Analyzing the Hiring Process

[Colby]

Chris, you are missing the point altogether.  LTD was not hired by the Yankees because they are a good team that is easier to fill.  It was just a good fit and right opportunity.  Generally, 90% of openings are offered to the league.  However, I have the right and responsibilty as commissioner to hire the guy I think is best for the job AND could be a good fit for our league and ProFSL. 

[h4cheng]

Again a moot point.  There is no correlation to a good gm and a good team.  I am a fine GM, active here for over a year, and when I took the Padres (as my first team) they were rancid.  Still, I am here.  If the only way to get new guys is by giving them the best job; we will have a stupid system of recruitment.  In other words; all veteran GMs should now step down to the worst teams so bad GMs will stay in the league.

If a GM isnt active why would we want them to run a good team?  Why do we want a bad GM on any team?  We don't.  Good GMs don't quit because their team is bad.  I can't agree with any argument of why the Yankees being a good team are more likely to retain a GM, or create a better GM.

Chris,

I understand where you are coming from and I agree with most of what you said (especially the part about the flawed logic that the league would be stronger if a new GM takes over a good team rather than a bad team). If you want, we can switch teams at the end of the year if I make it to the Championship game.

[joeshmoe]

I think Chris should be offered the next GM opening, if he would like it.  I am not sure the league knew that he was unhappy in SD.

To bring humor to the subject, I do not believe that a Red Sox fan can be the GM of the Yanks, under any circumstances.  We would have had to report this to the Sons of Sam Horn and they would have taken your Red Sox Hat, Jersey, the Bill Buckner VCR tape, and the DVDs of the Championships as well.  Just kidding.   

This highlights my point though.  A GM shouldn't have to let the league know they're interested in any open position that becomes available.  ANY hiring should be done internally and then externally.  Why we wouldn't give choice to our members, and instead let others simply email for the job, is beyond me.  I wasn't even made aware the opening was going to occur.  THAT is my problem.  The system used to hire for the Yankees job eliminated any internal member the ability to take the job. 

RE:  Second paragraph... :thumbsup:  Not my 04 championship DVD's...Take the buckner tape.

[Colby]

To bring humor to the subject, I do not believe that a Red Sox fan can be the GM of the Yanks, under any circumstances.  We would have had to report this to the Sons of Sam Horn and they would have taken your Red Sox Hat, Jersey, the Bill Buckner VCR tape, and the DVDs of the Championships as well.  Just kidding.   

You beat me to my next point Rob!

[lp815]

You know what'd be sweet? Giving contracts to GM's! I get a 2 year deal to get the Nats to .500 or I get canned!

Might not be a good idea, as I don't want to have my failure planned 2 years in advance.

[joeshmoe]

Chris,

I understand where you are coming from and I agree with most of what you said (especially the part about the flawed logic that the league would be stronger if a new GM takes over a good team rather than a bad team). If you want, we can switch teams at the end of the year if I make it to the Championship game.

I will transition to a new team if I feel like it's a good fit when a new opening arises.  I don't want anyone offering me teams or etc in an attempt to make me feel better.

I just want there to be a system in place where this doesn't happen again.  It is not fair to internal members who have ALREADY dedicated their time and proven their worth as managers. 

[lp815]

The job definitely should have been made known that it was open. I'll agree to that.

[h4cheng]

Look on the bright side, at least you got the red sox in the retro FGM.

[joeshmoe]

You know what'd be sweet? Giving contracts to GM's! I get a 2 year deal to get the Nats to .500 or I get canned!

Might not be a good idea, as I don't want to have my failure planned 2 years in advance.

I think the system works as is.  Take the team for as long as you are an active GM and want to be the owner.  A certain time frame to turn a team around would be touchy for a few reasons.

1)  Some teams take way longer to turn around. 
2)  Teams could collude against a member, making it difficult to turn their team around (no trades and FA bidding)...Could happen, doesn't mean would but could.
3)  The nature of the system means that their must be failure.  If not team Had to fail it'd be a good idea.  However, in this system, where there must be both good and bad teams (fundamentally), it would be a tough situation to include GM Goals if you will.

[joeshmoe]

The job definitely should have been made known that it was open. I'll agree to that.

Thank you...and I agree that LTD could be a great member in a perfect fit.