the league on a whole, as long as the Giants are managed in a suitable manner too.
In terms of if owners move team I would suggest a 5 year window without being allowed to switch teams again, and a 1 year ban of trading between the two teams in order to try and prevent those owners moving over a large amount of their rosters (Although usually that wouldn't be an issue if its a good team for a bad team swap).
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 20, 2022 13:28:33 GMT -5
I would definitely support Blaine’s ideas of two teams agreeing to swap teams and having it open to the league to vote on
Two weeks is a bit long for that vote no??
We all want to get the off-season started. Don’t think the vote needs to be open for that long
In terms of this “Open Pools” idea that some have pitched
I am just talking about my personal situation
I definitely want to move teams, but only would give up my roster to acquire a bottom end roster .
This is why Blaine’s idea is the best. Two teams agree on the switch , during a period of time , and then bring it to vote. Not sure the other GMs need to do any more then vote after two teams have agreed to a switch
I definitely like locking a team in for a certain amount of years. 4 to 5 is fair.
In terms of preventing trades. As someone who does like to trade limiting me from a team, after the league said it was OK…seems a bit punitive.
If that’s what it takes , I will definitely support it. But feel it is punishing me for wanting a change after having it voted on by the league
|
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Jan 20, 2022 13:38:58 GMT -5
Something is niggling at the back of my mind I can't quite put my finger on. Just to be clear because I don't think it is from Ant's initial post. All picks and players stay with their current franchise, the franchise stays in it's division?
Someone posted this is just like a trade so I am wondering a bit if it were a trade would it pass? This is two experienced owners where it makes sense as Ant is a great roster builder via trade and FA, Laura will keep Ant's team competitive but maybe not so good at rebuilding. So in this case all the ingredients are in the right places for it to work..
GM's and HC's move all the time in the NFL this is just extending the realism a bit I guess. I have no issue with trading between the two teams immediately, we already have checks and balances in place for that
This for me is less than Ant wanting a different challenge, he could have done as I did and burned it down, acquired picks and then rebuilt that way. I think this is Ant wanting to play in a different conference against different teams for the most part and just a change of scenery
My vote unless I can itch that scratch is yay for now
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 20, 2022 13:43:37 GMT -5
To me sounds like AFC teams are a bit worried lol
That is something unfortunately I can not control and will leave it up to the voters to decide
|
|
|
|
Post by Browns GM (Dan) on Jan 20, 2022 14:05:47 GMT -5
To me sounds like AFC teams are a bit worried lol That is something unfortunately I can not control and will leave it up to the voters to decide I haven't seen anyone say they're against it, just that it could've been done in a better way with more visibility for all owners in the league. If someone was against it, and against it because they didn't want you in the AFC then I would hope they are man enough to say that, but I haven't seen anyone say they'd vote against it..... As for the 'Open Pool', it'd be good to see what teams are available in the pool. Once we were all checked in and other teams opened up or wished to swap then YOU as one of the GMs wishing to swap can make your case for the team you would be willing to swap for. If you wouldn't swap without getting a rebuild then maybe you'd only be open to a swap if you end up with one of those teams. For example: OPEN POOL TEAMS: Texans Giants Colts Eagles Bills Vikings Seahawks Anthony (Giants) would only be willing to swap if he ended up with either the Texans or Bills. This would go into consideration when negotiating and discussing swaps. At the end it could be like in real life where GMs/HCs dont swap between 2 teams but a number of them: Giants > Texans > Colts > Bills > Seahawks Remaining Open Teams: Giants, Eagles with Vikings owner not changing team Giants and Eagles are advertised as the 2 open teams with the intention of persuading owners that we think would be a good fit in the league. |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Jan 20, 2022 14:09:21 GMT -5
Dan I love your post.
The idea of this was all done in the dark of night I hope you understand it was not intentional or even what I think occurred
As it was new, I felt I did the best to handle with situation
1. Connected with team who was interested
2, Connected with Commish and got blessing -Tentative
I hope people don't think I was trying to ram this through the darkness of night
TBH I didn't know the decision was made until Blaine mentioned it in the chat.
Just want to get clear.
I am open to a fully fair and transparent process.
If/When we open a pool and we have this "negotiation and discussion" I really don't know what the discussion and negotiation would look like.
Because I do not like this idea of comparing GMs. That I feel is wrong. I worry we get into that. I do not want this to get into a comparison of GMs like posts above are getting into. Thats not fair for anyone. If Frank has kept someone in the league, that should be enough to settle that piece of the equation.
Lastly, to answer my good friend Kevin of the Broncos point about concerns, prior to me reaching out to Laura I did look at the NFC and AFC to view all my options
There are only two teams in the NFC (fortunately) who fit the rebuild mode.
Bears (ROBY) and Grem (CARDS) who both want to see their rebuilds through.
This is how I landed at talking with Laura and then the Commish
|
|
|
|
Post by Panthers GM (Jesse) on Jan 20, 2022 14:30:57 GMT -5
Something is niggling at the back of my mind I can't quite put my finger on. Just to be clear because I don't think it is from Ant's initial post. All picks and players stay with their current franchise, the franchise stays in it's division? Someone posted this is just like a trade so I am wondering a bit if it were a trade would it pass? This is two experienced owners where it makes sense as Ant is a great roster builder via trade and FA, Laura will keep Ant's team competitive but maybe not so good at rebuilding. So in this case all the ingredients are in the right places for it to work.. GM's and HC's move all the time in the NFL this is just extending the realism a bit I guess. I have no issue with trading between the two teams immediately, we already have checks and balances in place for that This for me is less than Ant wanting a different challenge, he could have done as I did and burned it down, acquired picks and then rebuilt that way. I think this is Ant wanting to play in a different conference against different teams for the most part and just a change of scenery My vote unless I can itch that scratch is yay for now I wonder if it's just knowing that if a real life top tier respected GM like Steelers Kevin Colbert randomly jumped ship and took the GM job in Miami or NYG it wouldn't make sense. But the fact is, the best qualified potential replacements would be all over an open Steelers GM job, while the Dolphins and Giants are full of potential job security and ownership issues. In this case, Anthony wanted a burned down roster. The Texans roster is not very good, likely worse than the teams Frank will declare open for replacement. Through no fault of Laura's, life does get in the way of fantasy football sometimes, the Texans are facing a difficult rebuild. They basically have Josh Jacobs, some decent defenders, and a handful of extra draft picks. That's the challenge Anthony wanted. By almost every angle, this specific instance is a positive for the competition level of the league. If Anthony wanted to tear down his Giants roster he would end up with about 10 1st rounders and a handful of excellent young players..Plus, tearing down a competitive roster just for fun is generally frowned upon. |
|
