Wolves- Sharks

[Eielson]

Wolves trade:
Jet Wahls

Sharks trade:
Joey Mott and .5M

[stlouisxrams]

i dont accept. this deal is not going through. my co-gm made the deal without even a discussion

[Eielson]

Craziness

[captobvious]

This is why I always check with the GM before pulling the trigger on a deal I've worked out with a co-GM.

[Tye Williams]

I was wanna say, that deal is absolute rapage.

[falcon91]

booo i already changed the stats and everything!

[VC17]

what a weird trade this is.

[xfl2001fan]

So what's the deal on this trade? The Co-GM made a decision...if you are going to name a Co-GM, you should spell out his responsibilities. In trying to stay unbiased, I turly believe that the Co-GM is representative of the GM and is authorized to make trades for the team.

Should a Co-GM make a trade? That depends on his experience...if I was Co-GM I would establish a trade and have the GM make it official...to avoid this kind of stuff...but that's just me.

[captobvious]

Anytime there is a disagreement between a GM and a co-GM, the GM wins. It is the senior position. The co-GM made the trade, the GM overruled him, and the trade is therefore cancelled.

[xfl2001fan]

The GM disagreed after the deal was made. If the Co-GM doesn't have GM responsibilities...then why do they exist?

Unless a GM specifies what duties the Co-GM does or does not have, the Co-GM would naturally assume that they have full GM capabilities. It is the GM's responsibility to bring in someone they think is a capable Co-GM. It is with this inherent confidence that a trade should be able to be made unless otherwise specified.

If I were a Co-GM, I would have spelled out what minimal value the trade is worth, then go to my GM for approval. But that is how I operate. In this case, the final approval was made by the Co-GM without first contacting the head GM. The Co-GM is treated as a GM in every other respect, why should we discriminate?

If there is a question raised before a deal is made final...I would agree with you. But if a deal is finalized, why is the team able to reneg the offer?

[captobvious]

Just because someone is capable doesn't mean they share a common vision. When you're trading players, you're often doing so based on an individual opinion of what that player is worth. Differences of opinion can easily exist between teammates.

And it's not that this deal was reneged. Both GMs must approve any trade for it to be completed. Since one did not, this trade was never completed.

Each GM/co-GM relationship will be different, depending on the individuals involved. When I was a co-GM in this league, I worked out the particulars of one trade and a couple of free agent signings, but each time I did, I posted the details to my GM and received approval before completing them. Because I kept him advised, he trusted me to handle the details. As a co-GM in another league, I'm keeping myself completely out of that sort of thing. Another GM over there contacted me with a trade offer, and I told him to just take it to the boss.

Here as a GM, with Peyton by my side, he had a lot of input on the team, but the one place where he didn't was trades. I'd let him know what I was up to as a courtesy, and I valued his opinions, but whatever I was working on was going to happen with or without his approval. Now I've got a new co-GM, one who admittedly has some things to learn about the job, and we're only just beginning to figure out the dynamics of how we'll work together.

[xfl2001fan]

Well, as far as how we act/would act as Co-GM, we certainly share the same opinion. In another league, I too have been a Co-GM and essentially left trades up to the GM. I advised people as to whether I felt they would go through or not...but aside from that, chose to avoid acting as "The Man."

I'm still trying to find (on this site) where the line between a Co-GM and a GM is spelled out. I can't see anywhere where it doesn't state that Co-GM's can't finalize trades. That's not to say that it isn't here, only that I haven't seen it. If a Co-GM can update personnel attributes and such, without the GM's approval, why would he not feel that he can make a trade for the GM? Otherwise, it seems that the Co-GMs purpose is to do the GM's female dog work.

[captobvious]

You don't want to draw that distinction, I think, because then you end up with a situation where your rules get in the way of running the league. As I said, each GM and co-GM have to figure out what their relationship will be. We all recognize the GM to be the final authority, so if they disagree, it's pretty clear which side wins.

As for the role of a co-GM... as a co-GM here and elsewhere, I considered it my personal responsibility to figure out ways to best help the team. Anytime I saw something that needed doing, I did it. For example, I could tell flledge wasn't keeping tight control over the budget, so I built a spreadsheet, calculated some reasonable-case scenarios for our projected incentive payments, popped in all our salaries and other expenses, and kept him updated on our projected cap situation for the end of the season and the one beyond. That was invaluable data we had to have as we continued to pursue free agents... hardly female dog work.

Peyton was a huge help for me in keeping morale up in the locker room, particularly with his artwork. Custom sigs from a talented teammate were a pleasant incentive for players. He also scouted the draft, and he was totally involved in every pick.

Woodson is planning to get a copy of Madden so he can help me run some test sims with different playbooks, which will provide invaluable data. The more people running tests, the more data, and the more data, the better the decisions. Another pair of eyes scouting the team... hardly female dog-work.

For me, the most important part of the co-GM position is his backup role. If something happens to me and I fall off the face of the internet, somebody needs to run the team. We've all seen what happens to teams when their GM goes inactive. It isn't pretty.

[xfl2001fan]

Aye, I went a bit overboard on the whole GM's female dog thing...I'll give you that (even if you didn't directly say it!)

Basically, everything you are telling me is how you worked as a Co-GM, not what the rules state that they can can't do. It is a personal choice between then GM/Co-GM, but they need to work those issues out. I do track a lot of different things in this league (even if it never shows) as well as the FSL. But that is a choice I have made. I'm still looking for the defining line between the GM/Co-GM and when a decision is made by the Co-GM, how is that affected?

[captobvious]

I think you'd have to convince me of the need to have those roles defined first. Why should we have a league rule limiting what a co-GM is allowed to do?

I'm a perfect example of why that would be a bad thing. Flledge disappeared without giving us any kind of notice, so we hung around for a month or so still operating under the impression he would be coming back. Meanwhile... there was a team to run. As co-GM, in the absence of any supervision from my GM, I took care of all of that. If my role had been limited by some kind of rule, my team would not have been able to participate in a lot of different things.

Trades are a great example, because they're usually the result of rare opportunities. If there is nobody around who can take advantage of it, the opportunity disappears.

[xfl2001fan]

I understand not wanting to limit the roles of a GM...but instead of outright banning them from creating actions...give timelines instead. That way, if the GM disappears for more than a week (without notifying the site, or anyone in it)...the Co-GM would have full control over the team.

In this case, the trade was approved by the Co-GM...and the GM would have "x" number of days to respond to it. Both teams would need to show some kind of proof that an attempt was made to contact the GM (maybe create a thread in the Teams Forum) If no response, it goes through. This would prevent GM's from taking advantage of Co-GM's inexperience while at the same time, allowing the league to move forward in the event of inactivity. The Co-GM's role would not be significantly reduced, but would certainly not be given the totality of power that the GM has.

[Rubberband Banks]

Damn, I was bout to say. The Wolves would've been butt----ed