Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only

[Eric]

Thanks Roy

[Brewers GM]

Our focus should be on adding and keeping high quality owners and keeping them active.  If in some circumstances an internal transfer is needed to accomplish that, like for example Rob decides he's bored of the A's and wants a new challenge, then I'd be in favor of letting him transfer to keep a great owner around and engaged.  So I am in favor of internal transfers as a special case.

[Colby]

FWIW, the nature of the RC is to have a representative from each division and each type of market plus a 7th member to make it an odd-numbered team.  I think our RC is very fair and logical, but we are biased toward small markets and have no representation from the NL West or NL East.

Colby (Colby) :PIT:
Ben (Brewers GM) :MIL:
Dan (Dan Wood) :CIN:
Roy (rcankosy) :TEX:
Mike (VolsRaysBucs) :TB:
Bob (Shooter 47) :BAL:
Freddy (kungfuwig) :KC:

[rcankosy]

Our focus should be on adding and keeping high quality owners and keeping them active.  If in some circumstances an internal transfer is needed to accomplish that, like for example Rob decides he's bored of the A's and wants a new challenge, then I'd be in favor of letting him transfer to keep a great owner around and engaged.  So I am in favor of internal transfers as a special case.

Your point is duly noted, though Rob could trade teams with 28 other owners if he was truly bored

To clarify, we are voting on whether to allow internal transfers as a regular practice of filling team openings.  In special cases, internal transfers may be approved, but that is NOT the context of the current vote.

[rcankosy]

FWIW, the nature of the RC is to have a representative from each division and each type of market plus a 7th member to make it an odd-numbered team.  I think our RC is very fair and logical, but we are biased toward small markets and have no representation from the NL West or NL East.

Colby (Colby) :PIT:
Ben (Brewers GM) :MIL:
Dan (Dan Wood) :CIN:
Roy (rcankosy) :TEX:
Mike (VolsRaysBucs) :TB:
Bob (Shooter 47) :BAL:
Freddy (kungfuwig) :KC:

This can be addressed in the future by adding 2 more RC members.  For example, we would have an odd number of 9 if we added 1 from the NL East and 1 from the NL West.

[Dan Wood]

We added a 7th member a while back for that very reason...

We all know my feelings on the current status on hiring GMs. I don't think people should be allowed to move unless granted specific permission. That is just my two cents. Some time it is hard to fill a certain team and if a GM wants to take on a rebuild I am all for that.

[rcankosy]

The current vote stands 3-2 against transfers except in special and extremely rare cases.  2 more votes from Mike and Bob, and we can put this one to bed.

[VolsRaysBucs]

I am in favor of nixing internal transfers.  If you accept the job of GM of a team, that should be your team during your time in FGM.  I would be open to discussing a hard set of parameter ala what Colby proposed, but in an effort to clear this issue up asap, I will cast my vote as a hard no against internal transfers.

[rcankosy]

That's a wrap folks, since we have 4 votes against internal transfers when considering league openings.

Now, we will move on to the criteria for deciding outside applicants.

Many thanks to all who voted so promptly.

[shooter47]

Even though it has already beend finalized My vote is for internal transfers. I personally wouldn't want to transfer teams but some owners may wish too. With that said I dont think current FGM owners should have priority over outsiders. When a position is open interested parties should apply and go through an interview type process and then voted on by a committe.