no content
AdBlocker active?
It seems you are using software to block advertisements. You could help us if you could switch it off when visiting redzoneaction.org.
The reason is very simple: Advertisements help us running the site, to offer you the game in a good quality for free. So if you like the game, please support us by purchasing a Supporter Account or disabling the AdBlocker on this site.
Thank you very much!
| Main / Discussions / Firing players during the season Search Forum | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 >| | |
| Poster | Message |
|
andrew2scott2
|
posted: 2017-03-14 19:10:42 (ID: 100100232) Report Abuse |
|
I know i would no longer be active in the TM. if this can true. And i do not know if with out being active on the TM if i would stay. As i cut few player ever now in then. 2 big reasons
1 to save money. after trying to sell a player that no one wants. Well then need to get rid of him. 2 need the roster space for incoming TM player. Now not 3 days form now |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-03-14 20:35:22 (ID: 100100239) Report Abuse |
|
Meitheisman wrote:
I understand that it would make roster decisions more difficult but this seems to be the direction Pete wants to head in so why not go all the way? I'm not sure that is a fair statement. Pete doesn't like people firing their retirees. That is a little different that not cutting players during the season. I think the change is a bit rough, but at the same time I think we just need to look at it from a different perspective. Instead consider that every player automatically accepts one request to not retire. When you see they are in their retirement year, pretend that they really said they were going to retire right now. Now you can choose to ask them to stay one more year (do nothing), ask them to stay more than one year (if its an option), or let them retire at the start of the year (cut them in week 1). The limitation being, if you ask them to stay, you have to guarantee their salary for the year. Maybe the hall of fame requirement should be changed to include guys in their retirement year now that you can't cut them beyond week one. It would also fit better with the above narrative, if that is the way we should be thinking about retiring players.  
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| posted: 2017-03-14 20:41:01 (ID: 100100240) Report Abuse | |
|
Rock777 wrote:
Maybe the hall of fame requirement should be changed to include guys in their retirement year now that you can't cut them beyond week one. It would also fit better with the above narrative, if that is the way we should be thinking about retiring players. Having guys eligible for your Hall of Fame requires you to let them retire as they wish, without firing, cutting, canceling contracts, selling them. I would like to keep it that way. And no, I won't touch the transfer market rules for non-retirees |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Rock777
|
posted: 2017-03-14 20:43:41 (ID: 100100242) Edits found: 1 Report Abuse |
|
I only suggested it because if you use the narrative I described above, you would be letting them retire "when they wanted" if you cut them in the first week. But obviously you get to set the narrative
 Last edited on 2017-03-14 20:44:01 by Rock777 |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
Meitheisman
|
posted: 2017-03-14 21:39:04 (ID: 100100252) Report Abuse |
|
Rock777 wrote:
Meitheisman wrote:
I understand that it would make roster decisions more difficult but this seems to be the direction Pete wants to head in so why not go all the way? I'm not sure that is a fair statement. Pete doesn't like people firing their retirees. That is a little different that not cutting players during the season. That's a difference I don't get. Why is it OK to fire a non-retiring player in the middle of the season but not a retiring one? |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
bobcor
|
posted: 2017-03-15 12:53:50 (ID: 100100352) Report Abuse |
|
Well, I don't like the new rule at all. So I don't like this idea either.
|
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
|
noodle
|
posted: 2017-04-06 10:47:14 (ID: 100101864) Report Abuse |
|
pete wrote:And no, I won't touch the transfer market rules for non-retirees
I'm happy with this statement. 
If this suggestion was implemented then the transfer market would definitely slow down, and possibly become stagnant for most of the season. This is after all is said and done, a game so it doesn't have to be perfectly realistic. |
|
| Quote Reply Edit | |
| reply Mark this thread unread | |
| Navigation: |< < 1 >| | |
| Main / Discussions / Firing players during the season | |
