ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Topic started by: rcankosy on May 06, 2013, 08:08:31 AM
-
I have already decided that all future league openings will be decided by the RC. THat said, I see 3 critical questions that must be answered once and for all:
1. Should internal transfers be allowed to fill team openings going forward?
2. If yes, how should existing league members candidacies' be weighed against one another?
3. Regardless of the answer to # 1, how should candidates in general be judged against one another.
We will start by having the RC rule on question # 1 in a separate post.
-
I have already decided that all future league openings will be decided by the RC. THat said, I see 3 critical questions that must be answered once and for all:
1. Should internal transfers be allowed going forward?
2. If yes, how should existing league members candidacies' be weighed against one another?
3. Regardless of the answer to # 1, how should candidates in general be judged against one another.
We will start by having the RC rule on question # 1 in a separate post.
1) Yes, internal transfers should be allowed once every five years and a maximum of three times. This also means that a person can only manage up to three different teams.
2) H2H-categories with three categories: Tenure with franchise, franchise performance, franchise performance vs. expected performance (if team had 29th highest cap and they finish 27th then that is a +2 in expectations).
3) I answered that with #2, but for external hires, we should use time on the waiting list, # of posts per month at ProFSL, and a rating of past performances in MLB and/or FGM as the three roto-categories. Only one is subjective and that is the last one.
-
1) Yes, internal transfers should be allowed once every five years and a maximum of three times. This also means that a person can only manage up to three different teams.
2) H2H-categories with three categories: Tenure with franchise, franchise performance, franchise performance vs. expected performance (if team had 29th highest cap and they finish 27th then that is a +2 in expectations).
3) I answered that with #2, but for external hires, we should use time on the waiting list, # of posts per month at ProFSL, and a rating of past performances in MLB and/or FGM as the three roto-categories. Only one is subjective and that is the last one.
I think this sounds perfect and I answered how I feel about internal transfers in the other thread. Similar w slightly shorter timelines
-
I would like to add a few more points in defense of eliminating internal transfers altogether.
1. We would eliminate the inevitable hurt feelings by owners on the short end of transfer requests. I firmly believe that no matter how hard we try to be objective about it, we will lose league members in the future who do not agree with the RC's decisions. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
2. It is simply not necessary, and we have proof of it. The Oakland As in our own league have been the model franchise for small market teams. The second example is the Padres in Moneyball when their GM was JMACisBACK.
It would be one thing if we had to sell tickets or convince our owners to increase our cap space or approve trades, but neither is necessary. Our caps go up as we win, although I will admit it is a slow process that should perhaps be reviewed in the near future.
Moreover, it may take a while for prospects to pan out, but you can usually flip a decent prospect for good value right off the bat if you were so inclined.
-
People like to run their favorite teams, so I get the part about internal transfers to a degree. I think if we put strict limits on them and have a valuation determination that I proposed then it will be a straight forward process.
-
I personally have never been in favor of internal transfers, but see why they can occasionally be good for the league (ex: Jake turning the Nats around when no one wanted them). I do not think it should be a common occurrence or something an owners aspires towards like a promotion. Your job is to make your team a contender, not prepare your resume to then win with someone else's team.
Do we need special rules for internal transfers versus hiring external managers? Why not just let all managers apply and either the Commish or RC can vote on who to hire. We can be transparent with the criteria candidates will be evaluated by and why we vote the way we do. Sure this leaves some subjectivity to it and people may get upset, but the premise of the RC is to have league elected people represent the best interests of the league (ie: if the league as a whole is unhappy with the RC decisions, they should elect new RC members).
-
I personally have never been in favor of internal transfers, but see why they can occasionally be good for the league (ex: Jake turning the Nats around when no one wanted them). I do not think it should be a common occurrence or something an owners aspires towards like a promotion. Your job is to make your team a contender, not prepare your resume to then win with someone else's team.
Do we need special rules for internal transfers versus hiring external managers? Why not just let all managers apply and either the Commish or RC can vote on who to hire. We can be transparent with the criteria candidates will be evaluated by and why we vote the way we do. Sure this leaves some subjectivity to it and people may get upset, but the premise of the RC is to have league elected people represent the best interests of the league (ie: if the league as a whole is unhappy with the RC decisions, they should elect new RC members).
We tried combining internal and external transfers with the Dodgers and it left us with this mess. Therefore, I have proposed that we vote on internal transfers first, because it guides all of the other decisions. You are free to correct me if I am wrong, but I took your comments as a no vote to question # 1.
The vote stands at 2-2 for allowing internal transfers. I am not trying to rush anyone, but I would like this vote wrapped up by tomorrow evening.
-
who are you missing if you don't mind me asking
-
By the way, I consider taking over a team that NO ONE wants (i.e. Corey leaving the Yanks for the Mets) to be an entirely different circumstance and should not be confused with the matter at hand when voting for question # 1.
-
who are you missing if you don't mind me asking
The RC is comprised of the following.
Colby (Colby)
Ben (Brewers GM)
Dan (Dan Wood)
Roy (rcankosy)
Mike (VolsRaysBucs)
Bob (Shooter 47)
Freddy (kungfuwig)
We are waiting on Dan, Mike, and Bob to cast their votes.
-
Thanks Roy
-
Our focus should be on adding and keeping high quality owners and keeping them active. If in some circumstances an internal transfer is needed to accomplish that, like for example Rob decides he's bored of the A's and wants a new challenge, then I'd be in favor of letting him transfer to keep a great owner around and engaged. So I am in favor of internal transfers as a special case.
-
FWIW, the nature of the RC is to have a representative from each division and each type of market plus a 7th member to make it an odd-numbered team. I think our RC is very fair and logical, but we are biased toward small markets and have no representation from the NL West or NL East.
Colby (Colby) :PIT:
Ben (Brewers GM) :MIL:
Dan (Dan Wood) :CIN:
Roy (rcankosy) :TEX:
Mike (VolsRaysBucs) :TB:
Bob (Shooter 47) :BAL:
Freddy (kungfuwig) :KC:
-
Our focus should be on adding and keeping high quality owners and keeping them active. If in some circumstances an internal transfer is needed to accomplish that, like for example Rob decides he's bored of the A's and wants a new challenge, then I'd be in favor of letting him transfer to keep a great owner around and engaged. So I am in favor of internal transfers as a special case.
Your point is duly noted, though Rob could trade teams with 28 other owners if he was truly bored :)
To clarify, we are voting on whether to allow internal transfers as a regular practice of filling team openings. In special cases, internal transfers may be approved, but that is NOT the context of the current vote.
-
FWIW, the nature of the RC is to have a representative from each division and each type of market plus a 7th member to make it an odd-numbered team. I think our RC is very fair and logical, but we are biased toward small markets and have no representation from the NL West or NL East.
Colby (Colby) :PIT:
Ben (Brewers GM) :MIL:
Dan (Dan Wood) :CIN:
Roy (rcankosy) :TEX:
Mike (VolsRaysBucs) :TB:
Bob (Shooter 47) :BAL:
Freddy (kungfuwig) :KC:
This can be addressed in the future by adding 2 more RC members. For example, we would have an odd number of 9 if we added 1 from the NL East and 1 from the NL West.
-
We added a 7th member a while back for that very reason...
We all know my feelings on the current status on hiring GMs. I don't think people should be allowed to move unless granted specific permission. That is just my two cents. Some time it is hard to fill a certain team and if a GM wants to take on a rebuild I am all for that.
-
The current vote stands 3-2 against transfers except in special and extremely rare cases. 2 more votes from Mike and Bob, and we can put this one to bed.
-
I am in favor of nixing internal transfers. If you accept the job of GM of a team, that should be your team during your time in FGM. I would be open to discussing a hard set of parameter ala what Colby proposed, but in an effort to clear this issue up asap, I will cast my vote as a hard no against internal transfers.
-
That's a wrap folks, since we have 4 votes against internal transfers when considering league openings.
Now, we will move on to the criteria for deciding outside applicants.
Many thanks to all who voted so promptly.
-
Even though it has already beend finalized My vote is for internal transfers. I personally wouldn't want to transfer teams but some owners may wish too. With that said I dont think current FGM owners should have priority over outsiders. When a position is open interested parties should apply and go through an interview type process and then voted on by a committe.
-
Your point is duly noted, though Rob could trade teams with 28 other owners if he was truly bored :)
To clarify, we are voting on whether to allow internal transfers as a regular practice of filling team openings. In special cases, internal transfers may be approved, but that is NOT the context of the current vote.
Is me applying for LAD not a special case? Am I now to remain in SD until I leave this league? Is that how this whole thing got handled?
-
The RC voted to limit internal transfers and allow them on a case-by-case basis. It appears there are two primary qualifications:
1) A proven GM wants to downgrade by moving to a bad team in order to rebuild the franchise for the betterment of the league.
2) A GM wants to move to their favorite franchise.
In any case, your Dodgers application fails those two principals (which should go into the rules as the two key guidelines with acceptable internal transfers). Boston would be the likely choice for you, but that means nerwffej needs to have a qualifying transfer.
-
The RC voted to limit internal transfers and allow them on a case-by-case basis. It appears there are two primary qualifications:
1) A proven GM wants to downgrade by moving to a bad team in order to rebuild the franchise for the betterment of the league.
2) A GM wants to move to their favorite franchise.
In any case, your Dodgers application fails those two principals (which should go into the rules as the two key guidelines with acceptable internal transfers). Boston would be the likely choice for you, but that means nerwffej needs to have a qualifying transfer.
This is all done while there was an open vote for the dodgers that I was winning. It's out of order. The 'no internal transfers rule' was rushed through once it was seen I had 3 votes for a transfer. Roy you didn't like the rules so you changed it once, from the rules that had always been...to a vote for the job....I had three votes and you changed the rules again to completely take me out of it...MT had already thought I won the job. Where is the sanity in this? What did I do to be chopped out of transfers? It's been known I have wanted a transfer to a team I prefer for quite some time. Why is this brand new rule being implemented to rob me? Am I a bad guy? Should I not get the same courteousy as the other members who have transferred for whatever reason they imagined?
This all would have been a non issue had a member of the league not gone out and asked people who's turn it wasn't to come in and apply for the job. Who took that upon themselves is an interesting piece to the puzzle? Who wanted Rick here so they asked him? This is exactly the situation that happened to me with NYY and Corey had already brought OUDAN as the replacement before it was offered internally. The total lack of respect for myself as a manager in this league for 3 years is utterly crushing. I never quit this league and wouldn't think of doing so even after this slap to my face. Roy rammed through his agenda...in a 3-4 vote. Those 4 people just spoke for 30 people on an issue no small oligarchy should decide. Disrespectful to this league as a whole.
And Roy, your management style on this issue has been questionable. Why change that clear rule midstream? Why make a vote for the dodgers job that had me at 3 votes and not follow through? Why suggest a rule that eliminates me from the problem and becomes an end around to the issue rather than managing the issue like it deserved (I had many valid points that were no longer meaningful because the discussion now cant involve me, like I don't count). Why is our administrator voting on issues? Shouldn't we seperate the rules and the Admin? Maybe he should have a voice but no vote? Maybe rules shouldn't be decided by a 4 person majority when the league has 30 members? Maybe there should have been accountability for the job posting becoming a feeding frenzy rather than handled appropriately?
This whole situation has me sick to my stomach. Go :SD: Padres...Rah Rah Rah! And just watch out all you fools who questioned my Padres. Baez has 21 RBI...in May.
-
It's not an issue of a mid-stream change of protocol for hiring. With the questions surrounding how to fill the Dodgers, and all of the other teams that opened up in the past week, there was a clear need for direction. Roy put the hiring on hold, sought the RC for legislation, and now there is a clear direction (although more subjective than I anticipated).
-
It's not an issue of a mid-stream change of protocol for hiring. With the questions surrounding how to fill the Dodgers, and all of the other teams that opened up in the past week, there was a clear need for direction. Roy put the hiring on hold, sought the RC for legislation, and now there is a clear direction (although more subjective than I anticipated).
It is an issue of midstream change. The change occurred twice as well. The consent was given by the RC (those who voted) and by Roy as the Admin (by creating the format) to use a vote to decide the Dodgers and specifically the Dodgers. Then when the votes were 3 for me the rules were changed again. This is clearly the case. I am not making any subjective statements, bar the first (possibly).
The rules were specifically written knowing that it would exclude me, without thought for grandfathering or any other such. Then passed by a small oligarchy, in a tight controversial vote. The issue however, had already been subjected to a vote by consent of the league. Now for the Nationals and any team not already having an OPEN vote should have to go by the rules. But there was already a VOTE on the floor, everything else is out of order. Or is this a Bananana Republic?
-
Its a great rule. Roy and the RC handled it correctly and timely.
The new rule is for the betterment of the league.
Good job guys.
-
Its a great rule. Roy and the RC handled it correctly and timely.
The new rule is for the betterment of the league.
Good job guys.
Are you in this league?
-
Yep. And proud that the RC made the right choice.
-
Yep. And proud that the RC made the right choice.
I thought you quit in a big huff and puff about the Dodgers situation?
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?action=post;quote=520465;topic=94699.0
-
I thought you quit in a big huff and puff about the Dodgers situation?
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?action=post;quote=520465;topic=94699.0
I would have resigned and stayed resigned if the rules were not changed for the betterment of the league, there is no doubt about that.
But since the league made the important decision to improve its future, than I will stay.
-
The RC voted to limit internal transfers and allow them on a case-by-case basis. It appears there are two primary qualifications:
1) A proven GM wants to downgrade by moving to a bad team in order to rebuild the franchise for the betterment of the league.
2) A GM wants to move to their favorite franchise.
In any case, your Dodgers application fails those two principals (which should go into the rules as the two key guidelines with acceptable internal transfers). Boston would be the likely choice for you, but that means nerwffej needs to have a qualifying transfer.
I think we should consider appending another clause to this rule. Internal managers should only be able to transfer if they meet one of the above criteria AND have a replacement for their current position that the hiring committee approves of.
-
I think we should consider appending another clause to this rule. Internal managers should only be able to transfer if they meet one of the above criteria AND have a replacement for their current position that the hiring committee approves of.
I think that's a bad rule, it sets up collusion quite easily. It's like a kingdoms passed from father to son. Only the father is still alive and the son is a stooge for the father. In a cool medieval representation of the situation.
-
I think that's a bad rule, it sets up collusion quite easily. It's like a kingdoms passed from father to son. Only the father is still alive and the son is a stooge for the father. In a cool medieval representation of the situation.
The TC should be able to eliminate any collusion issues.
-
I like the RC being able to decide things than just leaving it all on the commissioner.
Agree with Vols as well, the TC SHOULD solve collusion.
-
The TC should be able to eliminate any collusion issues.
I guess I am asking why it's a better way than say just opening the job to a group from the waiting list?
-
I guess I am asking why it's a better way than say just opening the job to a group from the waiting list?
It just means making sure there is someone on the list who a) wants the team and b) the league would be willing to vote in.
-
It just means making sure there is someone on the list who a) wants the team and b) the league would be willing to vote in.
I'm not sure that I understand how the method of having a owner who is transitioning pick the next owner is better than just going by the waiting list. Could you please explain the superiority?
-
The departing owner would not hand pick their successor, the RC would still pick the new GM as normal. The suggestion is only that such an agreeable replacement must exist before an internal GM can transfer.