![[DEV] ISFL Forums](http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/images/emerald/logo.png "[DEV] ISFL Forums"){kind=logo}
+- [DEV] ISFL Forums (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Community (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Media (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=37)
+---- Forum: Graded Articles (http://dev.sim-football.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=38)
+---- Thread: *On the Chicago Butchers: (/showthread.php?tid=20192)
Pages:
1
2
*On the Chicago Butchers: - br0_0ker - 03-16-2020
On the Chicago Butchers: A GM Response
I was planning to make some sort of article later this week, after a couple of games had passed so that I had some more recent NSFL game data to incorporate into things, but unfortunately due to recent backlash from the community and current Chicago players, I feel a response is warranted sooner rather than later. I don't really have a smooth transition/opening into what I want to say, so some of this is going to seem a bit ramble-ey (because it is) but stick with me til the end and maybe I'll have figured out a tl;dr. Ok here we go.
On January 20, 2020 I was hired on to be the co-GM of the Chicago Butchers, having no prior sim league history than my time in the NSFL nor having an extensive experience with the sim engine itself. The Butchers were coming off a 3-10 S19 season, and for the most part were written off as an extra bye week in S20 before the season even began. This of course did not change despite AE signing on with Chicago a few weeks earlier in the year, instantly adding massive TPE value to their lacking roster. I'll be honest, when I joined the Butchers I was in it for the money; a dispute of $1.5M in S20 contract value between me and BAL GMs left a bitter taste in my mouth and caused me to (hastily) exercise my option before the start of the S20 season. I was a merc. At the time, I wasn't looking to become the Butchers' GM, though I was looking for a GM spot in the DSFL to potentially test out the waters and get some experience on what the whole thing was about. For me, it was about getting as much cash as was reasonably possible, getting some stats under my belt, maybe winning an award, but ultimately moving on when the time came for options again to be exercised or the contract length was up. But I had no long term plans in Chicago.
I mean, why would I?
The team, let's face it, was bad. Real bad. Chicago is to this day a running joke about failure, ineptitude, and poor decision making, and that perception is what the bulk of this article attempts to address. But while I proport this is currently a misconception, that reputation originated in truth, and it was through that lens that I viewed the Butchers, and understood the league-wide perception of the Butchers to be. And when I joined the locker room? Seriously? I was a little put off. There didn't seem to be much activity outside of a couple users (I think I could count on one hand the number of actives, Valor being primarily one) and there didn't really feel like there was a sense of unity or teamliness. Having been in pretty active/friendly locker rooms in Norfollk (S15) and BAL, this seemed in pretty stark contrast to what I had percieved was the norm of the NSFL.
So why take on the position of co-GM? Well, like I said above, I had no plans to. When I joined, I was looking for cash, Chicago had both GM spots filled, and I was simply looking pad my stats in my (now failing) endevour to reach the HoF. In mid January though, Barry, who was co-Gm for Valor at the time, decided he needed to step down and a vacancy was created. The timing of things sort of felt right: there was a vacancy, I had the desire; the team was bad so not a lot of people were going to want to apply for a full rebuild; and being already on the team I wouldn't force CHI to give up assets in a trade so that I could become co-GM. So I applied, and I got the job.
What did my first week as co-GM look like? Well, our budget and forum pages were not up-to-date, and we risked being audited and fined. We had an incomplete roster and were starting bots. Here's what the depth chart looked like for week 1 (the game streamed the day I was signed as co-GM):
QB: Rose Jenkins
RB: Aksel Danielsson (IA, S12)
FB: Jake Utler (IA)
TE: Declan Harp (Retired before the season)
LWR: Ahri Espeeyeeseetee (me)
RWR: Sean O'Leary
FL: Sweet James-Jones (IA)
LDE: Steven Oats (IA, S10)
RDE: Curtis Saul (IA, S11)
LDT: Will Foster (IA, S11)
RDT: Ryan Leaf Jr.
MLB: Z Backerbotz (bot)
NB: Beat
SLB: Zach Bailey (not signed to a contract at the time)
LCB: Achilles Hondo (retired before the season)
RCB: Jonathan Rice (IA, S11)
FS: Mike Hockhertz
SS: Jack Rambo
So, in total, 7/18 actives, and a whole lot of folks that were IA and/or about to be retired. Even to begin the season, it was pretty clear we were going to end up with a high pick, it was just a matter of if it would be 1 or 2. No real talk about the r/nfl class had been done (though we were generally aware of the timeline), and with the draft already behind us, there was some work to do to even field a legal starting linup that did not include bots. We needed a TE, DT/DE, LB, and 2 CB. That same week, I spoke to various GMs about our roster situation in the GM chat, being open about our roster issues, and being open about making trades. Thus, a series of trades was made using mid/late round draft capital (well, excet the last one, but more on that later):
Martavius Mack (S15 223 TPE IA S)
Antonio Sandoval Jr (S16 84 TPE IA DE)
COL S22 5th
for
CHI S21 4th
----------------
Dan Schneider (S11 300+ TPE IA S)
for
CHI $4M S21 cap space to OCO
--------------
Guy Nikko (S15 422 TPE IA LB)
PHI S21 3rd
for
CHI S21 3rd
CHI S22 3rd
COL S22 5th
---------------
OCO S21 1st
OCO S21 2nd
Thorian Skarsgard (S12 800+ TPE ACTIVE DT)
$2M S21 cap space to CHI
for
Curtis Saul (S11 200+ TPE IA DT)
CHI S21 1st
PHI S21 3rd
In total, we gave up our S21 1st, 3rd, 4th, our S22 3rd, Curtis Saul and $2M in cap space.
In total, we gained OCO's 1st, 2nd, Thorian Skarsgard, Guy Nikko, Martavius Mack, Dan Schneider, and Antonio Sandoval Jr.
I believe it was about this time I was developing a reputation for liking to make trades for the sake of trading, and I fought against the prevailing narrative at the time that OCO had swindled us in the last trade. For the record, Skars' user Mr. Stennett has been a fantastic locker room addition and provided excellent war room insight. He is currently the #6 highest overall DT in the league, so I can't see how getting a 1st and 2nd for a 1st and 3rd is a bad move when you add in you're getting him on TOP of the rest of the trade.
After this, we made 1 admittedly bad trade, which was OCO's 2nd and our S22 5th for Leighton Lee and $1M cap, but we were trading away an IA for the leader of the GRSL with 100 less TPE, whose return to active status was much less in doubt. I don't think we'd make those trades knowing what we know today, but at the time we were scrambling to find a suitable replacement for Nikko and BAL really wanted him for Vassallo, who is a long term anchor on our Dline (positions you don't necessarily need high TPE to be succesful in). Was this trade enough to earn Chicago extended ridicule and further a reputation of ineptitude and failure, especially considering it came directly after the Skars trade? I would hope not.
During the draft, we made more trades, this time moving from our 1st pick in the 2nd round down 9 spots to pick up a pick in the 3rd (1 pick inside the last player I thought was of 2nd round value, based on the 2400+ input scouting file I created in the 3 weeks before the draft), and a few more times in later rounds when efficiency called for it (I can't remember off the top of my head exactly). Following the draft, we made one trade to fill our Dline, after it became clear we were no longer in the running for FAs Morris or Baldari. This trade I believe will have negligible future consquences for the team (Bacon for S22 9th) but feel free to argue that point, I'll concede.
This brings us to our most recent trade, which is:
Farley Hank (S15 750 TPE ACTIVE RB)
Johnson Harding (S18 308 SEMI-ACTIVE DT)
PHI S22 3rd
for
CHI S22 1st
CHI S2 2nd
This trade has been met with near universal disdain, and I will admit that it is probably the optics of trading away a first round pick that is causing it to be so. To start, initial scouting indicates negligible difference between the 2nd we traded and the 3rd we received, you may argue this point but the raw data simply doesn't match any other conclusion.
So what do you get with the 1st rounder?
In a best case, you get a max earner, who signs for cheap and stays with your team through 7-10 seasons, consistently filling a position of need with a quality player/user. At worst, you get a bust, someone who stops earning and goes IA, never to be seen again. I will admit again that the likelihood of a 1st round pick falling in the first category is much higher than that of the second category, and especially in a class shaping up as well as S22 is. But the reality is that busts still happen, and the actual 1st rounder will fall somewhere in-between on the spectrum. They'll start out around 200-250 TPE, and earn close to 200 each year they are active, if they're a max earner. And their first contract is capped at 3 years. That means at the end of their first contract, you'll see a lot of players at the 700-900 TPE range, coincidentally the same range as the player we traded for. But what about regression, you say? Well, Mr. Hank is a solid earner, putting on 80-100 TPE each of the last 3 seasons. That means he'll be about 800-850 TPE by season's end. S22 regression hits him for 20% (640-680 TPE), add another year to 720-780, regress again for 25% (540-585) and then his contracts done. So one season at 600ish TPE, one at 700ish, and one at 800ish. Remind me again what you get with a 1st rounder (400+, 600+, 800+)?
I will at this point concede, there is no long term potential in trading for a soon to be in-regression player, and absolutely Beebob could stop being active and earning once he hits regression, who knows. But there is also no guarantee the 1st rounder's going to stay active and earning either, and in this case I am taking the body of data with Beebob that says he will be. It's risk vs. reward, the reward here being a player we pretty much know what sort of production he brings to the table.
And what exactly will that production be? With Ryan Leaf already locked into our RB1 spot, and Ahri Espeeyeeseetee/Sean O'Leary manhandling secondaries, where would Hank slot in to provide any semblance of value? Well, here's the real kicker. All offseason, I read scouting reports, mock drafts, media, etc. about how poorly the Chicago defense plays, how our biggest needs of S21 lay on the defensive side of the ball, either on the dline or cornerback. Albeit, we tried to sign Baldari and had hoped that not drafting a DE would convince him we were all-in on him, but as a tactic it failed (chalk that one up to a lesson learned). But we've since shored up the dline a bit with the Harding addition. So what does that leave?
Cornerback.
And thus, we come to the topic I originally wanted to write this article about, instead of this long-winded expose about my time as a GM. No, the Farley Hank trade may seem like a head scratcher, because we don't immediately fill a position of need, on the surface it just looks like we are adding a weapon to an already stacked side of the ball, and neglecting where our true weakness is. Nay, I say to you. Hank provides us the ability to add to our defense through subraction of our offense. And thus, I announce that coming with the following update Ahri Espeeyeeseetee will be moving from WR to CB.
Oh, I've got your attention now, do I?
Let's recap the roster when I started at GM:
QB: Rose Jenkins
RB: Aksel Danielsson (IA, S12)
FB: Jake Utler (IA)
TE: Declan Harp (Retired before the season)
LWR: Ahri Espeeyeeseetee (me)
RWR: Sean O'Leary
FL: Sweet James-Jones (IA)
LDE: Steven Oats (IA, S10)
RDE: Curtis Saul (IA, S11)
LDT: Will Foster (IA, S11)
RDT: Ryan Leaf Jr.
MLB: Z Backerbotz (bot)
NB: Beat
SLB: Zach Bailey (not signed to a contract at the time)
LCB: Achilles Hondo (retired before the season)
RCB: Jonathan Rice (IA, S11)
FS: Mike Hockhertz
SS: Jack Rambo
And here's the current one:
QB: Rose Jenkins (active)
RB: Ryan Leaf Jr (active)
FB: Jake Utler
TE: Osiris Firestorm-Fjord (active)
LWR: Jerome Davis (active)
RWR: Sean O'Leary (active)
FL: Farley Hank (active)
LDE: Stevie Vassallo
RDE: Benson Harris
LDT: Thorian Skarsgard (active)
RDT: Johnson Harding (semi-active)
MLB: Leighton Lee (semi-active)
SLB: Mike Hockhertz (active)
NB: Spencer Castle
LCB: Ahri Espeeyeeseetee (active)
RCB: Xerxes Ridley
FS: Beat (active)
SS: Jack Rambo (active)
That's now 13/18 active or semi-active (around but not updating) players, nearly twice as many as 1 season ago and only 2 months from the time I became GM, with 4 picks in the projected active rounds of S22 and I feel the LR is in a much healthier state. We are ramping up our efforts to compete this year and next, because that's the only way we will be able to. If we wait for the S22 pick to mature, and the S23 pick to mature, by the time those picks get to comparable levels of TPE where they affect the sim, the core of our team will be regressed/moved-on/retired. The reality of our situation is we had to manufacture a window, or not at all until it's time to move on from Jenkins some time around S25 or S26, since Waldo doesn't earn enough to be a reliable starting QB for a championship team. Which brings me to my last point:
Waldo.
Now, normally I wouldn't call out a specific user, but as this post is title "a response" and it was originally this post that caused me to accelerate my article, I feel it is necessary. Let's revisit a few things:
(03-16-2020, 12:02 PM)WALDO Wrote:At the beginning of my tenure in Chicago, our locker room was dead and terribly inactive. We were the worst team in the league and I had about a 5% chance to ever play QB for the team. Since then, our locker room has gotten better, more rookies are talking, more people are hyped for the team and the league, but that’s no what has driven me away from this team I once loved.
Well, this is encouraging. One of my goals as a GM is to promote exactly that type of atmosphere, and to see this from someone even on their way out the door is both heartening and a bit confusing.
(03-16-2020, 12:02 PM)WALDO Wrote:At one point in time, Valor was a good GM, he made some decent moves and had the team on the ups. It wasn’t until the last couple of seasons when he made lots of shitty moves... then they traded picks for nothing but IA guys again, and then recently they did the same thing, but that’s not what drove me away at the most.
Well, I tried to break down the reasoning behind the trades above. Unfortunately (fortunately?), most teams place a premium on active users with a high enough TPE level to affect the sim, more than we'd be willing to trade in draft capital and certainly more than teams were asking for when looked in terms of player capital. That means, if you want to make improvements, you're usually going to trade for players that are IA but have a decent TPE level stocked, or are lower TPE level but show promise on the activity side. Considering we needed to manufacture a window for S21-S23 (reasoning for which we explained in the war room, and the discussions I believe you were a part of and agreed made sense in VC a few weeks before the S21 draft), it wouldn't make sense to trade for players in the latter category, though that would contribute to improving the LR culture.
(03-16-2020, 12:02 PM)WALDO Wrote:It was the fact that they couldn’t see what they were doing was wrong, that it was a bad move. They’ve created this bubble — or an echo chamber — of players on the team that think this is a good move. They consistently denied that the moves they made were wrong and when presented with basic facts that proved them wrong they would look them dead in the eyes and deny it. It’s like arguing with a brick wall, and your GMs shouldn’t be like that, at least in my eyes.
See, this is where I take offense. You posit this as if it's fact, as if what you're saying is anything more than the opined repetitions of your own echo chamber that says all the moves we make are bad. I explained (in great detail) almost every move we were planning to make in discord. I provided results from hours of testing, through screenshots or war room posts. I asked, repeatedly, for suggestions. You made no reply yesterday when I asked for input on this, you made no reply when I asked for input on my position change, you made no reply until after the trade was made. So how exactly are we making decisions in an echo chamber, if you're not going to be the dissenting voice in our 5 person war room (one of which is Stennett, who has provided feedback, but I forget that according to your post he's "nothing but IA").
I have never seen your "basic facts" about our trade being wrong, because you never presented any. I, however, have a 2000 line output file that shows a 19% marginal win improvement using the exact same game strats as our week 4 sim file with an updated DC, which I also shared in the war room. The 20k sims line I dropped in NSFL general wasn't just a line, these are things I spend my real life time doing. Saying I'm acting contrary to results oriented data or not communicating the results, saying I am refusing to listen to contrary data points, these things are simply not true at all. And I take offense to be presented in any manner otherwise.
Code:
3239 words, because I am damn sure getting paid for writing all that out*On the Chicago Butchers: - WALDO - 03-16-2020
“I asked, repeatedly, for suggestions. You made no reply yesterday when I asked for input on this, you made no reply when I asked for input on my position change, you made no reply until after the trade was made”
In all of these moments I was busy with IRL private stuff involving my sisters health. Just to get that out of the way, maybe you should have pinged us if you wanted a response.
“You posit this as if it's fact, as if what you're saying is anything more than the opined repetitions of your own echo chamber that says all the moves we make are bad.”
The NSFL general chat is not an echo chamber because we all provide different factual information, you provide the infoo that circulates in that LR and causes everyone to believe it because you’re in a position of power and you are (or used to be) a respected person.
Just to make myself clear, I was one of the only people in that war room who CONSTANTLY SAID, let’s keep our picks and rebuild. Everytime you would ping (ironic that every bad trade i was not pinged on) i would say “no let’s keep these picks and rebuild”, and i REPEATED THIS in the same meeting in VC you’re using to prove your point.
I’m gonna take the high road here and just say that this is the last post I will make on the subject
*On the Chicago Butchers: - Memento Mori - 03-16-2020
The basic premise of the article seems to be 'the team is better now than it was 2 months ago', but I don't think anyone was arguing the contrary. You reference that your goal is to 'manufacture a window' in the short-to-medium term (Seasons 21-23), which is GM-speak for mortgaging the future in order to improve your chances of winning today. By improving the level of talent on the roster right now, that is what you are doing. You are achieving the goal that you have set for yourself.
The reason your trades have been so derided by the community is not because you're failing to achieve your goal, but because the consensus is that this is the wrong goal to pursue. The community (as a whole) is generally of the opinion that the level of talent on Chicago's roster is such that the roster cannot be transformed into a championship winning roster by Season 23. So each trade that improves your Season 23 roster at the expense of your Season 24 onwards roster looks bad if you believe this is the wrong strategy.
Maybe Chicago will win the Ultimus and you'll prove all the doubters wrong. But if they don't, then Chicago's roster from S24ish onwards will likely be worse than it would've been otherwise, and people will question whether or not it was worth it to win (for example) six or seven games instead of three or four.
EDIT: If I counted correctly, this is what Chicago traded away in the S21 draft and has traded away ahead of the S22 draft:
CHI trades: S21 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th. S22 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 9th
CHI gains: S21 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd. S22 3rd
That's a lot of draft picks, which could really cripple the future Chicago team.
*On the Chicago Butchers: - br0_0ker - 03-16-2020
(03-16-2020, 06:04 PM)WALDO Wrote:In all of these moments I was busy with IRL private stuff involving my sisters health. Just to get that out of the way, maybe you should have pinged us if you wanted a response.
I am truly sorry about your sister's health and I hope she gets better. But to say I didn't communicate or I didn't listen you you when you make a post demanding a release following a trade is assinine.
(03-16-2020, 06:04 PM)WALDO Wrote:The NSFL general chat is not an echo chamber because we all provide different factual information, you provide the infoo that circulates in that LR and causes everyone to believe it because you’re in a position of power and you are (or used to be) a respected person.
First, "we all provide different factual information" is hardly ever true, most of the time it's people who've never even cracked open the sim trying to apply real world football application to the simulation, which is a failing endeavor. I'd love to see some of that sourced though, but I expect this is just another spouted opinion with no basis.
Secondly, thank you for attacking my character there.
(03-16-2020, 06:04 PM)WALDO Wrote:Just to make myself clear, I was one of the only people in that war room who CONSTANTLY SAID, let’s keep our picks and rebuild. Everytime you would ping (ironic that every bad trade i was not pinged on) i would say “no let’s keep these picks and rebuild”, and i REPEATED THIS in the same meeting in VC you’re using to prove your point.
You mean, you were the lone dissenting voice BEFORE THE S21 DRAFT (on trading S21 draft picks)? We definitely should heed your unchanging opinion from a month ago, that isn't taking into consideration any of the changes we had made to the DC or strats since then. Also, we definitely should've listened to you and drafted the IA DE you wanted us to, just because he was your buddy. Solid advice there too.
(03-16-2020, 06:04 PM)WALDO Wrote:I’m gonna take the high road here and just say that this is the last post I will make on the subject
Nah, you don't get to lambaste me in a post, digging all this up and then have the last word too. I'm not above being petty and tagging you one last time just so you have the nagging feeling of having been replied to without having your say.
@WALDO
*On the Chicago Butchers: - br0_0ker - 03-16-2020
(03-16-2020, 06:18 PM)Memento Mori Wrote:The basic premise of the article seems to be 'the team is better now than it was 2 months ago', but I don't think anyone was arguing the contrary. You reference that your goal is to 'manufacture a window' in the short-to-medium term (Seasons 21-23), which is GM-speak for mortgaging the future in order to improve your chances of winning today. By improving the level of talent on the roster right now, that is what you are doing. You are achieving the goal that you have set for yourself.
The reason your trades have been so derided by the community is not because you're failing to achieve your goal, but because the consensus is that this is the wrong goal to pursue. The community (as a whole) is generally of the opinion that the level of talent on Chicago's roster is such that the roster cannot be transformed into a championship winning roster by Season 23. So each trade that improves your Season 23 roster at the expense of your Season 24 onwards roster looks bad if you believe this is the wrong strategy.
Maybe Chicago will win the Ultimus and you'll prove all the doubters wrong. But if they don't, then Chicago's roster from S24ish onwards will likely be worse than it would've been otherwise, and people will question whether or not it was worth it to win (for example) six or seven games instead of three or four.
Which is fair, but really, when you look at our QB situation, it's try to do something now through S23 or not at all until S28-S30 or so anyways. Trading S21 and S22, when those picks will be regressed by our next window, is not mortgaging the future. Because there is no future if we don't do anything anyways. It will take 3-4 seasons minimum at this point to have another championship level QB (Rose is of the ilk), Waldo simply doesn't earn enough to fill that role (he will surpass a regressing Jenkins in S24 at ~650 TPE based on earnings forecasts, but then hit regression himself in S26). If we draft players through S22 and S23 they will take time to develop, and by the time they do we won't have a QB to lead the team.
Next you'll say we can use the draft picks on a Qb (so that window could be sooner), which is what Valor wanted to do this past draft, but Waldo explicitly vetoed the idea in our war room during.
*On the Chicago Butchers: - Duilio05 - 03-16-2020
Lots of good QBs in S22 class. Same timeline as YKW, SJS & NOLA for QB plans,
*On the Chicago Butchers: - scorycory - 03-16-2020
RIP Fantasy
*On the Chicago Butchers: - br0_0ker - 03-16-2020
(03-16-2020, 06:51 PM)Duilio05 Wrote:Lots of good QBs in S22 class. Same timeline as YKW, SJS & NOLA for QB plans,
That'd be swell if we didn't make moves to acquire talent based on our previous season being told that a certain player under no circumstances would be position switching. And once that ball was rolling, it's continue along the current window line of thinking, or toss the next 3 seasons aside while we enter a full rebuild. WR decided the rebuild was better to stagger when Leaf and me retire, considering we are currently 2 of the highest TPE players CHI has. Rather waste 1 season with some semblance of a long shot to do something than to waste 3-4 with no shot at all.
*On the Chicago Butchers: - WALDO - 03-16-2020
Welp Steele, If This Is The End Of The Road I Hope That You Find The Success You Want In Chicago, It Sucks That It Has To End Like This. Hope We Play In An Ultimus Someday.
*On the Chicago Butchers: - MrStennett - 03-16-2020
Since I commented on Waldo’s media, I’ll comment here as well. This isn’t the opinion of an uniformed league “noob”. This was my second sim league, now out of three total, of which I am active in all. I have served in leadership capacities or at least league jobs in all of them. As it stands in this league, I served as OCO’s co-GM for two seasons, have been on the PT team longer than I can remember at this point (I’ve outlived 4 job heads, I believe), and am now on the awards committee.
This is all to say, I think I have enough experience to know an incompetent buffoon. Neither of my GMs are that. Now truly, I was spoiled in OCO serving under Spec for so long, because he’s one of the longtime league greats. Valor and Steel are still “new” GMs, and they’re learning on the job. I feel as though they have preformed as admirably as they can. I know a lot of people outside of the Chicago LR can’t understand the moves the team is making, but they’re trying to take a team that’s become a league joke and make them respectable. Is it an ambitious goal? Absolutely. Is it impossible? No. I’ve seen stranger things happen in my almost three IRL years in these leagues. Truthfully, the sentiment in the LR has kind of become “fuck everyone else’s opinion”. Sorry for the crudity, but when you see the same jokes repeated over and over, so that guys that have less than a season in the league are saying them, it gets old.
Now, as for the trade that brought me personally to Chicago and my extension:
For full transparency, I had full control over the trade. I never would have even been put up for trade if I hadn’t given it the go ahead. I still greatly respect OCO and their MGMT team, and I was trying to help the team. To be honest, when originally approached by Laser that Chicago was interested in me, I almost flat out said no. I decided to not let league perception guide my decisions and after some great conversations with Valor and Steel especially, I OK’d the trade. I was brought in because yes, for a short time my player will be helpful, but Steel brought it specifically to my attention that he wanted to build a new LR culture. I was inserted into the war room immediately, which I really appreciated that both of my new GMs respected my league reputation enough to trust me in that way. I knew after this start to my time in Chicago I wanted to resign and quickly did so. That was because I have repeatedly spoken in the war room, whether positively or negatively and had my statements responded to in a well thought out manner every time. As a league vet, I would not resign here if I couldn’t back up the vision for the team’s direction. Steel and Valor have gained a lot of respect from me over my time with the Butchers.
Feel free to question all you want, but know that this team is working tirelessly to be competitive and it has the leadership to do just that.