Mets & Angels GMs canned

[joeshmoe]

I would venture to say turnover is not just infrequent, but decreasing.  It's hard to get enough good owners for a full MLB league, but we've been filling teams with quality owners over time and the good ones seem to stick around.

yup  :iatp:

take the Padres for example.  I am here for a long time (good for the organization or not).  But before me there were some Bad GM's!  At least it seems that way? I really wasn't here to know how my team got into that position.

[Mr.TradeKing]

I think FGM is a privilege not a right.  I think we should mandate that new members be inhouse vets in one league here at ProFSL...no outside recommendations.

Well, then I would have never been apart of this league, and if I am not mistaken you wouldn't be apart either of it either...

~MTK

[joeshmoe]

Well, then I would have never been apart of this league, and if I am not mistaken you wouldn't be apart either of it either...

~MTK

Agreed..unfortunately the open door policy has led to the destruction of several teams as well.  At this point in the game I believe this league should screen its applicants for best of the best.  Best could have a different definition between us and maybe I should clarify.  Best to me would be based upon activity; consistency and longevity would be ideal.

[Dan Wood]

I was an outsider. I just happened to come across one of Colb's postings on Yahoo. He checked my profile, and I had a rather successful run as a GM in public leagues. Roy and Kris are both in this league because I thought they would be good fits. I have suggested to other people to join the league but it is too much for them to handle. This league is not for everyone. I think anyone should be considered regardless of if they have played on Profsl or not. I just think they need to have a modicum of success to back it up. One of the better tell tale signs if if they stuck with a one year league or bailed when they realized their team was terrible. I think that has happened several times here, where a GM has committed to a plan, it didn't work, and they stopped showing up (Mariners). It is hard when there aren't any useful players are the waiver wire, and it can also be disheartening to be in charge of a franchise, or take over a franchise that looks to be going nowhere. A lot of you have said the Mets are in good shape. This is true, if we played A ball games. But we don't, on a MLB level that GM is going to have to swallow his pride for a year or two for a payoff that may never come. But this is all because of one person, so yes I think we do need some sort of watchdog system to insure the integrity of the league. What happens when we get bad GMs is that a team because less valuable to the next person.

I think we want outsiders because to be honest, most of the leagues I am in, I am playing against the same people over and over. It's great that this site is expanding, but if it is 30 guys in 8 different leagues, then it really isn't (I am exaggerating of course), but I think we need to start going out of house to start filling vacancies. Then maybe we can start having FGM 2, FGM 3 etc...

And Chris to answer your question, the guy who had the Padres, bid on two players, won them, never showed up again, you can thank him for Branyan and Cameron. The guy who had the Reds before me did nada - didn't even attempt to get Drew Stubbs - he was a Pirate (that period when there was 6 active GMs shopping from the Baseball America Christmas list). The Rangers guy never bid on any of his prospects. A lot of team started without their top prospects, who are now in the major leagues. So a good majority were starting short handed, some of us just did a better job than others with what we had. You know, the people still hanging around.

[joeshmoe]

And Chris to answer your question, the guy who had the Padres, bid on two players, won them, never showed up again, you can thank him for Branyan and Cameron. The guy who had the Reds before me did nada - didn't even attempt to get Drew Stubbs - he was a Pirate (that period when there was 6 active GMs shopping from the Baseball America Christmas list). The Rangers guy never bid on any of his prospects. A lot of team started without their top prospects, who are now in the major leagues. So a good majority were starting short handed, some of us just did a better job than others with what we had. You know, the people still hanging around.

howd peavy get 14m per?

[Dan Wood]

That was his real life contract... seriously... he used to be really good... seriously

[joeshmoe]

That was his real life contract... seriously... he used to be really good... seriously

Oh I remember when he was with the Padres...thank god it wasnt a contract given out!

[Needle Juice]

The Mets are in good shape because the team is not mortgaged to the limit with bad contracts and they have a decent farm.

They not competitive, but a new gm has a good canvas to work with.  It will take some work.

[Colby]

The Mets are in good shape because the team is not mortgaged to the limit with bad contracts and they have a decent farm.

They not competitive, but a new gm has a good canvas to work with.  It will take some work.

Exactly, we just need the right GM who is willing to wait it out.

[lp815]

We may have two recommendations for bigbenxl786.  We are at the point where we agree that the overhaul needs to be made to the hiring process.  Some collective ideas...

• Having guys on the waiting list is one thing, but we need at least three recommendations from members in FGM.
• Instead of a two-week no moves period, have a moves review period not for an extended time, but for a certain amount of moves such as the first 10 drops, 5 trades, 5 FA bids as well as the first three extensions.  It may be a bit excessive, but we could track this in a GM watch post in the transactions board.  The post would have that members' ProFSL name.  Members of the EC, in addition to the TC (for trades), will review the moves to make sure they are for the good of the franchise and that the new GM understands the rules.
• We could always not allow a team to trade a Type A/B FA or a top 100 prospect, but that may be too much tracking.  A general dedicated review may be better.

In part two, I sort of cringe when I read "to make sure they are for the good of the franchise".  I'm a firm believer that if a team has a plan, they should be allowed to go through with it.  Trading, let's say, Ryan Braun for Bryce Harper may seem like the guy/gal acquiring Harper isn't doing what's best for the franchise, but who, outside of said guy/gal, is in a position to make such a claim?  I would like to think that all of the transactions I have made on my team were in the best interest of my franchise, and I'm sure each and every one of you would feel the same.  So if we could stress the "understands the rules" part of that, I'd be much more comfortable about setting something like this up, because in my opinion, questionable transactions are made when a GM doesn't fully understand the consequences of his moves, not because he doesn't know what's best for his team.

In regards to the recruitment of new GM's, my opinion is simple, and falls in line with Colby's overall logic with the site: we want new members.  Great sites aren't formed because 30 guys grab each other's butts in a few leagues.  Our site will not grow if we continue to have the same group of players every time.  Just because a guy plays a few dynasties leagues here on ProFSL, doesn't mean another guy is just as capable of playing in one of our dynasty leagues because he plays elsewhere.  Having a stricter recruitment process by knowing what other leagues/sites a prospective GM has played on would help immensely.  Recommendations are also ok, whether they be from ProFSL members, or even members from other sites.  You can't get a job in the real world without a criminal background check (mostly), so why shouldn't we delve into 'fantasy history' checks?  Yahoo, ESPN, fantrax, CBS, Foxsports....I think many sites offer some sort of history.  Dan even stated that is how Colby determined his signing.  If we were to go back to that logic, instead of the logic of 'he's in 3 ProFSL leagues, he should fit", I think we'd have very little issue with new GM's.

In regards to future trades have more disclosure from the trading parties, I would be in support of that, but most GM's do a good job of that anyway.  Very few trades have a trading party state 'I like the guy' as his reason of acquiring him. 

Overall, I think the league is in good shape.  The reason there is such a disparity between the great teams and bad teams is 1) poor management by bad GM's for the bad teams(which can easily be resolved with better GM's) and 2) the great teams snatching up many great prospects (a.k.a. trade pieces) at the start of the league (which will resolve itself over the next few seasons, as bad teams get better farms, GM's, etc.).