ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Topic started by: shooter47 on October 15, 2013, 11:19:28 AM
-
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.
-
I would only support option # 1 with the length of time for the team being vacant being increased from 2 weeks to 3 months.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I agree with #3 being unnecessary for the same reason Colby gave.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Great post.
:iatp:
-
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
-
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
I think you have mistaken the gist of my post. As you point out, in order to be successful in this league, you have to have "an understanding of the rules and scoring system". I am a testament to that. That's why I alluded to my own shortcomings--it's taken me a while to figure things out and get away from the Yahoo mentality I came in with. But I don't want to engage in anymore self-flagellation. I agree with your other points regarding talent, dedication and savvy.
However, my point about success = money was only a reference to the fact that the salary caps we have are based on the past success of our teams. Didn't I make the following point: Is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources? You are actually reinforcing my perspective on this point. The fact that the Yankees and Cubs, teams with large payrolls didn't make the playoffs is worth noting, but it doesn't address the issue at hand.
One of those teams is now vacant, and the other was the subject of the very dilemma we now face, and I certainly didn't want to get bogged down in a series of posts that sidestep what we are trying to accomplish. In addition, we have another vacant team (Chicago White Sox) that needs a new GM. I'm not complaining about the salary cap differences and I'm certainly not trying to say that money is a substitute for expertise. The controversy surrounding the Dodgers change in ownership illustrates why it's necessary to come up with something that is viable and sustaining. The Rules Committee cannot deal in vague generalities anymore when it comes to a transfer of ownership. Since the team in question has a lot of resources and didn't make the playoffs, don't you think it would be a good idea for any GM who is requesting a transfer to outline how he is going to rectify that and why he is worthy of our support? As a body, we voted to allow transfers on the basis that it was for "the good of the league" and now we need to get on with that task.
I believe in this league. It's unique and challenging, but more importantly, it's filled with a lot of good people. I don't want anyone to think I'm tripping because I'm on the Rules Committee or that I think I'm so important. All of you know that I voted against transfers, but since we agreed to allow them, I think it's time to sit down and present something to the league that is acceptable. In an effort to do just that, by the end of the weekend I will submit a draft of something I think might work. As always, it can be tweaked or simply thrown away if the rest of the Committee can't get behind it. However, it's time for us to get it done so we can get a GM for the Cubs (and White Sox.)
Again, I'm not looking to antagonize anyone. If I've struck a nerve or offended anyone, please accept my sincerest apologies. If needed, send me a poison PM and tell me to jump in the lake.
:toth:
-
I think you have mistaken the gist of my post. As you point out, in order to be successful in this league, you have to have "an understanding of the rules and scoring system". I am a testament to that. That's why I alluded to my own shortcomings--it's taken me a while to figure things out and get away from the Yahoo mentality I came in with. But I don't want to engage in anymore self-flagellation. I agree with your other points regarding talent, dedication and savvy.
However, my point about success = money was only a reference to the fact that the salary caps we have are based on the past success of our teams. Didn't I make the following point: Is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources? You are actually reinforcing my perspective on this point. The fact that the Yankees and Cubs, teams with large payrolls didn't make the playoffs is worth noting, but it doesn't address the issue at hand.
One of those teams is now vacant, and the other was the subject of the very dilemma we now face, and I certainly didn't want to get bogged down in a series of posts that sidestep what we are trying to accomplish. In addition, we have another vacant team (Chicago White Sox) that needs a new GM. I'm not complaining about the salary cap differences and I'm certainly not trying to say that money is a substitute for expertise. The controversy surrounding the Dodgers change in ownership illustrates why it's necessary to come up with something that is viable and sustaining. The Rules Committee cannot deal in vague generalities anymore when it comes to a transfer of ownership. Since the team in question has a lot of resources and didn't make the playoffs, don't you think it would be a good idea for any GM who is requesting a transfer to outline how he is going to rectify that and why he is worthy of our support? As a body, we voted to allow transfers on the basis that it was for "the good of the league" and now we need to get on with that task.
I believe in this league. It's unique and challenging, but more importantly, it's filled with a lot of good people. I don't want anyone to think I'm tripping because I'm on the Rules Committee or that I think I'm so important. All of you know that I voted against transfers, but since we agreed to allow them, I think it's time to sit down and present something to the league that is acceptable. In an effort to do just that, by the end of the weekend I will submit a draft of something I think might work. As always, it can be tweaked or simply thrown away if the rest of the Committee can't get behind it. However, it's time for us to get it done so we can get a GM for the Cubs (and White Sox.)
Again, I'm not looking to antagonize anyone. If I've struck a nerve or offended anyone, please accept my sincerest apologies. If needed, send me a poison PM and tell me to jump in the lake.
:toth:
There was no struck nerve here Ernesto. I just wanted to point out (or reemphasize if you like) that patience, prudence and dedication are the rules in a franchise league such as FGM. Especially for a small market team. How do you go about determining that a prospective GM has those qualities? Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page.
-
Seven (7) elements we can judge transfers on:
1) Quality of prospects - who has the best farm?
2) Performance against expectations - if a team had the 27th highest payroll and the finished 22nd that that is a +5, how did the other team do? Another unique way to measure this is look at percentage increase in future caps.
3) Tenure of service with their current team
4) Short term and long term strategy for the team they want
5) Number of posts - shows an element of activity
6) Any FGM awards? GM of the Year candidates should be shoe-ins.
7) Performance of franchise last season
Only #4 is subjective and voted by the RC whereas the rest are scored.
-
Are we not getting off topic? It seems as if we are discussing criterion by which to rate GMs requesting a franchise transfer, rather than voting on the criterion for the transfer.
-
I was under the impression that Internal Transfers are now allowed:
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=115022.10
Please correct me if I'm wrong
-
That's correct, but I am still in favor of making these transfers exceedingly rare to the tune of 1 every 3-4 years at most. To that point, I am only in favor of allowing them as a last resort to filling teams that are vacant for 3 months.
-
Seven (7) elements we can judge transfers on:
1) Quality of prospects - who has the best farm?
2) Performance against expectations - if a team had the 27th highest payroll and the finished 22nd that that is a +5, how did the other team do? Another unique way to measure this is look at percentage increase in future caps.
3) Tenure of service with their current team
4) Short term and long term strategy for the team they want
5) Number of posts - shows an element of activity
6) Any FGM awards? GM of the Year candidates should be shoe-ins.
7) Performance of franchise last season
Only #4 is subjective and voted by the RC whereas the rest are scored.
I think this is a pretty good list of indicators, although I don't necessarily think #5 is a necessary element. I would also like to have a GM requesting a transfer submit a short explanation why granting the transfer is in the best interest of the league. Obviously this becomes more subjective than the points Colby listed, but if someone believes such a transfer is important, they should be able to provide some coherent rationale.
As for Roy's concerns, I don't think we should allow a team to lie dormant for a long period of time. Nor do I think we should rush ourselves and simply accept a warm body to fill a vacancy. If it's important for a GM to be a part of this league, like it is for all of us, it should require some work to be accepted as a member.
With this, I think new GMs should also present an application that includes an analysis that includes an evaluation of the team's roster in terms of strengths and weaknesses (#2, #4 & #7), it's EDRs (#1), and their experience with fantasy baseball contract leagues (#3 & #5). They should also provide an explanation why they would like to be accepted into the league.
Maybe some GMs think this will be too much work, and if that's the case, it's a good indication that their transfer or acceptance isn't really warranted.
-
I think this is a pretty good list of indicators, although I don't necessarily think #5 is a necessary element. I would also like to have a GM requesting a transfer submit a short explanation why granting the transfer is in the best interest of the league. Obviously this becomes more subjective than the points Colby listed, but if someone believes such a transfer is important, they should be able to provide some coherent rationale.
As for Roy's concerns, I don't think we should allow a team to lie dormant for a long period of time. Nor do I think we should rush ourselves and simply accept a warm body to fill a vacancy. If it's important for a GM to be a part of this league, like it is for all of us, it should require some work to be accepted as a member.
With this, I think new GMs should also present an application that includes an analysis that includes an evaluation of the team's roster in terms of strengths and weaknesses (#2, #4 & #7), it's EDRs (#1), and their experience with fantasy baseball contract leagues (#3 & #5). They should also provide an explanation why they would like to be accepted into the league.
Maybe some GMs think this will be too much work, and if that's the case, it's a good indication that their transfer or acceptance isn't really warranted.
I agree with this entire post.
-
Very well said Flash!
-
This discussion has lead to some good points about how to judge potential GM's who request a transfer but is starting to get off topic. We need to determine what situation must occur that would make it possible for a GM to transfer. So far the RC has only passed the case of "for the betterment of the league." This is pretty vague and we need to define what this situation actually is. The RC did not vote to allow internal transfers in all cases.
When I joined the league FGM used a process where GM's applied for an open position and then a vote was held to determine which GM got the position. This worked well however this process can be subjective and can lead to hurt feelings.
I would like to get this issue resolved quickly so we can fill the open positions of the Chicago White Sox and Cubs and get on with the offseason.
-
This discussion has lead to some good points about how to judge potential GM's who request a transfer but is starting to get off topic. We need to determine what situation must occur that would make it possible for a GM to transfer. So far the RC has only passed the case of "for the betterment of the league." This is pretty vague and we need to define what this situation actually is. The RC did not vote to allow internal transfers in all cases.
When I joined the league FGM used a process where GM's applied for an open position and then a vote was held to determine which GM got the position. This worked well however this process can be subjective and can lead to hurt feelings.
I would like to get this issue resolved quickly so we can fill the open positions of the Chicago White Sox and Cubs and get on with the offseason.
I actually think we are on point. The key part of this issue is whether a transfer is "in the best interest of the league.". By it's nature, it has to be a little vague because this is a fluid league and there is no clear cut approach to developing a franchise. All of us have our own unique styles and ways of doing things. This is why I believe it's imperative that a GM requesting a transfer explain why such an action is worthy of support. Just as the MLB has it's "in the best interest of baseball" clause, as a group, the Rules Committee can recognize whether granting the transfer will help or hurt the league.
There is going to be turnover in the league and changes are going to occur. Although we'd like to believe otherwise, team ownership is going to change as GMs experience change in their own lives. We may have new applicants, and the return of some old members, but regardless, we can't be narrow minded enough to believe that a team has to be vacant for a certain period of time or be in shambles for us to allow an existing GM to transfer. By it's very nature, when we say a team can't be filled because there are no qualified applicants, aren't we fooling ourselves a bit? By granting a transfer, don't we now have another opening?
I know the idea of making a "step down clause" has been offered, but is that realistic? Maybe a team looks like a step up, but it has some prohibitive contracts or a poor pool of EDRs. By allowing an existing GM a chance to provide some feedback about how the team would look under his leadership and why such a plan will make the team stronger--isn't that what we want? Isn't it in the best interest of the league to have a team run more efficiently? As a result, we utilize the vague to make something concrete and viable.
I trust the experience and expertise of the members of the Rules Committee to evaluate a GMs Transfer Action Plan and decide if it meets the spirit of our "in the best interests of the league" clause.
-
I believe we should look at this on a case by case basis. I think we are over complicating this. If somebody internally wants to transfer then lets look at all the factors and the transfer reasons and we will make a decision. I know we want to get this right but this is dragging out a little too long.
-
Why don't we for the sake of simplicity say that any internal transfer must involve ALL THREE conditions originally suggested in the beginning of this thread?
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).
My only suggestion would be to lengthen the time that the team is vacant from 2 weeks to 3 months. I fear that allowing this issue to be decided on a case by case basis would open the door to far more internal transfers than was ever intended in previous rulings by the RC.
-
Since I've already given my opinion that internal transfers should not be allowed, it's difficult for me to rule on what the conditions should be to allow them.
With that being said and owing the RC an opinion, I'll go along with Roy's assessment. This process has taken entirely too long; something need to be done.
-
The RC has gotten off topic on this subject. The RC only voted to allow internal transfers for the betterment of the league. This is a vague phrase so I am trying to provide concrete rules that will allow us to determine what constitutes as a special case for internal transfers. At this point it doesn't matter how we determine if a GM is eligible if we can't determine what situation we will allow a transfer for the betterment of the league. The following will be the ruling for determining what situation needs to occur to allow an internal transfer unless there is a strong objection by a majority of the RC.
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.
Shooter
-
If those are the options, I vote yes
-
I agree on both fronts, but if I were afforded a tweak I'd use total points instead of records to determine a " step down."
-
That's correct, but I am still in favor of making these transfers exceedingly rare to the tune of 1 every 3-4 years at most. To that point, I am only in favor of allowing them as a last resort to filling teams that are vacant for 3 months.
Agree