ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: GM & Team News => Topic started by: Colby on April 05, 2011, 08:00:27 PM
-
The Mets and Angels GM are being let go by their respective organizations. I have been in contact with him over the past few months about their activity. Here is the rest of my PM to them that I don't feel like changing...
I have now noticed that either of you haven't even accessed the page on Fantrax in over a month. This is unacceptable without notice. I am sorry if there are issues in your life that prevent you from being active. In such a case, feel free to reapply on the waiting list as we give others a chance to play.
-
:toth:
~MTK
-
Can I please choose the next Mets GM? I hate seeing the orange and blue keep falling into the wrong hands. You know like Omar Minaya's
-
Can I please choose the next Mets GM? I hate seeing the orange and blue keep falling into the wrong hands. You know like Omar Minaya's
I can run it by you. Do you want the Mets? We could always organize a trade that is fair and may pass the TC.
-
I would take the Mets but I am not leaving behind Belt, Stewart, Beckham, Hamilton, Snider, or Lind... Took me a long time to assemble these guys... I couldn't see a scenario that those players could be traded to the Mets for fair value, since the Mets lack in so many areas... if anyone has any ideas, that the league would be willing to consider, I would be more than happy to take on the kings of queens.
-
and Thole... The players of value that the Mets have would instantly put Cincy in a rebuilding mode.
-
Trade Hats, Uniforms, and Logos.
I think your assessment of not being able to get an "equal value" trade done is probably correct, but we will see if anyone can come up with anything.
-
It would have to be something in the realm of...
SP Archer, Chris, $0.5m (2012)
OF Beltran, Carlos, $17m (2011)
C Bethancourt, Christian, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Blake, Casey, $6m (2011)
C Harper, Bryce, $0.5m (P-n/a)
SP Harvey, Matt, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Hicks, Aaron, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Neal, Thomas, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Profar, Jurickson, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Sano, Miguel Jean, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Singleton, Jonathan, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Wells, Vernon, $18m (2014)
+ a huge portion of salary
SP Ranaudo, Anthony, $0.5m (P-n/a)
For
Belt
Stewart
Hamilton
Rasmus
Snider
Lind
Thole
Burnett - contract is an anchor
Beckham
OF Nieuwenhuis, Kirk, $0.5m (P-n/a)
Which leaves Cincy with an excellent system but no true talent at the MLB level outside of Beltran, Wells, Blake, Figgins, Delmon... gives them a sick MILB system with Harper who is worth his weight in gold, but still... like I said, I would be happy to do it, but not without my line up - I can build a rotation and a minor league system, but I have worked hard to obtain my guys. I also think the teams in the NL East should weigh in on this matter.
-
Dan really loves his Mets, so I would say if you guys can make this work do so as a reward for all of his activity and passion for FGM. And Please let me know if you guys figure out a way to make this work, because I would love to take over the Angels as long as I can keep some of my players. However, I have no issue keeping the Cubs as long as the Angels get a capable owner. Just my two cents.
-
I can vouch for Kris's love of the Halos. I have to second him taking over that team, again, if possible sending some of his players that he acquired on the Cubs to LAA... The cubs are in better shape since he took over, even without the select few that he would take to the west coast with him. Plus the halos have some MLB talent to send back to the Cubs, and can take on $$$ on contracts such as Jeter, Vladdy, etc to make the deal fair.
But, I also think the GMs of the West teams need to chime in on that, since it directly effects them. Same with the guys who run the East teams. MTK, Papps, Jake, Moli... please do chime in.
-
I think if we can work out a deal between the Mets and Reds then that could happen. As far as Kris is concerned, while he has done a great job with the Cubs, he hasn't put a year of time in with them.
-
That's totally fair and what I expected. As I said it's not a big deal for me. Just expressing interest, no harm there.
-
I'd support a team switcharoo, but I'd recommend we have at least the teams in the NL Central and East all vote on the matter, if not the entire league. I'd say a 2/3 majority would acceptable. Thoughts from anyone?
-
It would have to be something in the realm of...
SP Archer, Chris, $0.5m (2012)
OF Beltran, Carlos, $17m (2011)
C Bethancourt, Christian, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Blake, Casey, $6m (2011)
C Harper, Bryce, $0.5m (P-n/a)
SP Harvey, Matt, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Hicks, Aaron, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Neal, Thomas, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Profar, Jurickson, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Sano, Miguel Jean, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Singleton, Jonathan, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Wells, Vernon, $18m (2014)
+ a huge portion of salary
SP Ranaudo, Anthony, $0.5m (P-n/a)
For
Belt
Stewart
Hamilton
Rasmus
Snider
Lind
Thole
Burnett - contract is an anchor
Beckham
OF Nieuwenhuis, Kirk, $0.5m (P-n/a)
Which leaves Cincy with an excellent system but no true talent at the MLB level outside of Beltran, Wells, Blake, Figgins, Delmon... gives them a sick MILB system with Harper who is worth his weight in gold, but still... like I said, I would be happy to do it, but not without my line up - I can build a rotation and a minor league system, but I have worked hard to obtain my guys. I also think the teams in the NL East should weigh in on this matter.
Why don't you just re-name yourselve the Mets but keep CIN's salary cap structure? Problem solved.
-
Why don't you just re-name yourselve the Mets but keep CIN's salary cap structure? Problem solved.
Changing the caps changes the market of each team and ruins realism.
-
Why don't you just re-name yourselve the Mets but keep CIN's salary cap structure? Problem solved.
We could do that to. But then, in my eyes, it could cause fiscal disparity in the Central, because of the salary structure the Reds would inherit. In the East you have some budgetary heavy hitters, where as in the Central you have mid market teams, outside of the Cubs. But, I have no problem, with your and Rob's suggestion, just to change divisions and colors. I am sure the Central would be happy to see me gone, but the East might not want a now competitive Mets team. Plus who would want the Mets or Reds, if swap goes through, as they are currently constructed? There is no fun in losing non stop, prolly why we get so many drop outs with the Mets especially.
-
You've got my vote with the stipulation that the new Reds GM throws Harper my way on the cheap. hehe
For what it's worth,I've got no problem with it but probably at least the NL East and Central should vote on it
-
A massive trade would be fine, but we need to watch cap room. It would be unfair for Dan to gains much cap room, so some of his liabilities to other teams may have to move to the new Mets.
-
Thanks Rick... I would be willing to leave Belt behind in Cincy if that make it any easier to get this done. I don't prefer it, but I'll do it if I have to. At least it'll give the next GM a decent starting core of Harper, Belt, and Romine. Just throwing that out there. With taking AJ, the future Reds GM, won't have to worry about any expensive contracts.
I think the TC should get together with the senior members not on the TC (Colby, Rick, Ben, Howe) and facilitate a trade that is acceptable given the players at hand, and that I am agreeable to.
Plus I agree with Jake both the Central and East should before players are moved.
EDIT - wrote this while Colb was posting, that is a great idea Colb, I also think the draft picks should be swapped out - giving Cincy the early picks
-
We could definitely swap some picks for this one time mass trade. We need to hear from Ben, Paul, Aubrey, Samuel, Kent, and Chris.
-
I'd be fine with a swap, but I want to sit down and figure out the best trade. We are basically swapping teams here, but one team has over double the cap of the other. So, it may not be as easy as it seems to put together a team that is good for both teams and the league.
~MTK
-
This is my proposed trade...
Mets get
Stewart
Hamilton
Rasmus
Snider
Lind
Thole
Burnett - contract is an anchor
Beckham
OF Nieuwenhuis, Kirk, $0.5m (P-n/a)
X-MI Roberts, Brian, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2013, $3.5m in 2011
X-RP Broxton, Jonathan, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2012, $6.5m in 2011
1-15 CIN
2-15 CIN
3-15 CIN
4-15 CIN
5-15 CIN
6-15 CIN
7-15 CIN
8-15 CIN
9-15 CIN
10-15 CIN
Reds get
SP Archer, Chris, $0.5m (2012)
C Bethancourt, Christian, $0.5m (P-n/a)
C Harper, Bryce, $0.5m (P-n/a)
SP Harvey, Matt, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Hicks, Aaron, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Neal, Thomas, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Profar, Jurickson, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Sano, Miguel Jean, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Singleton, Jonathan, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Wells, Vernon, $18m (2014)
+ 14 mil a year
SP Ranaudo, Anthony, $0.5m (P-n/a)
- any other prospects worth mentioning, not named Havens
1-6 NYM
2-6 NYM
3-6 NYM
4-6 NYM
5-6 NYM
6-6 NYM
7-6 NYM
8-6 NYM
9-6 NYM
10-6 NYM
In essence what is does is saddle the Mets with pricey contracts on aging players - Carpenter, Lackey, and AJ, plus the money owed to Wells, and the money the Reds owe out on previous trades... it builds the Reds minor league team up and gives them several young cheap foundation pieces in Belt and Harper, plus a cheap pitching staff that I have assembled. I know the concern is that I will be taking on a larger payroll, but I will have a lot of dead money on my roster as well, plus I will have no farm system to speak of. Plus the Mets payroll will be dropping annually because of the awefulness of their team the past two seasons.
Thoughts?
-
This is my proposed trade...
Mets get
Stewart
Hamilton
Rasmus
Snider
Lind
Thole
Burnett - contract is an anchor
Beckham
OF Nieuwenhuis, Kirk, $0.5m (P-n/a)
X-MI Roberts, Brian, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2013, $3.5m in 2011
X-RP Broxton, Jonathan, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2012, $6.5m in 2011
1-15 CIN
2-15 CIN
3-15 CIN
4-15 CIN
5-15 CIN
6-15 CIN
7-15 CIN
8-15 CIN
9-15 CIN
10-15 CIN
Reds get
SP Archer, Chris, $0.5m (2012)
C Bethancourt, Christian, $0.5m (P-n/a)
C Harper, Bryce, $0.5m (P-n/a)
SP Harvey, Matt, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Hicks, Aaron, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Neal, Thomas, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Profar, Jurickson, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Sano, Miguel Jean, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Singleton, Jonathan, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Wells, Vernon, $18m (2014)
+ 14 mil a year
SP Ranaudo, Anthony, $0.5m (P-n/a)
- any other prospects worth mentioning, not named Havens
1-6 NYM
2-6 NYM
3-6 NYM
4-6 NYM
5-6 NYM
6-6 NYM
7-6 NYM
8-6 NYM
9-6 NYM
10-6 NYM
In essence what is does is saddle the Mets with pricey contracts on aging players - Carpenter, Lackey, and AJ, plus the money owed to Wells, and the money the Reds owe out on previous trades... it builds the Reds minor league team up and gives them several young cheap foundation pieces in Belt and Harper, plus a cheap pitching staff that I have assembled. I know the concern is that I will be taking on a larger payroll, but I will have a lot of dead money on my roster as well, plus I will have no farm system to speak of. Plus the Mets payroll will be dropping annually because of the awefulness of their team the past two seasons.
Thoughts?
how much cap space will you have as a result of this trade?
-
No idea, I am shooting from the hip here while I am studying for a test in about 3 hours... I haven't run the numbers, but given the fact that most players being moved are .5 mil cept Hamilton and Lind, and taking on $$$, moving Wells, and eating 14 mil, should put the Mets at about 7 mil under the cap. Again that is all quick math.
-
This is my proposed trade...
Mets get
Stewart
Hamilton
Rasmus
Snider
Lind
Thole
Burnett - contract is an anchor
Beckham
OF Nieuwenhuis, Kirk, $0.5m (P-n/a)
X-MI Roberts, Brian, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2013, $3.5m in 2011
X-RP Broxton, Jonathan, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2012, $6.5m in 2011
1-15 CIN
2-15 CIN
3-15 CIN
4-15 CIN
5-15 CIN
6-15 CIN
7-15 CIN
8-15 CIN
9-15 CIN
10-15 CIN
Reds get
SP Archer, Chris, $0.5m (2012)
C Bethancourt, Christian, $0.5m (P-n/a)
C Harper, Bryce, $0.5m (P-n/a)
SP Harvey, Matt, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Hicks, Aaron, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Neal, Thomas, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Profar, Jurickson, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Sano, Miguel Jean, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Singleton, Jonathan, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Wells, Vernon, $18m (2014)
+ 14 mil a year
SP Ranaudo, Anthony, $0.5m (P-n/a)
- any other prospects worth mentioning, not named Havens
1-6 NYM
2-6 NYM
3-6 NYM
4-6 NYM
5-6 NYM
6-6 NYM
7-6 NYM
8-6 NYM
9-6 NYM
10-6 NYM
In essence what is does is saddle the Mets with pricey contracts on aging players - Carpenter, Lackey, and AJ, plus the money owed to Wells, and the money the Reds owe out on previous trades... it builds the Reds minor league team up and gives them several young cheap foundation pieces in Belt and Harper, plus a cheap pitching staff that I have assembled. I know the concern is that I will be taking on a larger payroll, but I will have a lot of dead money on my roster as well, plus I will have no farm system to speak of. Plus the Mets payroll will be dropping annually because of the awefulness of their team the past two seasons.
Thoughts?
I am just going to chime in since on TC. I would not approve this deal. 1 major league player for 8 just doesn't work. I understand there are a lot of moving parts, but a bunch of young major leagues players that have hit at that level or in AAA for a bunch of guys proven at AA or lower, just doesn't work.
-
7M is quite a bit. You are going from a situation of having trouble retaining Lind and Rasmus to having extra cap space to be a major player in the FA.
I'd rather you just take the Mets name and inherit CIN"s players and cap structure. This league isn't 100% realistic anyway, the real life Mets would not have 40M burning in their pockets.
-
7M is quite a bit. You are going from a situation of having trouble retaining Lind and Rasmus to having extra cap space to be a major player in the FA.
I'd rather you just take the Mets name and inherit CIN"s players and cap structure. This league isn't 100% realistic anyway, the real life Mets would not have 40M burning in their pockets.
Actually the real life Metropolitans do have millions burning thanks to Bernie Madoff.
-
I am just going to chime in since on TC. I would not approve this deal. 1 major league player for 8 just doesn't work. I understand there are a lot of moving parts, but a bunch of young major leagues players that have hit at that level or in AAA for a bunch of guys proven at AA or lower, just doesn't work.
Which was my point earlier. The Mets talent lies in the low minors. They do have many 5 star prospects but they are very far away. This was just a suggested trade, since I am not swapping teams without taking my players with me. As you all know I have worked hard to accumulate the talent that I have. Any move made would instantly make the Reds a rebuilding franchise with a deep farm system. That is the only way I can see this happening. You also have to consider what I am leaving behind in order to facilitate this move. That should also be considered in the trade. I am leaving behind Belt, Chone, Young, 3 cheap, young, usable pitchers, several decent minor league specs, in order to take on high priced old players, that aren't worth their salaries.
This situation isn't just about the trade of the players at hand. It is about what it does to the teams long term. And like I said earlier the only way for this to go through is if we all decide that the fate of the Reds is that of a rebuilding franchise. Just my two cents. As much as I want to take over the Mets, and make them a proud franchise in this league, I will not take the team as they are constructed, and chances are most people won't either.
-
7M is quite a bit. You are going from a situation of having trouble retaining Lind and Rasmus to having extra cap space to be a major player in the FA.
I'd rather you just take the Mets name and inherit CIN"s players and cap structure. This league isn't 100% realistic anyway, the real life Mets would not have 40M burning in their pockets.
Howe I have a lot of money coming off the books next year in dropped players and players being paid for by the Reds. Plus Lind will never make that much again - I figure he lands somewhere around the 10 mil mark, freeing up another 6 mil. I plan ahead, which is why this move would have to work for me too. You can have all the money in the world, but if their isn't anyone to bid on who cares? Nishioki and Ianetta are prime examples of that.
-
A blockbuster deal that would change the face of two divisions. Who could even imagine that Dan would be involved?
Seriously Dan, I hope this works out for you. You've earned it and deserve it.
-
We could send more picks to the new Reds and/or give supplemental picks for the loss of MLB talent although I am not a fan of the latter. The new Mets should have the same cap room as the current Reds. The TC needs to vote on a deal with the special circumstance in mind.
-
Howe I have a lot of money coming off the books next year in dropped players and players being paid for by the Reds. Plus Lind will never make that much again - I figure he lands somewhere around the 10 mil mark, freeing up another 6 mil. I plan ahead, which is why this move would have to work for me too. You can have all the money in the world, but if their isn't anyone to bid on who cares? Nishioki and Ianetta are prime examples of that.
Very good point on Nishioki and Ianetta.
-
Howe I have a lot of money coming off the books next year in dropped players and players being paid for by the Reds. Plus Lind will never make that much again - I figure he lands somewhere around the 10 mil mark, freeing up another 6 mil. I plan ahead, which is why this move would have to work for me too. You can have all the money in the world, but if their isn't anyone to bid on who cares? Nishioki and Ianetta are prime examples of that.
I understand your point Dan.. I have no problem with you getting the Mets and keeping those players that you worked hard to get and retain. I do have a problem of you get extra $ to play with.
-
We could send more picks to the new Reds and/or give supplemental picks for the loss of MLB talent although I am not a fan of the latter. The new Mets should have the same cap room as the current Reds. The TC needs to vote on a deal with the special circumstance in mind.
I will admit that I struggle with this concept and will sit back to see what everyone else thinks and if a proposal is made. I really would like to see Dan get what he is looking for, he has certainly earned it. But I also struggle with voting on a deal with special circumstances, I look at every deal with the same set of eyes and vote as I feel appropriate. I understand that there are bigger factors in this idea - Cap implications, Team and League Health for the Future, Fair value, etc.
This just seems like a lot of trouble for a Team Name. It would spice things up in two divisions, so there is a positive.
-
Ok gents, I am heading to the library... good luck with this one. I am open to suggestions, but like I said before, this would have to work for me as well, since I am giving up (even though I would be taking my guys) a team that is very competitive, young, has valuable pieces in the minors, and has been set up with a plan in mind, despite the fact it may not look that way. I don't envy the position of the rest of the league, especially the TC, because you do have two franchises in your hands. But, I do think it would be easier to fill a team with a lot of good prospects, and several usable pieces, and a lot of cap, as opposed to a team where the entire roster is in AA, and they have to play the Phils and Braves on a regular basis. And they have to pay Vernon Wells and John Lackey a combined 28 mil. Just my thoughts.
-
That being said we do have a lot of good minds in this league, and I am sure we can get something accomplished. If not, I really am not losing anything in the deal. I think others should start proposing scenarios that would work, or at least can be discussed.
-
This is just my two cents after reading other people's opinions and forming my own...
Everyone has made good points. If I was Dan i wouldnt want to leave my guys behind either. I also totally agree with Howe that gaining cap should not be an option. And with Rob, that proposal was not good. So here is where I stand........
the reds need to leave behind more players on the reds club. I do not think its right to allow a team to keep most of its core players and flock to another team. Case in point not only are you keeping your core offense, now you are adding them to a team with Lackey and Carp, and those two pitchers are way better than anything the Reds have in terms of pitching. MLB talent outways prospect talent. And yes this is a lot of work to try and do just to switch names. So the reds should take 2 or 3 guys with him. And then try and trade this minor league talent for players.
This would set a bad precedent for the league as a whole. The question would arise, well if Rob is going to switch from the A's to the Yankees, why cant he keep his players, just becuz the yanks arent bad doesnt mean my hard work through trades shouldnt pay off. I just dont think its a good thing.
Even tho, I feel its a bad thing, if it happens I just dont think you should be able to just move your core players to the team.
pick 3 guys from the reds.....pick 6 top specs from the mets...... swap draft picks and were set. make the move.
-
I am going to draw up a proposal. The move has to be fair and balanced. I really should not have said that the TC should rule with special circumstance as they should rule on the trade as always.
-
I am going to draw up a proposal. The move has to be fair and balanced. I really should not have said that the TC should rule with special circumstance as they should rule on the trade as always.
Colby, when you said "special circumstances", I think you really meant "Look at the big picture", not just the trade. Consider all things like Cap implications, Team and League Health for the Future, Fair value, etc. These things are not always factored in when voting on Anthony Slama for Diory Hernandez.
It isn't a big deal, you are doing the right things by seeing if this can be worked out.
Corey made some very good points in his post.
-
I think it would be best to do:
3 players
AJ Burnett
Draft Picks
for
The Met's top 6 prospects
Vernon Wells (contract covered for the duration of the contract)
Draft Picks
This leaves the Reds in a decent standing to at least compete and keep up their salary cap.
~MTK
This leaves the reads
-
My proposal... it includes swap of draft picks to compensate talent differential and shift of franchise directions. The point of this is not to just give Dan a Mets logo in his profile. He can do that anywhere, and I believe he is already doing that with RFGM. The point is to put passion behind the imaginary front desk of a franchise in this league. Dan's passion will be driven by the team name, the market, its schedule, its history in the league, and some of the players he worked hard to bring to the Reds. The new look Reds would accept this deal as it puts them into the prototypical, youthful small market franchise making them easier to attract than the current Mets. The goal of filling turnover is to make up for what past GMs did wrong, keep the realism of the league, and when possible, put fans in the GM seats of their favorite franchises. Here goes...
:CIN: Cincinnati Reds receive 15 players for $16.5m
SP Archer, Chris, $0.5m (2012)
C Bethancourt, Christian, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Blake, Casey, $6m (2011)
OF Gross, Gabe, $0.5m (2011)
C Harper, Bryce, $0.5m (P-n/a)
SP Harvey, Matt, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Havens, Reese, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Hicks, Aaron, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Murphy, Daniel, $0.5m (P-2012)
OF Neal, Thomas, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Profar, Jurickson, $0.5m (P-n/a)
SP Ranaudo, Anthony, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Sano, Miguel Jean, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Singleton, Jonathan, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Wells, Vernon, $18m (2014) + $14m/year from Mets
:NYM: New York Mets receive 10 players for $64m
MI Beckham, Gordon, $0.5m (P-2012)
SP Burnett, A.J., $16.5m (2013)
X-SP Burnett, A.J., Cash Exchange on Contract, $6m (2012), $-16.5m in 2011
X-RP Broxton, Jonathan, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2012, $6.5m in 2011
X-SP Buehrle, Mark, Cash Exchange on Contract, $-5m in 2011
X-SP Buehrle, Mark, Released Under Contract, $7m in 2011
X-SP Garland, Jon, Released Under Contract, $2m (2012), $3.5m in 2011
OF Hamilton, Josh, $18m (2015)
X-SP Kazmir, Scott, Released Under Contract, $3m (2012), $6m in 2011
OF Lind, Adam, $16.5m (2011)
P Ni, Fu-Te, $0.5m (2011)
OF Rasmus, Colby, $0.5m (P-2012)
X-MI Roberts, Brian, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2013, $3.5m in 2011
OF Russell, Kyle, $0.5m (2011)
OF Snider, Travis, $0.5m (P-2012)
C Thole, Josh, $1.5m (2013)
X-OF Upton, Justin, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2012, $2.5m in 2011
OF Russell, Kyle, $0.5m (2011)
The Reds will go to a full 40 player roster. The Mets payroll increases to $180m, right up against their cap. Dan stays in similar situation, but loses out on his keepsake ornaments called Delmon Young and Ian Stewart. However, he enters a new team with some improved veteran pitchers, has low minor prospects ont he EDR, and picks up a serviceable Beltran. The biggest relief for Dan is the increased cap next year. What the Reds truly lose here is Rasmus (due for a pay raise by 2012), Hamilton (nearly 25% of Reds' salary), Lind (more liability than anything), and Beckham. They gain the piece of mind from the loss of liabilities and become one of the best farms. Since the MLB focus is on the lineup, the new Reds will sport a lineup that looks like the following.
C ___
CI Belt, Brandon, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Blake, Casey, $6m (2011)
MI Figgins, Chone, $3m (2011)
MI ____
OF Wells, Vernon, $18m (2014)
OF Murphy, Daniel, $0.5m (P-2012)
OF Gross, Gabe, $0.5m (2011)
Not sure who the C/MI would be, but there are more producers in this rebuilding Reds team than many of our bottom foes. The new GM's responsibility will be to fill those holes right away.
The lineup will have
C Romine, Austin, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Hamilton, Billy, $0.5m (P-n/a)
C-OF Harper, Bryce, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Havens, Reese, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Hicks, Aaron, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Singleton, Jonathan, $0.5m (P-n/a)
all waiting to make an impact this by the end of 2012. The Reds will have plenty of money to spend and be a dream franchise to run. With potential FA contributors available now, the team could fill out its lineup, make some trades to optimize the system, and have plenty of cash to make it competitive in 2012. Their pitching staff will be led by Happ, Narveson, and Lohse. Tallet, Hill, and Reyes could contribute to the rotation, but there are FA out there.
-
We could also swap some picks.... Forgot to mention that.
-
I agree with what Rob said earlier completely.....Your trading very good mlb for minor league talent. The trade would not be approved in a normal situation. Maybe im being to harsch, but I dont think so.....Ill stay away and see what the rest of the east and central think
-
I agree with what Rob said earlier completely.....Your trading very good mlb for minor league talent. The trade would not be approved in a normal situation. Maybe im being to harsch, but I dont think so.....Ill stay away and see what the rest of the east and central think
As I said, we can throw in picks... and we could also breakdown the mass deal into smaller deals to quantify it better...
-
As I said, we can throw in picks... and we could also breakdown the mass deal into smaller deals to quantify it better...
I believe a series of smaller trades is the best solution, so that we can 1 by 1 examine them. I am afraid that there is just too much MLB talent being traded to the Mets. Yes, I understand they are getting some highly ranked prospects, but that is exactly what they are....prospects.
~MTK
-
DEAL #1 - Big money star for replacement star, money, and the #1 prospect
:CIN: receives
C Harper, Bryce, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Wells, Vernon, $18m (2014) + $14m/year from Mets
:NYM: receives
OF Hamilton, Josh, $18m (2015)
DEAL #2 - Liability move for the Reds to gain a couple prospects and clear books
:CIN: receives
SP Harvey, Matt, $0.5m (P-n/a)
OF Murphy, Daniel, $0.5m (P-2012)
:NYM: receives
X-SP Buehrle, Mark, Cash Exchange on Contract, $-5m in 2011
X-SP Buehrle, Mark, Released Under Contract, $7m in 2011
X-SP Garland, Jon, Released Under Contract, $2m (2012), $3.5m in 2011
X-SP Kazmir, Scott, Released Under Contract, $3m (2012), $6m in 2011
OF Lind, Adam, $16.5m (2011)
DEAL #3 - The Rasmus - Hicks deal, Reds don't plan on signing Rasmus, trade him away a year early for prospects
:CIN: receives
OF Hicks, Aaron, $0.5m (P-n/a)
SP Ranaudo, Anthony, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Sano, Miguel Jean, $0.5m (P-n/a)
:NYM: receives
OF Rasmus, Colby, $0.5m (P-2012)
DEAL #4 - Firesale of other supporting star talent for Singleton, mid-level specs and replacements
:CIN: receives
SP Archer, Chris, $0.5m (2012)
C Bethancourt, Christian, $0.5m (P-n/a)
CI Blake, Casey, $6m (2011)
OF Gross, Gabe, $0.5m (2011)
CI Singleton, Jonathan, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Havens, Reese, $0.5m (P-n/a)
:NYM: receives
C Thole, Josh, $1.5m (2013)
MI Beckham, Gordon, $0.5m (P-2012)
P Ni, Fu-Te, $0.5m (2011)
X-MI Roberts, Brian, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2013, $3.5m in 2011
OF Snider, Travis, $0.5m (P-2012)
DEAL #5 - Similar to Lind sell, dumping of future Burnett liability + $9m in cap liabilities for additional farmhands
:CIN: receives
OF Neal, Thomas, $0.5m (P-n/a)
MI Profar, Jurickson, $0.5m (P-n/a)
:NYM: receives
SP Burnett, A.J., $16.5m (2013)
X-SP Burnett, A.J., Cash Exchange on Contract, $6m (2012), $-16.5m in 2011
X-RP Broxton, Jonathan, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2012, $6.5m in 2011
OF Russell, Kyle, $0.5m (2011)
X-OF Upton, Justin, Cash Exchange on Contract through 2012, $2.5m in 2011
With all of this said, I believe the official roster is not up-to-date, but these deals are a lot easier to analyze then one major deal. You can rationalize it as a series of a deals in a franchise shifting movement.
-
I would like to add that my enthusiasm over this matter is not due to my positon as a GM of a competing team in the NL Central that benefits from the Reds major league crop getting worse. I like this deal because it
a) improves activity of league with added passion - if that was possible with Dan
b) takes one moribound franchise and a competing major league team, throws them together with opposite markets, and comes out gold on both sides
c) deal instantly improves the value of teams in the league as a whole as the old Mets are replaced with the new look Reds
Contingent on small deals passing, the new Reds GM would be scrutinized and would have to be a ProFSL veteran such as tarheels55 - he is our leading replacement GM followed by bigbenxl786.
-
No other teams were allowed to trade draft picks, why should it be allowed now?
-
No other teams were allowed to trade draft picks, why should it be allowed now?
I threw it out there... but I don't think we need to do that with how the five small deals are broken down. I tried to work through them in a manner that was prioritized for Dan, so in the event it starts to break down, the later deals can be massaged. Rob, as you and Corey have said, it is best if we do this as legitimately as possible, or it sets a bad precedent. I am just emphatic about it because of how it improves the teams.
-
It is just tough because there is not another GM to say that is best for the future reds.
I will take a look at the small deals, but I want to point back at some deals. Ike Davis cost 3 top 100 picks. Just an example of value prior to this.
I am not opposed to the idea, but I believe that it could have a very negative effect to this league because the league is representing a vacant GM spot and probably will leave at least one GM feeling it was unfair.
-
It will be interesting to see if Dan settles a bit on the players he wants. For example, say a deal is made for Hamilton and Rasmus, he could always find ways to acquire other former players of his or comparable guys.
-
Colb I really do appreciate your enthusiasm but I think it is obvious that this isn't happening. I've already lowered my demands by letting go of Belt and Stewart, plus taking on all of the Reds dead money, but I'm not going any lower. Now that prospects have been completely devalued by the league, despite previously being used as currency, I am not going any further with this. I'll keep my team as is. Hopefully we can find a suitable GM to take over the team.Thanks again.
-
No problem Dan... can't blame a Commish for trying! With that said, we may have some replacement GMs for the Halos and Metropolitans.
tarheels55
bigbenxl786
Let me know your opinions on these guys.
-
Dave (tarheels55) is in a few leagues with me.....very knowledgeable, active and seems like a great guy....id recommend him for any team or league. bigben has been active in agm.
-
chiming in on Dan's situation: I am not for it. Corey was accurate in that it would set bad precedent. Also the implications are too large at this point in the league. We should have no problem filling the open spots with quality gm's and they will be able to make the difficult choices to better the team, or not...that's the beauty in the league. We have a set of circumstances that we shouldn't mess with no matter how badly we'd like to. It would affect too many other teams realistically. If Dan goes to NY it should be as is with no incentives. Otherwise I'd like consideration to move my roster to that salary cap! Who has the priority in that situation. I'm sure many other GM's would also consider this same option and some might do it for less genuine reasons than their love for a team.
I support both of the managers nominated by Colby!
-
Otherwise I'd like consideration to move my roster to that salary cap!
You could have a whole roster of Jack Hannah's then... :thumbsup:
-
You could have a whole roster of Jack Hannah's then... :thumbsup:
I'd have one good zoo in the making...fantasy zoology! haha
-
I'd have one good zoo in the making...fantasy zoology! haha
hahahahaha :toast:
-
You could have a whole roster of Jack Hannah's then... :thumbsup:
I'd like to nominate Bear Grylls.
-
Guys,
This is just my two cents on the topic even though I am obviously not in either of the divisions involved in the proposed trade or a member of the TC.
1. As much as I would like to give Dan the Mets for both his sake and the sake of the league, I have to agree with some earlier voices of concern that this creates a bad precedent going forward. I am fully in favor of the system we have used in the past that allows owners to take over vacant teams if they have done their 1 year. I am not in favor of creating special rules on the fly to force this to happen. I just think it opens up too big a can of worms for other owners who also would like to work out sweet deals to swap franchises if and when they are vacant. Also, as Colby previously mentioned, we already have the Retro League where some of the GMs here can enjoy their home teams.
2. To me, this proposal hints at a big problem in this league. I don't want to point fingers at the TC or anyone, but I privately voiced concerns to Colby about some of the deals approved in the past. Certain teams like the Mets now appear to be in disarray from both a talent and cap perspective. I know that we want to extend owners a wide range of freedom in choosing how to run their teams, but maybe we should try to be a little more critical in the type of trades that we allow to get approved. An owner can ruin a team in a dynasty league, especially one with a salary cap, in a very short time and fixing the team could take years.
Sorry Dan and Colby that I could not be enthusiastic about this idea!
-
I too would like to voice my opinion, and this really has nothing to do with anything but maybe a few nuggets of truth will slip out. The reason why Colby and I wanted to do this was to make two teams attractive to perspective owners. I wanted to do it, because I wanted to take over the Mets, but not in their current state. Some of you may feel that the talent distribution was lopsided if what was proposed went through. Even I argued that it would be difficult to get a talent match to accomplish what Colby and I had hoped, and keep the rest of the league happy. I backed out because really it wasn't going to happen. Too many concessions were going to have to be made by myself and everyone in the league. Despite some of the arguments, I was leaving a lot of talent behind in Cincy, to head to Queens, even with the guys I wanted to take.
That being said, I think we can now see the importance of the TC, and that it isn't always collusion that should be considered when a deal is vetoed. The Mets have had 1 good GM out of 3 since I have been a part of this league. Many took advantage of a single poor GM (I won't name names, but it has something to do with a dude that was lazy), and that correlates to the current state of the team, and the better state of several other teams. I think sometimes the GM needs to be protected from themselves. Even the most recent GM, in his limited time, traded his best, closest to the majors prospect for a 30 something OF with an 18 million dollar salary.
In my opinion I think we need more explanation for some trades, I think we need to be more strict when evaluating trades, and I think we need an NL President and an AL President, to act as a police force in a way. The reason for that is because, we all know that the main people who watch this site in an authoritative manner are myself, Jake, Corey, and Colby... and all of us are busy with other things outside of this league.
If you look at Colby's or Jake's power rankings you have about 18 teams that are well constructed and several that are going to need creative GMs, because of the poor job the person before them did. I have also brought this up before, but several teams have/ had distinct advantages by being active when no one else was. What I am getting at is, if we want this league to succeed we are all going to need to be more involved, or it is going to be the same top teams year after year after year, and the same bottom dwellers cycling through owners over and over. It will then become a 15 team league and not a 30 team league. This is a difficult league, and it asks for a lot more knowledge from it's owner than your standard fare. And I think we need to make that clear to anyone that enters the league from this moment forward, or to anyone that some may think are half butting it currently.
Again, just my two cents, I could be completely wrong, my wife tells me this all the time, but what does she know? She married me.
-
I agree with you Dan on many levels. More explanation on trades is needed and maybe a little stricter voting is a good idea. In my opinion the Mets arent in that bad of shape....Very good youth. the Pads and Angels are just rediculous awful. With that said those two teams have good gms who can turn it around. A good Mets GM and were gona be in business.
-
As long as the league lays down the rules for the TC, it will get voted on that way. There is always the option of each GM having to vote on a trade and a certain % to pass.
I do not believe that the Mets are very bad shape at all. Two bad contracts and one I believe that Wells was acquired to get rid of Santana or Sabathia, not so great contracts, Lackey is not very good at all. A little imagination and this team can set itself up for success, trade Carp to a contender, get several pieces. Trade Harper for a big major league piece or keep him for the future. Package a few specs for some key pieces. Beltran, Castillo, and a few others come off the books this year. Maybe Beltran could even have some value.
Now the Angels, Dave has his work cut out for him. Old team, no cap room and just not good contracts to trade. No Farm.
-
Lesson learned? Perhaps we put some new guidelines for the TC to make sure a trade correlates with he direction of a franchise and its needs?
-
Lesson learned? Perhaps we put some new guidelines for the TC to make sure a trade correlates with he direction of a franchise and its needs?
:iatp:
-
I am always leary of giving TC too much power. I think a better solution would be to make sure all new owners are knowledgable (this can be demonstrated by history in other ProFSL leagues, or a member of FGM actually knowing the person and his track record) and not just some random person off an ESPN message board.
Even if TC protects an owner from make stupid trades, a GM can still destroy a team quickly by signing bad players to long term contracts and not picking any good players in season (Baltimore anymore?)
-
I volunteer to be the AL President if Colby and/or the league decides that the position would be of benefit. One thing I would propose in such a role is that all team have the ability to field a nearly full team roster. That doesn't mean that you have to fill every possible pitching spot, but I wouldn't expect to see a team like the Mets where they have only 4-5 pitchers. I understand that teams want to have cap flexibility in the future, but Crap-canning the present for the hope of a brighter future would not be allowed. I would expect all teams to at least make a good-hearted attempt to plug some holes in the present through free agency if trades did not materialize. The Mets are sitting on 47M that could easily have been utilized this past off-season by signing some bargain free agents without jeopardizing their cap space in the future.
I could also weigh in on trades if the league wants to give the league Presidents a voice in such matters.
This is all up to you guys, but I wanted to throw it out there, because I really like this league and want it to thrive in the long-term.
Roy
-
I am thinking as I am typing, and this idea could totally not make sense, but what I act as the interim manager of the Mets? There could be an oversight committee to make sure I am acting in the best interest of the Mets (obviously I am not trading with myself) and I will disclose the rationale behind all Mets transactions. If I win this year with COL, I will relinquish COL and become a full time Mets Gm.
I am pretty qualified at working with bad teams - I took over the Pirates in a 16 team NL league 9 years ago, going for championship #4 this year.
-
I volunteer to be the AL President if Colby and/or the league decides that the position would be of benefit. One thing I would propose in such a role is that all team have the ability to field a nearly full team roster. That doesn't mean that you have to fill every possible pitching spot, but I wouldn't expect to see a team like the Mets where they have only 4-5 pitchers. I understand that teams want to have cap flexibility in the future, but crap-canning the present for the hope of a brighter future would not be allowed. I would expect all teams to at least make a good-hearted attempt to plug some holes in the present through free agency if trades did not materialize. The Mets are sitting on 47M that could easily have been utilized this past off-season by signing some bargain free agents without jeopardizing their cap space in the future.
I could also weigh in on trades if the league wants to give the league Presidents a voice in such matters.
This is all up to you guys, but I wanted to throw it out there, because I really like this league and want it to thrive in the long-term.
Roy
I do not like taking the power to control away from a GM. The concept above is already being covered as well. Since the GM of the Mets did not do anything over the offseason and had plenty of $ to fill holes, HE WAS FIRED. We don't need more oversight than that.
If more oversight is given and we start allowing and not allowing certain things, then GMs won't stay. DME is a great example of this type of league. There are new GMs every day it seems and most of the core managers on this site are not in that league. Now there is very little action at all in that league, that is not the only issue, but it is a contributing issue.
Once that occurs, FGM loses it's foundation, what it is built on., the Reason that it is the league that we all stay in and identify as the best league on the site.
Please be careful with messing with something that is working. We are addressing the rare case, maybe 3 or 4 franchises are in this situation, don't ruin a league over the minority. If we get good GMs for the spots, it will resolve itself.
-
I am thinking as I am typing, and this idea could totally not make sense, but what I act as the interim manager of the Mets? There could be an oversight committee to make sure I am acting in the best interest of the Mets (obviously I am not trading with myself) and I will disclose the rationale behind all Mets transactions. If I win this year with COL, I will relinquish COL and become a full time Mets Gm.
I am pretty qualified at working with bad teams - I took over the Pirates in a 16 team NL league 9 years ago, going for championship #4 this year.
Can't have a GM for two teams, this is not functional and has as many problems with it as Dan taking his players to the Mets. The solution is to find a good GM, the Mets are not in that bad of shape.
-
I do not like taking the power to control away from a GM. The concept above is already being covered as well. Since the GM of the Mets did not do anything over the offseason and had plenty of $ to fill holes, HE WAS FIRED. We don't need more oversight than that.
If more oversight is given and we start allowing and not allowing certain things, then GMs won't stay. DME is a great example of this type of league. There are new GMs every day it seems and most of the core managers on this site are not in that league. Now there is very little action at all in that league, that is not the only issue, but it is a contributing issue.
Once that occurs, FGM loses it's foundation, what it is built on., the Reason that it is the league that we all stay in and identify as the best league on the site.
Please be careful with messing with something that is working. We are addressing the rare case, maybe 3 or 4 franchises are in this situation, don't ruin a league over the minority. If we get good GMs for the spots, it will resolve itself.
totally agree Rob. No need to completely overhaul the system, when a small fix is indeed. A tad bit of a tighter TC will help. But most importantly a GM that goes into the Mets realizing that 2011 is not there year but every year after they get better and better will help out the case majorly. I know that a great GM was hired for the Angels, so we just need to fine one more. I dont see the need for conf presidents or forcing teams to hold certain amount of players on a roster. If a team is bracing themselves for the future then let them use the money on signing bonuses not players that will fill there roster only to lose anyway.
If it takes a week to find a GM then it takes a week. The Mets are in no hurry to compete right now anyway.
-
I agree with Corey there is no need to overreact about a minorty. All have good suggestions but perhaps better review over hiring GMs and adding guidelines to the TC is all we need to do. Howe, which league are you in that you run the Pirates?
FYI, no offense to bigbenxl786 but I am not confident in handing him the Mets. I want to see the other applicants as that franchise is very delegate. IMO, the Angels were worse and I like the GM that I hired.
-
I don't think that TC is the solution either. Especially at the talent level. Each GM has his own style and goes about thing different ways. In other words, it's an infringement for the TC to tell a GM that he can't trade for a certain player. There is way too much subjectivity involved. The problem we have is the teams budget in relation to that teams marketable talent.
I feel like the solution is:
1.) Make sure the new GM understands that he simply isn't going to win in the next year or so. I don't think the Mets are
that bad of shape
2.) Insure that he/she has read and understands the rules about Releasing/Buying Out players. It my pertain to the Mets and/or
Angels.
3.) Go back to the "Apprenticeship Program". Let him/her observe for a while before handing over the reins.
This is a complex league and isn't suited for everyone. I've been here for a year and a half and I still have to look things up to be sure. Basically make sure we have the right person for the job.
Just my two cents,
Rick
-
I could be dead wrong on this, but I think some of you are looking at this with rose-colored glasses. In my opinion, The TC acting under the guidelines specified in the league rules basically approved some really lop-sided deals, otherwise the Mets and many other teams would not be in the dire situation they are today. Many bad trades were approved as long as some top 100 prospects were involved. As someone who has had a Baseball America subscription since 1985, I can tell you first-hand that the vast majority of them don't amount to a hill of beans.
It will be very challenging for the bad teams to improve any time soon with free agency not providing any front-line players last year. Also, most smart GMs find ways to sign and/or trade their key players. Believe me, if the Mets were only a few moves away, I'm pretty sure Dan would have jumped all over them. The truth is exactly as Dan said it. This is becoming a league of haves and have-nots. To make matters worse, unlike real life, some bad teams have virtually no top prospects due to the short-sightedness of their prior GMs.
I do not say all this to depress anyone or suggest that the league is not strong overall. I say this as a wake-up cry for us not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
-
I could be dead wrong on this, but I think some of you are looking at this with rose-colored glasses. In my opinion, The TC acting under the guidelines specified in the league rules basically approved some really lop-sided deals, otherwise the Mets and many other teams would not be in the dire situation they are today. Many bad trades were approved as long as some top 100 prospects were involved. As someone who has had a Baseball America subscription since 1985, I can tell you first-hand that the vast majority of them don't amount to a hill of beans.
It will be very challenging for the bad teams to improve any time soon with free agency not providing any front-line players last year. Also, most smart GMs find ways to sign and/or trade their key players. Believe me, if the Mets were only a few moves away, I'm pretty sure Dan would have jumped all over them. The truth is exactly as Dan said it. This is becoming a league of haves and have-nots. To make matters worse, unlike real life, some bad teams have virtually no top prospects due to the short-sightedness of their prior GMs.
I do not say all this to depress anyone or suggest that the league is not strong overall. I say this as a wake-up cry for us not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
It is repairable. No prospects, have a stellar draft.
It is a manager's perogative to gamble on specs if he wants. Some turn out, some don't. But there is no exact science to know, but we shouldn't tell a manager that is a bad gamble when we don't really know. A trade just needs to be equal. This also goes into to what a manager enjoys. There are managers that are huge into prospects and that is all they care about. They know they may never compete, but they get to follow the prospects - Read BA, BP, Sickels, Project Prospect, Diamond Futures, etc. If they choose to do that and not compete, why should a league tell them that is not allowed.
The rose colored glass is only perspective. There are some GM's that want the league to have more control, there are some that don't. We aren't going to come a consensus on that. You just have to be respectful of a good GMs plan. The problem is not having good GMs in those positions.
Bottom line, I have been in leagues where there is strong oversight and multiple times there have been dissolving or league split issues over opinions. This league is set up to take the drama of arguing and opinions out, that is why it is so successful.
-
Good point Rob. But, for the "prospect addict" may I suggest Prospectus Maximus. That's what I was trying to say- FGM isn't for everyone. You need to be able to mix this addiction with the ability to sustain a marketable franchise.
The TC has approved a lot of trades that I couldn't approve. That is why I resigned. I don't mean to place any blame at their doorstep. All I am saying is that more consideration has to be given to the future of the franchises when considering a trade. That's a very hard thing to do in this league given it's trade activity and the # of prospects invovled given the fact that prospect are a crap shoot,at best.
-
The Mets have been seriously abused by previous GMs. However, with their salary cap they could easily be a .500 team next year with a good GM. They also have an opportunity to improve the farm system during the remainder of this season. I seriously considered taking the team and would have if my team didn't have a good shot at this year's playoffs. We just need someone who is knowlegeable and willing to work like Kris is doing with the Cubs. No need to rush into filling the vacancy or making any big changes to the system.
-
The TC has improved... One thing we could do is instead of the two week no moves period... Have several of a new GM's first moves be reviewed by the EC.
-
The TC has improved... One thing we could do is instead of the two week no moves period... Have several of a new GM's first moves be reviewed by the EC.
That is a good idea. Two layers of review. Maybe make it for 2 months, instead of two weeks.
-
I think additional time to review trades is a good idea.
-
The Mets have been seriously abused by previous GMs. However, with their salary cap they could easily be a .500 team next year with a good GM. They also have an opportunity to improve the farm system during the remainder of this season. I seriously considered taking the team and would have if my team didn't have a good shot at this year's playoffs. We just need someone who is knowlegeable and willing to work like Kris is doing with the Cubs. No need to rush into filling the vacancy or making any big changes to the system.
If Paul moves to NYM (for whatever reason) I want dibs on St. Louis :thumbsup: haha
2. To me, this proposal hints at a big problem in this league. I don't want to point fingers at the TC or anyone, but I privately voiced concerns to Colby about some of the deals approved in the past. Certain teams like the Mets now appear to be in disarray from both a talent and cap perspective. I know that we want to extend owners a wide range of freedom in choosing how to run their teams, but maybe we should try to be a little more critical in the type of trades that we allow to get approved. An owner can ruin a team in a dynasty league, especially one with a salary cap, in a very short time and fixing the team could take years.
I think the TC should not arbitrate trade value. Primarily, trade value IS an extremely subjective discussion. It is difficult to agree on whether or not a trade is good for a team if we don't know a potential owners big picture. I think we should instead have a membership prerequisite; a Letter of Recomendation from another league commish of which they're active members. This will ensure that FGM is only for dedicated members. Consistency will level the playing field as well. The Letter would also ensure these members are active.
Letters could be very simple and could be 2-3 sentences. It is just too hard to agree on trade value. Certainly the board was vocal during the AGON trade so we do see some oversite. Actively valuing every trade would be inconclusive, IMO.
I'm going to post another post because I'm reading and theres a lot I'd like to reply about. I am more libertarian about this issue and if we simply control the talent of members then we shouldn't need to police trades. I know questionable trades have been made in which they were approved simply because the members were believed to be (and may be) good members at PROfsl. I am against policing GM's moves.
Also I resent any statement about the Padres being 'Awful'...we're a work in progress. :rofl: (Corey *Cough* :thumbsup:)
-
Can't have a GM for two teams, this is not functional and has as many problems with it as Dan taking his players to the Mets. The solution is to find a good GM, the Mets are not in that bad of shape.
:iatp:
-
That is a good idea. Two layers of review. Maybe make it for 2 months, instead of two weeks.
+1 to two layers of review and an extended probationary period. 1 month? Dont want to drive too many people away.
I also think the hiring process needs an overhaul; that would fix our issues.
-
+1 to two layers of review and an extended probationary period. 1 month? Dont want to drive too many people away.
I also think the hiring process needs an overhaul; that would fix our issues.
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.
-
Hey Guys,
I just read through the thread, and I'll try to provide more feedback later but just wanted to say overall I'm agreement with a lot of what was said/decided, and am pretty proud of the strong group of leadership here - we have a lot of really good owners, both at playing the game and keeping a great league going strong. :toast:
-
Hey Guys,
I just read through the thread, and I'll try to provide more feedback later but just wanted to say overall I'm agreement with a lot of what was said/decided, and am pretty proud of the strong group of leadership here - we have a lot of really good owners, both at playing the game and keeping a great league going strong. :toast:
Agreed... look at how passionate and deep this thread has been!
-
Well, the only problem I foresee with the recommendation letters is we will have a hard time getting outside owners and most owners already here are maxed out for the most part. Secondly, are willing to take recommendation letters from people outside of ProFSL (integrity problem?)? If not, then how will we ever get outside owners?
~MTK
-
Well, the only problem I foresee with the recommendation letters is we will have a hard time getting outside owners and most owners already here are maxed out for the most part. Secondly, are willing to take recommendation letters from people outside of ProFSL (integrity problem?)? If not, then how will we ever get outside owners?
~MTK
Turnover is infrequent in this league. There is always an up and comer that someone can approve.
-
Turnover is infrequent in this league. There is always an up and comer that someone can approve.
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.
-
Well, the only problem I foresee with the recommendation letters is we will have a hard time getting outside owners and most owners already here are maxed out for the most part. Secondly, are willing to take recommendation letters from people outside of ProFSL (integrity problem?)? If not, then how will we ever get outside owners?
~MTK
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
That was his real life contract... seriously... he used to be really good... seriously
-
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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.).
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Corey,
You have described the problem precisely. For YOU to have 3 starting MIs means that another team would only have ONE, since there are only a fixed number of starters in major league baseball if you exclude platoons. Many teams can't even field a full roster, because they have traded away starters for prospects.
Jake,
I would support your idea of expanding the rosters. I believe that would be beneficial to the small market teams.
-
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.
This idea keeps bad teams bad. If I HAD to field a full team I'd be starting (-) points players every day. I do already but still. I dont like the idea of forcing teams into starting players.
-
Corey,
You have described the problem precisely. For YOU to have 3 starting MIs means that another team would only have ONE, since there are only a fixed number of starters in major league baseball if you exclude platoons. Many teams can't even field a full roster, because they have traded away starters for prospects.
Jake,
I would support your idea of expanding the rosters. I believe that would be beneficial to the small market teams.
I think that its fine if every team does not have a starter. Fact of the matter is; this sis a realistic simulation. Baseball doesn't even have a Trade Committte IRL.
Expanding roster size is ok; but really it doesnt solve issues. Large Markt Teams (LMTs) can then stash even more prospects and hold them away from the Small Market Teams (SMTs). The 40 man roster makes managers decide between MLB talent and prospects.
-
I think you are confusing one element of realism with another. The TC and the caps themselves are necessary things even though there may not be counter-parts to them in real life. The truth is that most teams definitely have very specific spending patterns, and the salary cap forces us all to react according to our real life team's market. The TC is needed because in real life a GM has to weigh in on factors such as attendance and ticket sales even though we do not have to here. The Mets would never have acted in that manner in real life (even though some people might say that they already did to some extent), because they would never be able to sell one season ticket in Citifield.
Asking every team to field a full starting lineup strikes at the core of baseball and legitimate competition itself, imo, but not everyone may share that belief. I respect that viewpoint even though I clearly do not share it. It's one thing to have 1 or 2 spots open. I am guilty of that myself.
-
Great ideas people... I like them all. Having a new GM state their plan in detail is key. It is my fault that I hired incapacity GMs just to fill sptits. Roy and Jake bring a good point about roster filling. Realistically, we should be fielding rosters with a legitimate amount of position players and pitchers at the major league level. Is horsing minor leaguers good for the future? Probably, but it is unrealistic. One thing I thought about doing when I set up this league was have a 25 man major league roster. You could control it through eligibility in the official roster but it gets messy in Fantrax. We have total rosters at 50 going to 55 by the draft this year and then 60. This leaves room for 25 to 35 minor leaguers....
-
Making teams field full rosters in a 30 team league is not a good idea. How are the Padres and the Nats and Marlins and teams like that suppose to spend money on specs, if they have to compete with the Yanks Bosox Mets Dodgers and Phils on mlb starters. There gona way overpay, get bad contracts and be stuck. Or they can spend .5m on 4 mlb bench warmers to sit in the starting lineup and not play. If we are trying to improve the league, then wouldnt it better to let the Padres spend that .5 on a spec..... Like it was stated before, too much control is not a good thing. We are starting to border that line with this change.
-
I dont like any of these proposed changes. The league is not broken, it's very very easy to rebuild and contend. The entire issue lies with the fact that incompetent owners took control of teams.
Here is one idea: make any incoming new owner pay a deposit. They get the money back after a certain number of days of continuing activities.
-
This has been way over analyzed. I have to say that I feel more sorry for Dave (Angels) than I do the Mets. They have a good farm, $47m in their pocket and the high dollar contracts expiring this year. In fact if I hadn't invested as much time building ChiSox I would seriously consider throwing my name in the hat.
We just need to ensure that the new owner understands the entire scope of running a FGM franchise. Doesn't matter if he's new to the site or not, he needs to understand that the propose is to simulate a MLB franchise-From farm system to contracts and everything in between.
-
I dont like any of these proposed changes. The league is not broken, it's very very easy to rebuild and contend. The entire issue lies with the fact that incompetent owners took control of teams.
Here is one idea: make any incoming new owner pay a deposit. They get the money back after a certain number of days of continuing activities.
The deposit idea is a good one as it keeps the league but requires collateral. I assume the deposit is returned no matter what?
-
The deposit idea is a good one as it keeps the league but requires collateral. I assume the deposit is returned no matter what?
Yes, I think getting the prospective owner to put down some $ is a good sign of commitment.
-
Great ideas people... I like them all. Having a new GM state their plan in detail is key. It is my fault that I hired incapacity GMs just to fill sptits. Roy and Jake bring a good point about roster filling. Realistically, we should be fielding rosters with a legitimate amount of position players and pitchers at the major league level. Is horsing minor leaguers good for the future? Probably, but it is unrealistic. One thing I thought about doing when I set up this league was have a 25 man major league roster. You could control it through eligibility in the official roster but it gets messy in Fantrax. We have total rosters at 50 going to 55 by the draft this year and then 60. This leaves room for 25 to 35 minor leaguers....
Keep in mind that over time, a larger and larger portion of rosterable prospects will be on people's EDR as we draft the good ones and the current non-EDR prospects graduate or fall out of baseball. We won't have as large of a pool of free agent prospects, and roster space will ultimately be used on MLB reserve players (naturally resolving the issue at hand).
-
Perhaps the mandatory roster filling is not something we should do. As I said, it creates a mess in the league. It's all about filling the right spots. Let's not be hasty with filling GM slots. I know Dave Martin is a great replacement for a horrible Angels franchise. I have a couple candidates for Mets GMs. We can see what plan Jason (bigbenxl786) may have as well.
-
I am against mandatory starting rosters, it can stunt a teams growth. A teams future SP prospect that would start for the next 10 years would be traded for Matt Treanor, just an example. Then he loses his job and the team trades another future piece for Jason Kendall, all to meet a restricting requirement. Each manager should be allowed to have their own vision.
The league is fine, need better GM's. The deposit idea was pretty good.
-
I'm dead against mandatory rosters. One GM cannot dictate to another how to run their team. I'll cite Rob's examples as reasons why.
Perhaps the new GM candidates need to put detailed forth a plan to make the Mets relevant again? The powers that be should be able to look at those plans and see if the person is qualified.
-
I agree, a GM shouldn't be forced to fill up his roster, but I don't think it is too much to ask to have 8 MLB regulars. And by regulars I mean guys who project to have 400 ABs plus. Buying or trading for back ups or part time players isn't that expensive, and won't impede picking up fringe prospects(all the good ones are gone), who chances are will be dropped before the rosters are updated. That being said, when push comes to shove, if a team is out of it, they will just end up trading those guys for better prospects than what is available in free agency. And who knows sometimes you get lucky with the part timers and they end up being decent. Marcus Thames and Brett Gardner are prime examples of two players last year.
In honesty I think we can all agree that we just want someone to care for their franchise, show in a little pride in what they are putting together, and have some concept of who and why they are trading. You know the opposite of Tony Reagins. In other words, just be effing smart, and don't trade away David Wright for a pile of fossils.
-
Okay, I think the recruiting method for leagues at ProFSL is backwards. The idea has been that leagues like FGM would have low turnover, and when they need to replace a GM, there would be plenty of internal candidates on ProFSL. However, we have seen many of these guys flake out and join too many leagues here. Weaker leagues get even worse. Perhaps, we should treat it the other way around. Have some competition with our own waiting list by posting about the open slots in our best leagues. Consider it trickledown recruiting from the best leagues on the site. I posted on the Cafe and Yahoo and received two emails over the past day...
If you havent filled the spot I am very interested. I am in a league with 30 players, and a 10 player minor league. I really want to play in this league, sounds fun, and I know how to rebuild a team from the minors, as all I do is look at baseball prospectus, baseball america, and fangraphs.
Hit me up if I could join.
Luke Williams
Luke just signed up as WamCo and PM'ed me per my request. He has the experience and the minor league focus. He appears to be a top candidate.
Hi. I saw your post on the fantsy baseball message board, and I am interested. I am regesterd on the website, but I have never been involed in a league on the website. I play fantasy sports on Yahoo. I like building teams from the ground up, as it gives you the total GM experience. The Mets are one of my favourite teams, and I love the deep roster idea. If this spot is still open, I would love to join.
Alex is a Mets fan, but he does not have the experience. I will try to see if we can get him involved somewhere else and put him on the waiting list.
We also have Jason (bigbenxl786), but he is in several leagues here (AGM included) and has a negative rating. The Mets may not be for him.
-
Okay, I think the recruiting method for leagues at ProFSL is backwards. The idea has been that leagues like FGM would have low turnover, and when they need to replace a GM, there would be plenty of internal candidates on ProFSL. However, we have seen many of these guys flake out and join too many leagues here. Weaker leagues get even worse. Perhaps, we should treat it the other way around. Have some competition with our own waiting list by posting about the open slots in our best leagues. Consider it trickledown recruiting from the best leagues on the site. I posted on the Cafe and Yahoo and received two emails over the past day...
Luke just signed up as WamCo and PM'ed me per my request. He has the experience and the minor league focus. He appears to be a top candidate.
Sounds like a great fit to me. :koolaid:
-
As long as you're confident in him; he sounds like a great candidate. After all the Mets aren't exactly in complete shambles. There is a good farm and $47m in wiggle room.
I would suggest that any candidate put together their thoughts on how they would go about rebuilding the team. Just so we are sure that the candidate knows the rules and understands the concept of the league.
Just my thoughts
-
Good idea Rick. I agree.
-
What if we create a minor leagues for prospective FGM owners? The idea being prospective owners can take on a team in this league while they're on the waiting list. If they're active, responsible and savvy owners, they'll be on the short-list next time there's an opening and we'll have a real track record to evaluate them by (we can even hold a league vote, if people want to). If they're not committed or not experienced enough, that should become apparent over time (or maybe they'll leave) and they won't get a chance to ruin an FGM team before getting fired.
The league can be similar in structure, but maybe only 8-10 teams, and we'd setup rules with the understanding that turnover will be a lot more significant than FGM (maybe skip the draft, simplify free agency, etc.). I'd think we'd need at least 4-6 active owners to give them some chance to work, so there's definitely a minimum to make it feasible (if we don't have a full waiting list, maybe current owners can volunteer backfill and get first hand experience on the prospective owners, perhaps on a rotating basis)
Thoughts?
-
Well, they should try other leagues at this site. However, do we all get together and form a "Prove Yourself" advanced league?
-
Let's not start any new leagues while existing leagues are suffering from activity issues. Agent vs GM league has very similar setup to FGM, it could be used as a proving ground for prospective GMs.
-
Let's not start any new leagues while existing leagues are suffering from activity issues. Agent vs GM league has very similar setup to FGM, it could be used as a proving ground for prospective GMs.
I agree agm is similiar. Could easily be used to check on the knowledge of a gm.
-
Let's not start any new leagues while existing leagues are suffering from activity issues. Agent vs GM league has very similar setup to FGM, it could be used as a proving ground for prospective GMs.
Hence what I said... in fact, I tell people to test themselves there.
-
That's good too - what league it is really isn't as important as just having one league we recommend so we can compare prospective owners and they build a track record while on the wait-list. If they've taken on a team for a couple of months while waiting for an opening, they should be able to list some accomplishments and have other owners in the league speak to their commitment, savvy, respect, etc.
It doesn't need to be a hard requirement, but the more we can push for that the better. With rave reviews we seem to get for this league, I'd expect a good number of people wouldn't mind doing it since they'll need to wait for the next opening anyway.
-
That's good too - what league it is really isn't as important as just having one league we recommend so we can compare prospective owners and they build a track record while on the wait-list. If they've taken on a team for a couple of months while waiting for an opening, they should be able to list some accomplishments and have other owners in the league speak to their commitment, savvy, respect, etc.
It doesn't need to be a hard requirement, but the more we can push for that the better. With rave reviews we seem to get for this league, I'd expect a good number of people wouldn't mind doing it since they'll need to wait for the next opening anyway.
:iatp:
BTW, it took a while for those last couple 100, but congrats on the 1000th post :win:
-
BTW, it took a while for those last couple 100, but congrats on the 1000th post :win:
:toast:
-
Thanks guys :toth: