ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: GM & Team News => Topic started by: rcankosy on May 01, 2013, 11:26:48 PM
-
Please apply here for the Los Angeles Dodgers if you are interested.
Thanks,
Roy
-
I would be interested in taking over the Dodgers. I'm familiar with the scoring format, depth of league, and have always been a fan of Magic. :koolaid:
I can provide any other additional information if needed.
~MTK
-
I would also be interested in the :LAD:
LMK if you need any other information.
Eric
-
Please consider me as a GM to fill the vacancy in Los Angeles. Having just come out of retirement I would like to get back into the league where I got my start on ProFSL.
Thanks,
Rick
-
I would be interested in taking over the Dodgers.
-
I have interest in moving to the NL and taking over the dodgers
-
I have interest in moving to the NL and taking over the dodgers
Your mean u have interest in escaping the wrath of :NYY: in the AL East
-
I have interest in moving to the NL and taking over the dodgers
If he moves, I would also be interested in my :BOS: :thumbsup:
-
Your mean u have interest in escaping the wrath of :NYY: in the AL East
lol that does make Boston job slightly challenging to compete with deep pocket Yankees especially since taking over fighting lowered payroll. That said I have always been a NL fan would like to jump there instead of AL
-
lol that does make Boston job slightly challenging to compete with deep pocket Yankees especially since taking over fighting lowered payroll. That said I have always been a NL fan would like to jump there instead of AL
Yeah I know, but I would be up for the challenge :) Plus I will always take the change to get my team :thumbsup:
-
Padres are pitching my name for the Dodgers position. I have the seniority against everyone posted so far, according to the rules set forth prior. That being said, when the offer comes in I still love the Padres that will become in 1-2 years. So I'm mixed. But if the Dodgers are available I want them.
-
Please consider me as a GM to fill the vacancy in Los Angeles. Having just come out of retirement I would like to get back into the league where I got my start on ProFSL.
Thanks,
Rick
100000% support. Should have been given the Dodgers last time they were open.
-
I agree with Corey
-
100000% support. Should have been given the Dodgers last time they were open.
I agree that Rick should be given another team, but I don't think that it should be over me for the Dodgers. I haven't left the league, and have the longest tenure without absence. My tenure with the Padres has been good and that's with a team that is one of the hardest position within the entire league, low cap and bad roster when I got there.
-
Furthermore, according to the rules it really isn't a question. Unless one of the few people above me choose to take the position the issue is solved after a 72hr period from the posting.
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=22876.msg115882#msg115882
-
Just saying Rick should have been givin the Dodgers a long time ago. Thus, I think he should get them.
-
Just saying Rick should have been givin the Dodgers a long time ago. Thus, I think he should get them.
I wanted the Yankees back when you vacated them but that didn't happen either. Then this system was set up to avoid issues as such. I've got more than enough reasons for why I should have the gig, but yet you don't say a thing about it. It's exactly why new managers cannot be left to popular choice but should be selected through the process determined.
Any issue with that rule can be taken care of from here on out. But I am as far as I can tell the next one in line for that gig, according to the rules.
-
Exceptions can happen tho. We have all made them, but I am sure the commish with choose the right guy for the job :thumbsup:
-
I wanted the Yankees back when you vacated them but that didn't happen either. Then this system was set up to avoid issues as such. I've got more than enough reasons for why I should have the gig, but yet you don't say a thing about it. It's exactly why new managers cannot be left to popular choice but should be selected through the process determined.
Any issue with that rule can be taken care of from here on out. But I am as far as I can tell the next one in line for that gig, according to the rules.
curious what rule makes as you have expressed top of the line I thought length in the league was top. I am interested where the link to the rule is even at
-
curious what rule makes as you have expressed top of the line I thought length in the league was top. I am interested where the link to the rule is even at
As of 6/3/11, by executive ruling of the Commissioner, the league is having a strict policy on allowing GMs to move from one franchise to another. All GM openings will initially go internal with a 72 hour period for existing GMs to apply to the job. If there are no applications then the position will be filled from someone on the waiting list or external posting with the best applicant being given the position. Internal transfers are allowed for GMs who have served with their existing franchise for nine or more months. GMs who have less than one year of service with their franchise, but more than nine months are not guaranteed the ability to move to another team, but will be considered based on their activity in the league. All of these dates have been kept in the franchise histories that are contained in the Official Team Threads.
Internal transfers will be granted to GMs who have served the longest with their existing franchise. Tiebreakers (considered for seven day or less difference between two or more GMs) is handled by then looking at continuous FGM tenure and then overall FGM tenure. The next tiebreakers are subjective and are based on how the MLB team has improved in record under each GM’s leadership. Non-FGM, ProFSL experience only aids as a last tiebreaker. If you know you are out of the running for a team you really want then feel free to ask the other internal applicants to step aside and please give them great reasons for doing so.
:PIT: Colby (Colby) 7/1/09
:CLE: Chad Lidwin (clidwin) 7/1/09
:MIL: Ben Yergey (Brewers GM) 7/23/09
:CIN: Dan Wood (Dan Wood) 10/18/09
:STL: Paul Smithey (Paul S.) 10/19/09
:OAK: Rob Miller (MillerTime) 10/22/09
:TEX: Roy Cankosyan (rcankosy) 10/22/09
:HOU: Kent Squakes (ksquakes) 10/29/09
:TOR: Daniel Valensi (Daniel) 12/2/09
:TB: Mike Bailey (VolsRaysBucs) 2/19/10
:KC: Freddy Wander (kungfuwig) 2/25/10
:WAS: Jake Douglas (Jake) 3/18/10 (joined FGM 7/1/09 as Angels GM)
:MIN: Mark Cody (28) 5/12/10
:SD: Chris Calcia (joeshmoe) 5/25/10
:ARZ: Omar Molina (MOLI643) 6/3/10
:SEA: Matt Douglas (dougy12) 7/30/10
Following GMs are almost here for a year, but have served at least nine months garnering them the ability to move to a new franchise if they were a proven and active GM.
:DET: Hank Chang (hank) 9/21/10 (joined FGM 12/4/09 as Marlins GM)
:BOS: Jeff Wren (nerwffej) 9/21/10 (joined FGM 2/12/10 as Tigers GM)
:FL: Samuel Molina (molinator) 9/21/10
:PHI: Chris Pappalardo (papps) 9/27/10 (joined FGM 6/30/10 as Giants GM)
:SF: Ernesto Quiroz (Flash) 9/27/10
Following GMs are not eligible for moving to another franchise just yet. They need to have more tenure with their existing franchises. This list, and these bars, are updated whenever there is turnover, so there is a potential for some the bars to be out of date
:CHC: Kris Doughery (KDoc09) 11/11/10 (had previous, non-continuing, stint with Giants 10/22/09 – 6/18/10)
:LAA: Dave Martin (tarheels55) 4/6/11
:BAL: Bob Smith (shooter47) 5/1/11
:NYM: Corey Ramsey (Corey) 5/11/11 (joined FGM 7/19/10 as Yankees GM)
:NYY: Daniel Pruett (ltd217) 5/12/11
:LAD: Howe Cheng (h4cheng) 6/2/11 (joined FGM 10/29/09 as Rockies GM)
:COL: Reid Beard (fantasyguru) 6/8/11
:CHW: Jason Harnack (bigbenxl786) 7/11/11
:ATL: Nick Fender (NickF) 8/16/10
Straight from the horses mouth, http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=22876.msg115882#msg115882
Very few people are actually eligible before me when it comes to transfers.
-
Not popularity by any means or I would back Aubrey, as he and I communicate very often.
Couldnt disagree more with the set up. What have you proven with the Padres? Nothing team is still losing cap and cant compete.
Jeff has totally turned around the Red Sox, and would deserve a chance to get a better team. So I can see where he thinks he should move up.
I simply backed Rick, because he was robbed of :LAD: the first time.
Chris, going by the rules you should been replaced twice for inactivity.
-
Here is a thread where the Padres were open for replacement due to inactivity.
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=35276.0
So if we go by the actual rules... Which we should not, the tenure of the Padres needs to be changed.
-
I was commish at the time. The Padres were vacated due to lack of activity.
But that isn't the issue at hand as far as I see it. The issue at hand is that we have a chance to correct a wrong that happened in the past. It's not a question a rules, it's a question of right.
Corey is correct, this has nothing to do with popularity. I have begged Rick to come back to this league on several occasions. His addition is good for this league.
This is not to disparage Chris at all, this is just to give my support to Rick.
-
Not popularity by any means or I would back Aubrey, as he and I communicate very often.
Couldnt disagree more with the set up. What have you proven with the Padres? Nothing team is still losing cap and cant compete.
Jeff has totally turned around the Red Sox, and would deserve a chance to get a better team. So I can see where he thinks he should move up.
I simply backed Rick, because he was robbed of :LAD: the first time.
Chris, going by the rules you should been replaced twice for inactivity.
I may have been absent for a period, but clearly I wasn't replaced and have always been active. The other instance was at the end of the season, before the MLB had even finished (and going through a bad breakup; all documented).
To blatantly insult my management is ridiculous. I took a team strapped in cap, with almost no starters and a bleak future. The time frame for them to be a winner was never 2-3 years. It has fantastic spects and a bright future. I know this isn't a popularity contest but it sure seems that way.
As far as knocking Boston I won't do it. But to suggest Boston and San Diego were in the same shape is a joke. San Diego sat vacated due to the roster being so bad when I came and picked it up. Nobody wanted it. Boston has double the cap, which is much easier to navigate.
First issue, the position is opened internally and then if not filled it is open to external members. The only current member is me. Discussion of Aubrey or Rick or Eric isn't even on the board until the position is passed over by members. That's exactly what's happening here. I am laying claim, as an existing member. To skip over me is to blatantly ignore a procedure to deal with just this and to prevent hard feelings.
And although Rick was passed over for the opportunity in LAD before, I was passed over for the opportunity for NYY because the deal was set up and presented by Corey without any opportunity for those who had already put time into this league. Hence the procedure. The only way to prevent hard feelings is to follow the rule.
-
Chris, going by the rules you should been replaced twice for inactivity.
When is the second time, other than october 2011? Hasn't been an issue with my roster since!
-
I was commish at the time. The Padres were vacated due to lack of activity.
But that isn't the issue at hand as far as I see it. The issue at hand is that we have a chance to correct a wrong that happened in the past. It's not a question a rules, it's a question of right.
Corey is correct, this has nothing to do with popularity. I have begged Rick to come back to this league on several occasions. His addition is good for this league.
This is not to disparage Chris at all, this is just to give my support to Rick.
A chance to right what wrong? No offense but Rick quit the league. I don't see anything wrong with saying the guy that quit has to be behind the guy that stuck with it. I don't see what isn't right about my claim to change teams and take the opportunity available.
-
I never said anything about your roster I said you have had issues with activity. I honestly believe that on three occasions you have gone 30 days plus with no activity so that would be a violation and each time you should be replaced.
-
He left because he was thoroughly screwed over the first time the Dodgers became available. So Dan is right this is the perfect time to right a wrong and allowed Rick to have the Dodgers like he should have had all along
-
I never said anything about your roster I said you have had issues with activity. I honestly believe that on three occasions you have gone 30 days plus with no activity so that would be a violation and each time you should be replaced.
Believing doesn't make its true. I was active all season last year, although my roster had almost no substitutes, not enough players. I was active for two complete draft, deep into this last one. And I was active through two FA periods. Again not inactive. And the number keeps growing, from 2-3...it's all hogwash outside of Oct. 2011 which was solved and I was awarded the team back due to merit (otherwise I wouldn't have been back).
And if you didn't discuss my roster, why bring up Boston and how he's worthy of a new team. It's because you were saying I haven't done enough with the Padres so I don't deserve a new team.
He left because he was thoroughly screwed over the first time the Dodgers became available. So Dan is right this is the perfect time to right a wrong and allowed Rick to have the Dodgers like he should have had all along
And although Rick was skipped over that's not my fault and I can't be punished for it. Furthermore, quit because of it. Had I quit over NYY to OUDAN I wouldn't expect the league to bend over backwards and change the rules. Finally, the discussion isn't even opened to Rick until the internal members choose not to take the position. So any discussion of Rick is uncalled for. The order of the situation is set up this way. I'm sorry for Rick but I won't step aside and not claim the Dodgers. I want to transfer and it's my choice before anyone but the few above me on the list.
Had Rick accepted it before and stuck it out, he would have had priority over me. But he didn't.
-
Ya know, the more I've sat here and thought about it..."two wrongs doesn't make a right" the argument of fixing a wrong that happened to Rick means another wrong occurs to me, or whoever else above me decides to put in for the job. So what is that I get for being wronged? If this league is concerned about wrongs and judges based on this, I will be wronged exactly as Rick was wronged. It's okay to wrong me to fix the same wrong committed before? May I quit the league and get first dibs on whatever team I decide is right for me to come out of retirement for? Then everyone else who would have applied for that job will be wronged? It's illogical from the root of it.
-
I think this comes down to joeshmoe and BHows. People always lose in these application processes, and Rick lost unfairly the last time the Dodgers were open which is why a formal process was put into place. I think we owe this to Rick because of what happened. Ironic that the same team is open for him. There is another strong opening for joeshmoe with the Nationals, and he would be the best candidate for that internal transfer. This would leave the Padres, a franchise which needs TLC and patience, to one of the aspiring outsiders. Those who have served their time, or been screwed, get the ability to take solid franchises such as :LAD: and :WAS:.
-
I think this comes down to joeshmoe and BHows. People always lose in these application processes, and Rick lost unfairly the last time the Dodgers were open which is why a formal process was put into place. I think we owe this to Rick because of what happened. Ironic that the same team is open for him. There is another strong opening for joeshmoe with the Nationals, and he would be the best candidate for that internal transfer. This would leave the Padres, a franchise which needs TLC and patience, to one of the aspiring outsiders. Those who have served their time, or been screwed, get the ability to take solid franchises such as :LAD: and :WAS:.
I don't want any team...I waited for the teams I would like to run. I was wronged way before Rick when I was skipped for the Yankees. If we're correcting wrongs it's my team before Ricks. If we're going by sticking it out, I didn't drop the league because I didn't get the team I wanted (NYY) I stayed, isn't that to be rewarded? I didn't quit and expect a cushioned spot when I decided I was ready. And if both franchises are both so solid rick should have no issue representing WAS.
-
I think this comes down to joeshmoe and BHows. People always lose in these application processes, and Rick lost unfairly the last time the Dodgers were open which is why a formal process was put into place. I think we owe this to Rick because of what happened. Ironic that the same team is open for him. There is another strong opening for joeshmoe with the Nationals, and he would be the best candidate for that internal transfer. This would leave the Padres, a franchise which needs TLC and patience, to one of the aspiring outsiders. Those who have served their time, or been screwed, get the ability to take solid franchises such as :LAD: and :WAS:.
I think being allowed back into a league that he quit, jumping over the rest of the waiting list, and getting any team left open is a good start. And again, no Washington will not fix me being wronged and robbed. And this is the second time, NYY now LAD. And, nobody has said one word about how this isn't even open to Rick until its passed through internal transfers. Any word about this at all? Can we count on this league upholding its rules or is there disregard for this completely? Which rules count and when let me know in advanced. This way I wont waste three years waiting for a transfer to believe the rules would be followed only to find out favorites would be played.
-
I am carefully weighing all the factors here, but I believe that a commissioner's "executive order" falls short of an official rule, especially when considering that it was not passed by the Rules Committee at the time.
-
I'll respect any decision that Roy makes. It is a subjective matter and I gave my opinion. Note that I didn't even mention the qualified applicants including the likes of Eric and MTK.
-
3 times is correct, and not hogwash. Give me a day since I am at a fundraiser and I will provide the dates of your inactivity for over 30 days on all 3 occasions. You also have behavioral warnings for rude conduct on many occasions toward members of this site. This conduct was done on the boards and via pm. So once again Jeff and Rick have proved a track record of good behavior.
Jeff took a bad team and made them winners. You took a bad team and havent improved. So jeff would be more qualified.
Once again either way I support Rick to be the next gm. No doubt about it.
-
Oh and dont waste 3 years waiting for a transfer. Use the 3 years to make a winning team.
-
3 times is correct, and not hogwash. Give me a day since I am at a fundraiser and I will provide the dates of your inactivity for over 30 days on all 3 occasions. You also have behavioral warnings for rude conduct on many occasions toward members of this site. This conduct was done on the boards and via pm. So once again Jeff and Rick have proved a track record of good behavior.
Jeff took a bad team and made them winners. You took a bad team and havent improved. So jeff would be more qualified.
Once again either way I support Rick to be the next gm. No doubt about it.
1) Take your day
2) Red sox have 2x the payroll...apples and oranges.
3) Behavior is irrelevant here. Rick quit a league because he lost out on a team. Not stellar behavior. It's rose colored glasses for everything you say Corey because we haven't gotten along over many occasions. I don't think rehashing it on here is appropriate.
-
Oh and dont waste 3 years waiting for a transfer. Use the 3 years to make a winning team.
childish...protected with all his comments because of his position on the site...and he's not playing favorites...
-
I am carefully weighing all the factors here, but I believe that a commissioner's "executive order" falls short of an official rule, especially when considering that it was not passed by the Rules Committee at the time.
What did make it a rule was the consistent use of it as a meter for transfers since.
-
1. I will
2. You can still improve which you havent.
. Not irrelevant you brought up someone quitting so I brought your past behavior and behavioral warnings. Ive said many times its not personal. Simply stating why Rick and Jeff are more qualified.
-
childish...protected with all his comments because of his position on the site...and he's not playing favorites...
Nothing about this is bad or childish. Simple advice for any fantasy player. You should always try to improve and not wait for a transfer
-
1. I will
2. You can still improve which you havent.
. Not irrelevant you brought up someone quitting so I brought your past behavior and behavioral warnings. Ive said many times its not personal. Simply stating why Rick and Jeff are more qualified.
Saying I haven't improved is a blind eye. The team that has increased it's top 100 prospect count? Increasing payroll after it was destroyed by those before me. And by fielding a full roster without trading away my farm through disasterous trade offers? Pretty good by my standards. Baez is going to be gold, Soler is still top 100, Meyers looks nasty, I salvaged Scheppers who is looking great this season, Swarzak and Parra is going off after I fielded horrid offers and decided to hold. I think I'm doing okay for where the Padres were.
Your Mets, loosing salary like water out of a leaky faucet. It's been your incredible cap space which has hidden and allowed you to cut the bad signings. I don't have it, and I couldn't field a team if I were to do it that way. Instead it's a different game for a team like the Padres. I don't see how the Padres haven't improved, I just don't.
And anyone who thought the only way to build a team is through trading and spending on lavish free agent retreads...I like drafting talent well and signing good prospects; Maness the control freak for example?
To say I haven't improved is to not know where and how to look.
-
Nothing about this is bad or childish. Simple advice for any fantasy player. You should always try to improve and not wait for a transfer
You took my words, and twisted them to mean that I haven't been working to build a better club. It's cleverly vailed but the message is clear. I meant that I waited to change clubs because there have been many openings. I wanted to wait for the right fit. Not quite the same thing.
-
In my opinion, the tradition of this league has been that the Commissioner has acted as the interpreter of rules in place rather than someone who has created new rules himself. In this case, what we have to fall back on is an executive ruling by a former Commissioner that was not formally approved by the Rules Committee. While important in terms of precedent, I do not believe that it constitutes a hard rule for determining the process by which new owners of vacant teams are selected. Furthermore, I do not believe that future commissioners are bound by Colby's executive ruling. Rather, the Rules Committee should formally ratify the executive ruling proposed by Colby or create a new process entirely. In the meantime, I fully understand that a decision needs to be made here.
Therefore, I am placing the decision of who will become the future owner of the Dodgers squarely in the lap of the Rules Committee. I will create a new post whereby the Rules Committee will vote on who will be the future owner of the Dodgers.
-
In my opinion, the tradition of this league has been that the Commissioner has acted as the interpreter of rules in place rather than someone who has created new rules himself. In this case, what we have to fall back on is an executive ruling by a former Commissioner that was not formally approved by the Rules Committee. While important in terms of precedent, I do not believe that it constitutes a hard rule for determining the process by which new owners of vacant teams are selected. Furthermore, I do not believe that future commissioners are bound by Colby's executive ruling. Rather, the Rules Committee should formally ratify the executive ruling proposed by Colby or create a new process entirely. In the meantime, I fully understand that a decision needs to be made here.
Therefore, I am placing the decision of who will become the future owner of the Dodgers squarely in the lap of the Rules Committee. I will create a new post whereby the Rules Committee will vote on who will be the future owner of the Dodgers.
So instead of using a proceedure that was established and everyone could read and use and know, we're going to use a popularity contest to decide this?
What are the specific measures that the Rules Committee will judge the two of us by? I expect this to be an open conversation but the decision is already made. Nobody likes the tact of the guys who says rules and precedence are important. And, everyone feels bad for Rick's 'wrong', but nobody's mentioned how I got screwed outta NYY. Nobody will speak of how I was 'wronged' and deserve a right. The talk will be about how Rick was wronged and he deserves this, over the guy who stuck with the league and showed dedication.
Instead of using a ruling already established by Colby, which is the same guy who established all the rules when the league was founded and nobody says these were invalid, we're going to pave a new path? Well what happens when I get wronged for the second time? What is my recuperation for such damages?
What has Rick done to suggest that he deserves to be in this consideration other than people like him? The answer is nothing. Alas this is the same person I am in a popularity contest against? If we are doing this by votes and popularity will I ever get a transfer from SD? How will that work? The precedent of doing this by vote is horrible.
-
Chris just leave it. By you complaining it is not gonna help matters at all. The RC will decide what to do. Your hurting yourself every time you reply about the situation. Lets be grown men about this. First of all it is just a fantasy team, not the end of the world. If you have something to prove, then keep your Padres and see them out. Don't you wanna see what you built go far? If I were you that is the route I would take.
But that is my 2 pennies.
-
Here is my question, and this pertains to anyone who has run multiple teams because I don't understand it... Why would anyone want to leave your team?
I know from my own experience that I have wasted more than enough hours assembling my team. I've sat through drafts, read prospect reports, spent hours with other GMs discussing trades, etc. My Reds are my team, for better or worse ( currently worse). Why would you want to leave all of that behind to take someone else's sloppy seconds?
The Dodgers were never Howe's team, they were MJ's, he built that team. Other's have taken over rebuilds - Jake, Corey, etc. - and have put their stamp on the team.
I just don't get it. The draw of this league is to build a franchise, your own franchise. Full of your touts, scrubs, stars, Gordon Beckham's etc.
-
Chris just leave it. By you complaining it is not gonna help matters at all. The RC will decide what to do. Your hurting yourself every time you reply about the situation. Lets be grown men about this. First of all it is just a fantasy team, not the end of the world. If you have something to prove, then keep your Padres and see them out. Don't you wanna see what you built go far? If I were you that is the route I would take.
But that is my 2 pennies.
Complaining is different than making an argument. There are so many reasons why I should be awarded LAD vs Rick it's difficult not to post them. Furthermore I do like the Padres, but does anyone want the Padres over the Dodgers? Anyone? No. So although it's a nice compensation it's not really anything to be excited about, seeing how the written rules clearly state the job should have gone to me or someone with longer tenure on a team. I am not asking for that much. And all the talk of that Rick should get it to fix a wrong forgets the other side of the coin, that this will wrong me twice. But nobody comments on any of this.
And as far as me possibly getting the job...it's not going to happen. That is why they went to a vote, so they wouldn't have to observe the rules and could end around appoint Rick. Otherwise, you follow the rules as stated and fix it for the next time. I lost when Rick put his name in...although it wasn't his turn to be nominated. Until the rules were changed midstream of course.
So please, save the Chris you're complaining stuff. I am merely explaining the realities.
-
I like the idea of the RC making decisions on filling any opening. The RC is designed to have a GM from every division to eliminate competitive bias.
At the end of the day, I am merely providing an opinion and it essentially gave more bias to BHows since he was screwed the last time the Dodgers were open, so this is his second application for the team, and then bias given to joeshmoe due to tenure. I think I have been fair in my opinion, but once again it is not my decision. I feel Roy is making excellent decisions thus far in handling the interpretation and intention of rulings.
Debates like this make me love this league for how well we have built it. The RC is the best solution.
-
Here is my question, and this pertains to anyone who has run multiple teams because I don't understand it... Why would anyone want to leave your team?
I know from my own experience that I have wasted more than enough hours assembling my team. I've sat through drafts, read prospect reports, spent hours with other GMs discussing trades, etc. My Reds are my team, for better or worse ( currently worse). Why would you want to leave all of that behind to take someone else's sloppy seconds?
The Dodgers were never Howe's team, they were MJ's, he built that team. Other's have taken over rebuilds - Jake, Corey, etc. - and have put their stamp on the team.
I just don't get it. The draw of this league is to build a franchise, your own franchise. Full of your touts, scrubs, stars, Gordon Beckham's etc.
Why did Theo leave Boston for Chicago? Because everyone values things differently. Do I like the Padres sure. But it doesn't mean my goal is to stay with them throught my time in FGM. That's why transfers were set up, because people do like doing this.
Furhtermore, Dan, your favorite team is the Reds no? Makes it easy to want to stay there doesn't it? But I don't love the Padres, and I don't even like the MLB team. I have different values than you I suppose.
-
Here is my question, and this pertains to anyone who has run multiple teams because I don't understand it... Why would anyone want to leave your team?
I know from my own experience that I have wasted more than enough hours assembling my team. I've sat through drafts, read prospect reports, spent hours with other GMs discussing trades, etc. My Reds are my team, for better or worse ( currently worse). Why would you want to leave all of that behind to take someone else's sloppy seconds?
The Dodgers were never Howe's team, they were MJ's, he built that team. Other's have taken over rebuilds - Jake, Corey, etc. - and have put their stamp on the team.
I just don't get it. The draw of this league is to build a franchise, your own franchise. Full of your touts, scrubs, stars, Gordon Beckham's etc.
Well said Dan. I like your logic!
-
I like the idea of the RC making decisions on filling any opening. The RC is designed to have a GM from every division to eliminate competitive bias.
At the end of the day, I am merely providing an opinion and it essentially gave more bias to BHows since he was screwed the last time the Dodgers were open, so this is his second application for the team, and then bias given to joeshmoe due to tenure. I think I have been fair in my opinion, but once again it is not my decision. I feel Roy is making excellent decisions thus far in handling the interpretation and intention of rulings.
Debates like this make me love this league for how well we have built it. The RC is the best solution.
Doesn't transfer by RC mean that a small minority could dictate that you could never leave an organization and transfer? Doesn't that make all transfers popularity contests? Am I the only one who sees this as dangerous? Why is it my transfer that needs a vote by RC but never for anyone prior to? Voting should be the last measure to appoint the position.
And colby you say my position is based upon tenure? How about we talk about when I was robbed from NYY? When do I get righted as well?
-
The RC votes on logic, realism, and what is best for the fantasy league - not popularity.
I am dreading the first losing season for the FGM Pirates since 2010. I am looking forward to 2015.
-
The RC votes on logic, realism, and what is best for the fantasy league - not popularity.
I am dreading the first losing season for the FGM Pirates since 2010. I am looking forward to 2015.
The RC should vote on those things....I distrust any voting minority who dictates on an subjective, unclear scale.
-
Ahem... Mets fan. Just wanted to clarify. But the FGM Reds are the team that I made. Every one on that team is someone I either traded for, signed, or drafted. Preference to a real life uniform is of no consideration when it comes to my FGM team. I've made good and bad moves in my tenure. I've had both a good and bad team at the same time. But it's my team.