Mets & Angels GMs canned

[rcankosy]

I hope you guys are right.  Just keep in mind that there is a big difference between bad and non-competitive.  The Mets have 3 starters out of 9 on offense and 5 out of 11 for pitching.  The new GM will have to be very creative in trades to be able to field a full team since starters at any position are almost non-existent at this point.

[Dan Wood]

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. 

I've done this twice with the same guy... :winner:

[Needle Juice]

I hope you guys are right.  Just keep in mind that there is a big difference between bad and non-competitive.  The Mets have 3 starters out of 9 on offense and 5 out of 11 for pitching.  The new GM will have to be very creative in trades to be able to field a full team since starters at any position are almost non-existent at this point.

Please note that the new GM is allowed not to field a full team, if they decide that is best for the Franchise.  Keeping the prospects and only playing 7 of 9 on offense may make sense.

Another thought for New GM's would be a written declaration or plan on what they believe they will do.  Maybe one two weeks in and allow revisions at 2 months in.

[KDoc09]

Just my two cents on the matter... first off, THANKS PAUL! I am trying haha. Secondly, when I returned to FGM a few months back, the Cubs and Mets were both available and in truth Dan initially approached me about returning to the league when the Mets job became vacant. The Mets are a far more appealing situation than the one I took over with the Cubs. That is an absolute fact. Yes they have a few bad contracts, but they have a large enough payroll to recover from such a thing, just as I have had the ability to survive having 60m in dead money on my roster. I'm not saying I am a playoff team- far from it, but I feel like I have at least made a few moves and I have my roster headed in the right direction. Perhaps a good off-season and I may just be right in the thick of it in the brutal NL Central. It can be done and I don't think more oversight is the problem. I think it's just a matter of finding a person who's skills suit the Mets. Just because someone is a quality fantasy player, doesn't mean that they are an absolute fit for the Mets. I think maybe that's where the focus needs to be. Not only should a person have to state why they are qualified to be in the league, but maybe they should have to come in with some kind of plan that the EC needs to approve. That would surely be accomplished if the probationary period was longer.

The fact of the matter is, Dan was right when he said that some owners had the luxury of padding their roster with prospects early on. This allowed them to peddle said prospects to eager owners looking to put a stamp on their roster for quality players. Coupled with the fact that many owners saw the opportunity to take advantage of some of the weaker owners this created the situation that many of the franchises are in today. Not taking shots, just stating the facts. Everyone in this league talks about doing what is best for FGM, and I believe that is what we all want, but there are some who have not always walked the walk when it comes to trades, signings, etc. I'm sure that some of the very people who have commented on this board will be the first ones to try and pry Harper away from the Mets once a new GM is signed. I think personal accountability is what we need from everyone.

That being said, the Mets are far from broken, and I think they could be turned around rather quickly with the proper owner in place.

[Mr.TradeKing]

I agree with you Kris, but I do not believe too many owners have been taken advantage via trades due solely to the fact that the TC has vetoed bad trades in the past. There is an eventual winner and loser to every trade and that is what makes it risky. Just because you are on the losing end of the deal doesn't mean you were taken advantage of, but rather lost your gamble (bad luck). I don't see a problem with wanting Harper (who doesn't?) and going after him. I know I wont because he is too expensive for me, but if the trade were to help the Mets out in any one of the various ways they need help then I would actually like to see the trade done.

~MTK

[Dan Wood]

But we still let trades like this go through (not picking on you Colby, it was just the most recent in memory)

:PIT: receives
MI Drew, Stephen, $7m (2012)

:CHC: receives
SP Correia, Kevin, $1.5m (2011)
SP Bannister, Brian, $1m (2011)
SP Moskos, Daniel, $0.5m (P-n/a)
RP Runzler, Dan, $5m (2011) + $4.5m in 2010 from Angels
CI Kotchman, Casey, $5.5m (2013) + $3m in 2010 from Blue Jays
CI Tracy, Chad Samuel, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI-MI Hoffpauir, Jarrett, $0.5m (P-n/a)


Stephen Drew for, well, nothing... Bridgestone did a lot of that, hence the bad GM tag. Colby (again not bagging on you) wasn't the only one to take advantage of his ineptitude. What direction could his team be going with a trade like this? Just saying... 2 5th starters, 1 RP, 1 CI with no job, 3 non prospects.

[Dan Wood]

And the explanation as to why the deal was made....

"The Cubs needed pitching so this deal was a must.  The farm boost is a plus. I now have tons of cap room to go out and make improvements to my team in free agency. "

We all approved it, and no one said a word. I could prolly find more than a handful of these nuggets done by just one GM. My point being is that GMs are the owners in this league, and if they are not acting in the best interest of their franchise and their league then they should no longer be apart of the league. MLB took Jeffrey Loria to task for not spending money, he then went and signed Josh Johnson long term. We should be able to do something similar to that.

I know Stephen Drew isn't a great, but he is a very solid player, and just that one move set Chicago back quite a bit, and moved Pittsburgh up quite a bit. And again, that is just one move... imagine 3 or 4 moves that are like this. I don't know how we as the TC let it go through. It wasn't collusion, so it had to go through I guess, but this is an example of a trade that should have been stopped dead in its tracks. But we the TC dropped the ball. Again, I just want to reiterate that this is just an example of a lopsided trade that should have been discussed further by the TC. 

[rcankosy]

Maybe we should consider making it mandatory for all teams to fill certain starting positions on a daily basis and allow salary exemptions for replacements of injured players.  In real life, you are require to field an entire team. 

How can we be considered a realistic league if we allow owners to field partial teams like the one being employed by the Mets?  I would support a rule that states that the starting positions we have defined in the rules be manned by players in the majors. 

[lp815]

Roy, in that case I would want to expand roster sizes. I have 4, maybe 5 MLB pitchers currently, with about a dozen prospect pitchers. Forcing a rebuilding team to field a full lineup would hamper my ability to keep a strong farm system. Thoughts?

[bravesfan4]

Maybe we should consider making it mandatory for all teams to fill certain starting positions on a daily basis and allow salary exemptions for replacements of injured players.  In real life, you are require to field an entire team. 

How can we be considered a realistic league if we allow owners to field partial teams like the one being employed by the Mets?  I would support a rule that states that the starting positions we have defined in the rules be manned by players in the majors. 

Most teams in contention have multiple starters at a position. For example my yankees have 3mi's. Other teams do as well. Forcing teams to have fill all roster spots would be a complete waste of money for that team as the players they would sign wouldnt even be starters. That money would be better spent on specs or young players rather then a backup mlb player.