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

[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.

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.

[papps]

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.

[rcankosy]

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.

[BHows]

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.

[shooter47]

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

[BHows]

If those are the options, I vote yes

[VolsRaysBucs]

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."

[Brewers GM]

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