RC Discussion - Special Case [Betterment of the league] (RC Members Only Please)

[shooter47]

Option #1 of the special cases received the required 5 yes votes and has been passed by the RC. This option was:

#1. For the betterment of the league - This option would allow a GM to transfer to a new franchise if a franchise can not be filled by an external candidate and the team is sitting vacant.

The RC will now need to determine what qualifies for this case and what qualifications a GM must have. Here is my idea for qualifications/requirements. RC members should feel free to throw out any ideas or requirements they think should be considered for use.

Situation:

1. A team in FGM has been sitting vacant for more then 2 weeks after the search for a new GM started with no external candidates expressing interest.

2. The Vacant team would be a step down for a GM. This would be determined by looking at the record of the teams in the current and previous seasons.

3. The team a GM would be going to can not be the GM's favorite team. (This is to prevent any hard feelings to other GM's who can't transfer to their favorite team).

Qualifications for the GM

1. The GM that is transferring must have been in FGM for more then 1 year.

If the situation described exists and these qualifications are met then the GM would be allowed to express his interest in taking over the position and the RC would be need to approve the transfer in a vote. This situation would allow a better team to be opened up that may have greater interest to external candidates.

[rcankosy]

I would only support option # 1 with the length of time for the team being vacant being increased from 2 weeks to 3 months.

[Colby]

Regardless of my grandfathering idea, do we even need #3?  If someone's favorite team is at the bottom of the league then they are doing the league a huge favor by taking on the job.

[shooter47]

Regardless of my grandfathering idea, do we even need #3?  If someone's favorite team is at the bottom of the league then they are doing the league a huge favor by taking on the job.

I threw it out their because it may create an issue when one manager gets to go to their favorite team while another GM doesn't get the same opportunity to go to their favorite team.

[Colby]

I threw it out their because it may create an issue when one manager gets to go to their favorite team while another GM doesn't get the same opportunity to go to their favorite team.

Well, favorite team shouldn't be a reason someone gets a team, but it also shouldn't be a reason why someone does not get a team.

[VolsRaysBucs]

I agree with #3 being unnecessary for the same reason Colby gave.

[Flash]

Since we are resigned to the task of allowing internal transfers I offer the following:

The motivation for a transfer is far beyond a few steadfast rules.  We certainly can mandate a longevity clause and make the move a step down, but does that satisfy the goal of "for the good of the league?". As a league, we accept new members on the basis of good faith.  We expect their commitment to manifest itself into a certain degree of activity, a spirit of competitiveness, and a determination to improve their teams. 

On a personal side, it has taken me a few seasons to understand the importance of patience and projection.  My lack of foresight has caused me to make some very questionable moves--bad trades, miscalculations, dumping prospects, etc.  My attempts to keep Giants players, because they are my favorite team, has been sort of a detriment at times--signing Tim Lincecum for $23m being one glaring example.  I have been in the league since September 2010--two seasons and three off-seasons.  The perennial winner of my division has a salary cap which is $52m greater than mine.  I certainly understand the reasons for this:  success = money.  Yet is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources? I am paraphrasing here, but nonetheless, I was dumbstruck when one of our respected members criticized the work of the Padres GM and said that he was not worthy of taking over the Dodgers because there was no evidence that the Padres had improved under his leadership.  That observation was worthy of a "Come on, man!" because we're talking about a team with a payroll of $59.5m!  With no disrespect to the present GM of the Dodgers, maybe the Padres GM would have done things differently during the season and would have had greater success in the playoffs.  I don't ever recall ever reading a prospective game plan--I only remember reading some emotion-laden posts about being stung for the second time and some references to past disciplinary action regarding inactivity--yet the team was given to a GM who had already left the league before.

The point of all this is that we, as a decision-making body, have to give members a chance to self-advocate why their request for transfer would be in the best interests of the league.  They can outline short term and long term goals, give examples of past success, what they see as strengths and weaknesses, and what they need to do to compete for their division title (and therefore become a playoff team).  The merits of the prospective GMs proposal for success is of greater importance to the overall success of the league than a few steadfast rules like how long the team has been vacant or how long a GM has been in the league. 

Is this a subjective approach?  Yes, it is, but if we are going to be given the power to approve transfers of ownership, we have to been able to evaluate something concrete.  We cannot make decisions based on the few talking points that have been presented so far.  As a member of other dynasty organizations, I recall having to fill out a formal league application listing my fantasy resume.  My application was then reviewed by some veteran members and I was offered a team.  Not everyone got a team, yet everyone understood that their acceptance was based on the merits of the things they listed in the application.  Maybe we don't want to be so formal, but if this issue is to be resolved, it has to get beyond the emotionalism that is already starting to surface in the Cubs vacancy. 

My points are not intended to get anyone upset or ask for defensive posts.  I just want to be able to make a decision based on something from each candidate. 

Thanks for reading this--I hope it makes sense.

[Brent]

Since we are resigned to the task of allowing internal transfers I offer the following:

The motivation for a transfer is far beyond a few steadfast rules.  We certainly can mandate a longevity clause and make the move a step down, but does that satisfy the goal of "for the good of the league?". As a league, we accept new members on the basis of good faith.  We expect their commitment to manifest itself into a certain degree of activity, a spirit of competitiveness, and a determination to improve their teams. 

On a personal side, it has taken me a few seasons to understand the importance of patience and projection.  My lack of foresight has caused me to make some very questionable moves--bad trades, miscalculations, dumping prospects, etc.  My attempts to keep Giants players, because they are my favorite team, has been sort of a detriment at times--signing Tim Lincecum for $23m being one glaring example.  I have been in the league since September 2010--two seasons and three off-seasons.  The perennial winner of my division has a salary cap which is $52m greater than mine.  I certainly understand the reasons for this:  success = money.  Yet is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources? I am paraphrasing here, but nonetheless, I was dumbstruck when one of our respected members criticized the work of the Padres GM and said that he was not worthy of taking over the Dodgers because there was no evidence that the Padres had improved under his leadership.  That observation was worthy of a "Come on, man!" because we're talking about a team with a payroll of $59.5m!  With no disrespect to the present GM of the Dodgers, maybe the Padres GM would have done things differently during the season and would have had greater success in the playoffs.  I don't ever recall ever reading a prospective game plan--I only remember reading some emotion-laden posts about being stung for the second time and some references to past disciplinary action regarding inactivity--yet the team was given to a GM who had already left the league before.

The point of all this is that we, as a decision-making body, have to give members a chance to self-advocate why their request for transfer would be in the best interests of the league.  They can outline short term and long term goals, give examples of past success, what they see as strengths and weaknesses, and what they need to do to compete for their division title (and therefore become a playoff team).  The merits of the prospective GMs proposal for success is of greater importance to the overall success of the league than a few steadfast rules like how long the team has been vacant or how long a GM has been in the league. 

Is this a subjective approach?  Yes, it is, but if we are going to be given the power to approve transfers of ownership, we have to been able to evaluate something concrete.  We cannot make decions based on the few talking points that have been presented so far.  As a member of other dynasty organizations, I recall having to fill out a formal league application listing my fantasy resume.  My application was then reviewed by some veteran members and I was offered a team.  Not everyone got a team, yet everyone understood that their acceptance was based on the merits of the things they listed in the application.  Maybe we don't want to be so formal, but if this issue is to be resolved, it has to get beyond the emotionalism that is already starting to surface in the Cubs vacancy. 

My points are not intended to get anyone upset or ask for defensive posts.  I just want to be able to make a decision based on something from each candidate. 

Thanks for reading this--I hope it makes sense.

Great post.

[Colby]

Great post.

[BHows]

Since we are resigned to the task of allowing internal transfers I offer the following:

The motivation for a transfer is far beyond a few steadfast rules.  We certainly can mandate a longevity clause and make the move a step down, but does that satisfy the goal of "for the good of the league?". As a league, we accept new members on the basis of good faith.  We expect their commitment to manifest itself into a certain degree of activity, a spirit of competitiveness, and a determination to improve their teams. 

On a personal side, it has taken me a few seasons to understand the importance of patience and projection.  My lack of foresight has caused me to make some very questionable moves--bad trades, miscalculations, dumping prospects, etc.  My attempts to keep Giants players, because they are my favorite team, has been sort of a detriment at times--signing Tim Lincecum for $23m being one glaring example.  I have been in the league since September 2010--two seasons and three off-seasons.  The perennial winner of my division has a salary cap which is $52m greater than mine.  I certainly understand the reasons for this:  success = money.  Yet is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources? I am paraphrasing here, but nonetheless, I was dumbstruck when one of our respected members criticized the work of the Padres GM and said that he was not worthy of taking over the Dodgers because there was no evidence that the Padres had improved under his leadership.  That observation was worthy of a "Come on, man!" because we're talking about a team with a payroll of $59.5m!  With no disrespect to the present GM of the Dodgers, maybe the Padres GM would have done things differently during the season and would have had greater success in the playoffs.  I don't ever recall ever reading a prospective game plan--I only remember reading some emotion-laden posts about being stung for the second time and some references to past disciplinary action regarding inactivity--yet the team was given to a GM who had already left the league before.

The point of all this is that we, as a decision-making body, have to give members a chance to self-advocate why their request for transfer would be in the best interests of the league.  They can outline short term and long term goals, give examples of past success, what they see as strengths and weaknesses, and what they need to do to compete for their division title (and therefore become a playoff team).  The merits of the prospective GMs proposal for success is of greater importance to the overall success of the league than a few steadfast rules like how long the team has been vacant or how long a GM has been in the league. 

Is this a subjective approach?  Yes, it is, but if we are going to be given the power to approve transfers of ownership, we have to been able to evaluate something concrete.  We cannot make decisions based on the few talking points that have been presented so far.  As a member of other dynasty organizations, I recall having to fill out a formal league application listing my fantasy resume.  My application was then reviewed by some veteran members and I was offered a team.  Not everyone got a team, yet everyone understood that their acceptance was based on the merits of the things they listed in the application.  Maybe we don't want to be so formal, but if this issue is to be resolved, it has to get beyond the emotionalism that is already starting to surface in the Cubs vacancy. 

My points are not intended to get anyone upset or ask for defensive posts.  I just want to be able to make a decision based on something from each candidate. 

Thanks for reading this--I hope it makes sense.

I don't profess to have the solution to this problem but I have to say that I disagree with Flash's assessment.I will agree that any choice that is made at this point will almost certainly be subjective but I find a lot of fault with his reasoning.
According to this logic we need not even play the game; tie a bow around it and give it to the Yankees. As far as I know they've got the highest payroll. At the very least $53.5M more than mine.They'd play the aforementioned Cubs at $142.5 in the World Payroll Series and undoubtedly win because of the $46.5M salary difference between them and the Cubs.
But we all know that neither the Yankees nor the Cubs made our playoffs this year.
So while success may equal money (to paraphrase Flash), money doesn't necessarily equal success. IMO success in this league equals an understanding of the rules and scoring system, a decent eye for talent and mix in some savvy in trade negotiations. A little dedication doesn't hurt either.  I'm just not sure how to quantify those qualities