ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: Clarifications & Discussion => Topic started by: bravesfan4 on May 11, 2011, 06:22:56 PM
-
I am stepping down as GM of the Yankees. Daniel Pruitt (ltd217) an avid Yankee fan, and like the rest of us he is a fantasy lover. He will take over the Yankee's immediately and the current pending transactions is still valid.
Welcome Daniel, to the greatest league on Profsl.com
-
FYI, I support this hiring. The previous GM didn't even report to work. Corey has decided to move from the Bronx to Queens and take over the Mets.
-
I support the move as well, but I am curious about one thing. Shouldn't the Yanks have been offered to the folks here who have been with their teams for at least one year?
-
corey thanks man, guys its great to be a part of a new league that is a little more challenging i have been looking for something like this for a few years i have been playing fantasy for around 10 years on espn so this will be an adjustment to this style of league but i am up to the challenge! so lets do this GO YANKS! haha
-
rcankosy
im sorry man im not trying to step on any toes
-
rcankosy
im sorry man im not trying to step on any toes
Not a problem... Roy is right, but sometimes we need to make a move that is best for the league by bringing in a GM that we can count on for a franchise. I made the executive decision on this hiring just like all others. LTD, I really hope you don't let us down. :toast:
-
i will not let u dont no worries just gonna take me a few weeks to truely figure it out
-
Welcome, LTD. :toast:
Corey, Jake, Papps, and I in the NL East? Should be interesting :taco:
~MTK
-
Not a problem... Roy is right, but sometimes we need to make a move that is best for the league by bringing in a GM that we can count on for a franchise. I made the executive decision on this hiring just like all others. LTD, I really hope you don't let us down. :toast:
Welcome LTD!
Just wondering, does anyone know the new GM or did was he just picked out from some random message board?
-
Welcome LTD!
Just wondering, does anyone know the new GM or did was he just picked out from some random message board?
I engaged in conversations here on profsl last week about him possibly joining new era. I found out that he was a huge Yankee fan, however in new era the cost of the yanks is $248, that being a little high Daniel stayed away from new era.
While updating the rosters today, I started to think about taking the Mets since noone seems to be able to stick with them. In the process I thought hec, Maybe Daniel would like the Yanks, since when he joined the site there were no Yankee openings. He has experience and knowledge so what the hec, I gave him the breakdown of how the league works. How the scoring is, let him review the team and so forth and after some thought he wanted to join.
-
I engaged in conversations here on profsl last week about him possibly joining new era. I found out that he was a huge Yankee fan, however in new era the cost of the yanks is $248, that being a little high Daniel stayed away from new era.
While updating the rosters today, I started to think about taking the Mets since noone seems to be able to stick with them. In the process I thought hec, Maybe Daniel would like the Yanks, since when he joined the site there were no Yankee openings. He has experience and knowledge so what the hec, I gave him the breakdown of how the league works. How the scoring is, let him review the team and so forth and after some thought he wanted to join.
While I do welcome new blood to this league, I am at same time worried that an unproven/inactive GM can ruin a proud franchise that both you and the previous GM put so much effort building, hence my question.
-
Welcome to the league Daniel! This is potentially the best team in the league.
-
Totally understandable. In this case Im pretty sure were gona be ok. I wouldnt just leave without making sure the new gm new what he was doing and wasnt gona destroy what i did over the last year.
-
i will definetly take care of the team no questions asked. i am a new owner to this site and style of league and scoring i will do everything i can to learn it asap!
i kind of anticipate holding all the players i currently have until i see how everything really works....unless someone wants to make some moves thats something im always interested in lol. also im into building for the future and all but at the sametime all my young guys are availible....
-
I guess I have a new rival in the AL East. Good luck and welcome! Hope to be a worthy adversary to the New York powerhouse you'll be managing now.
-
I guess I have a new rival in the AL East. Good luck and welcome! Hope to be a worthy adversary to the New York powerhouse you'll be managing now.
Don't look now, but Longoria is finally back and Hanley is starting to heat up (not going to score 3.84 pts a game too much longer). Being at .500 with Hanley's start and Longo's injury + 3 SP on the DL is not too shabby....rest assured, the Rays will be heard from this year in the East! :koolaid:
-
Welcome to the league.
-
I am stepping down as GM of the Yankees. Daniel Pruitt (ltd217) an avid Yankee fan, and like the rest of us he is a fantasy lover. He will take over the Yankee's immediately and the current pending transactions is still valid.
Welcome Daniel, to the greatest league on Profsl.com
Im really a little upset I wasn't offered the position. That's standard protocol. I am opposed to the signing, as I would have considered the transition to NYY and have been here for well over a year. I am disappointed.
-
It really should be clarified that an exiting GM may seek a replacement for their position before they leave that post. Most often this has not happened but we did follow this with Boston and Detroit.
-
It really should be clarified that an exiting GM may seek a replacement for their position before they leave that post. Most often this has not happened but we did follow this with Boston and Detroit.
So being IN the league shouldn't qualify for choice to move to the newly opened club? So I could be stuck in SD forever, hypothetically, because people keep replacing themselves with outsiders? And, for me to get a new club I'd need to quit and re apply and wait. I'm sorry but that's bull. I've done my time in this league. I and the other GMs should have choice when it comes to taking over a powerhouse club. Corey didn't send me a message to take over the team. Seems like a stupid way to do things and I am pretty upset about it.
-
Chris, can you chill? It looks like we need to kick LTD out then. He could have been a good member... Guy exchanged 50 plus emails with Corey about the league and the team. What a shame.
-
Chris, can you chill? It looks like we need to kick LTD out then. He could have been a good member... Guy exchanged 50 plus emails with Corey about the league and the team. What a shame.
Whatever, make me seem like bad guy here. I'm sorry but that hiring was way out of line compared to the past year I've seen. Give him the team, emails sent in private should be the source for hiring for the future. Considering the way things went down I don't even want the yankees anymore. Had the offer been made to me in a genuine sense I would have gladly accepted it. Just irritating.
-
Chris, I have two problems with you being upset.
1.) Corey is the one really hurting. He went from the Yankees to the Mets.
2.) Corey did this for the betterment of the LEAGUE (which includes you). We have gone "0-fer" with the Mets as it is hard to get committed GMs to start out in a rebuilding process. Now, we finally have a full league, instead trying to find some to fill the Padres.
~MTK
-
Chris, I have two problems with you being upset.
1.) Corey is the one really hurting. He went from the Yankees to the Mets.
2.) Corey did this for the betterment of the LEAGUE (which includes you). We have gone "0-fer" with the Mets as it is hard to get committed GMs to start out in a rebuilding process. Now, we finally have a full league, instead trying to find some to fill the Padres.
~MTK
1.) That was Corey's choice. I do not feel bad for him.
2.) The excuse, betterment of the league, doesn't apply. Corey could have gone to the Mets with or without the way it went down. And, needing to fill the Padres as a reason why I shouldn't be able to move teams is pathetic. Sorry I'd like to take a team with a better chance in the league. Easy to say, Aubrey, as your team does a nice job in the league. For a GM of a bottom team, it'd be nice for a change of scenery.
Both your problems seem to be rather lack-luster in really understanding why I was upset.
-
MTK is spot on why I made this decision and supported Corey. We could have a very good GM in LTD who will be very active.
-
I'm new here and don't want to step on anyones toes or jump into a discussion I'm not a part of but I can see the reasoning for the hiring of the new GM. It's easier to attract a new participant to the league if they get a good team to start with. Finding a person who is willing to take over a good team like the Yankees is easier then it is to find someone up to the task of re-building the Mets. In my opinion it makes the league stronger by getting a new GM who will likely stay long term and a good GM running the Mets. I was willing to take over the Orioles to get into the league and for the challenge. I can see how alot of new GM's would be unwilling to do this or leave shortly after accepting the challenge because they don't have the patience.
-
I sent this privately to Chris, but it is worth going public in case others are offended...
Chris, sorry about the latest hiring in FGM. I need to make hirings that are best for the league some times. The Padres, Mets, Nationals, Orioles, Mariners, Cubs and some other organizations are fragile franchises. They need to be handled with care. LTD definitely proved his activity through all of the emails but he only wanted the Yankees. This was an opportunity to bring a new member who could become very dedicated into ProFSL.
....
With all of that said, any active and good member of a bad team shouldn't be handicapped and never given a chance. Normally Chris would have a chance but I made an executive decision in hiring LTD.
-
I'm new here and don't want to step on anyones toes or jump into a discussion I'm not a part of but I can see the reasoning for the hiring of the new GM. It's easier to attract a new participant to the league if they get a good team to start with. Finding a person who is willing to take over a good team like the Yankees is easier then it is to find someone up to the task of re-building the Mets. In my opinion it makes the league stronger by getting a new GM who will likely stay long term and a good GM running the Mets. I was willing to take over the Orioles to get into the league and for the challenge. I can see how alot of new GM's would be unwilling to do this or leave shortly after accepting the challenge because they don't have the patience.
Again a moot point. There is no correlation to a good gm and a good team. I am a fine GM, active here for over a year, and when I took the Padres (as my first team) they were rancid. Still, I am here. If the only way to get new guys is by giving them the best job; we will have a stupid system of recruitment. In other words; all veteran GMs should now step down to the worst teams so bad GMs will stay in the league.
If a GM isnt active why would we want them to run a good team? Why do we want a bad GM on any team? We don't. Good GMs don't quit because their team is bad. I can't agree with any argument of why the Yankees being a good team are more likely to retain a GM, or create a better GM.
-
I sent this privately to Chris, but it is worth going public in case others are offended...
Chris, sorry about the latest hiring in FGM. I need to make hirings that are best for the league some times. The Padres, Mets, Nationals, Orioles, Mariners, Cubs and some other organizations are fragile franchises. They need to be handled with care. LTD definitely proved his activity through all of the emails but he only wanted the Yankees. This was an opportunity to bring a new member who could become very dedicated into ProFSL.
....
With all of that said, any active and good member of a bad team shouldn't be handicapped and never given a chance. Normally Chris would have a chance but I made an executive decision in hiring LTD.
I replied that it's nothing personal with anybody.
-
I think Chris should be offered the next GM opening, if he would like it. I am not sure the league knew that he was unhappy in SD.
To bring humor to the subject, I do not believe that a Red Sox fan can be the GM of the Yanks, under any circumstances. We would have had to report this to the Sons of Sam Horn and they would have taken your Red Sox Hat, Jersey, the Bill Buckner VCR tape, and the DVDs of the Championships as well. Just kidding.
-
Chris, you are missing the point altogether. LTD was not hired by the Yankees because they are a good team that is easier to fill. It was just a good fit and right opportunity. Generally, 90% of openings are offered to the league. However, I have the right and responsibilty as commissioner to hire the guy I think is best for the job AND could be a good fit for our league and ProFSL.
-
Again a moot point. There is no correlation to a good gm and a good team. I am a fine GM, active here for over a year, and when I took the Padres (as my first team) they were rancid. Still, I am here. If the only way to get new guys is by giving them the best job; we will have a stupid system of recruitment. In other words; all veteran GMs should now step down to the worst teams so bad GMs will stay in the league.
If a GM isnt active why would we want them to run a good team? Why do we want a bad GM on any team? We don't. Good GMs don't quit because their team is bad. I can't agree with any argument of why the Yankees being a good team are more likely to retain a GM, or create a better GM.
Chris,
I understand where you are coming from and I agree with most of what you said (especially the part about the flawed logic that the league would be stronger if a new GM takes over a good team rather than a bad team). If you want, we can switch teams at the end of the year if I make it to the Championship game.
-
I think Chris should be offered the next GM opening, if he would like it. I am not sure the league knew that he was unhappy in SD.
To bring humor to the subject, I do not believe that a Red Sox fan can be the GM of the Yanks, under any circumstances. We would have had to report this to the Sons of Sam Horn and they would have taken your Red Sox Hat, Jersey, the Bill Buckner VCR tape, and the DVDs of the Championships as well. Just kidding.
This highlights my point though. A GM shouldn't have to let the league know they're interested in any open position that becomes available. ANY hiring should be done internally and then externally. Why we wouldn't give choice to our members, and instead let others simply email for the job, is beyond me. I wasn't even made aware the opening was going to occur. THAT is my problem. The system used to hire for the Yankees job eliminated any internal member the ability to take the job.
RE: Second paragraph... :thumbsup: Not my 04 championship DVD's...Take the buckner tape.
-
To bring humor to the subject, I do not believe that a Red Sox fan can be the GM of the Yanks, under any circumstances. We would have had to report this to the Sons of Sam Horn and they would have taken your Red Sox Hat, Jersey, the Bill Buckner VCR tape, and the DVDs of the Championships as well. Just kidding.
You beat me to my next point Rob!
-
You know what'd be sweet? Giving contracts to GM's! I get a 2 year deal to get the Nats to .500 or I get canned!
Might not be a good idea, as I don't want to have my failure planned 2 years in advance.
-
Chris,
I understand where you are coming from and I agree with most of what you said (especially the part about the flawed logic that the league would be stronger if a new GM takes over a good team rather than a bad team). If you want, we can switch teams at the end of the year if I make it to the Championship game.
I will transition to a new team if I feel like it's a good fit when a new opening arises. I don't want anyone offering me teams or etc in an attempt to make me feel better.
I just want there to be a system in place where this doesn't happen again. It is not fair to internal members who have ALREADY dedicated their time and proven their worth as managers.
-
The job definitely should have been made known that it was open. I'll agree to that.
-
Look on the bright side, at least you got the red sox in the retro FGM.
-
You know what'd be sweet? Giving contracts to GM's! I get a 2 year deal to get the Nats to .500 or I get canned!
Might not be a good idea, as I don't want to have my failure planned 2 years in advance.
I think the system works as is. Take the team for as long as you are an active GM and want to be the owner. A certain time frame to turn a team around would be touchy for a few reasons.
1) Some teams take way longer to turn around.
2) Teams could collude against a member, making it difficult to turn their team around (no trades and FA bidding)...Could happen, doesn't mean would but could.
3) The nature of the system means that their must be failure. If not team Had to fail it'd be a good idea. However, in this system, where there must be both good and bad teams (fundamentally), it would be a tough situation to include GM Goals if you will.
-
The job definitely should have been made known that it was open. I'll agree to that.
Thank you...and I agree that LTD could be a great member in a perfect fit.
-
That idea was a failed attempt at humor, Chris. Everyone knows I can field a .800 team within two years. :koolaid:
-
Look on the bright side, at least you got the red sox in the retro FGM.
It's true, watch out everyone else.
Who knew this would be the conversation to generate 5 pages of posts in 1/2 hour haha...I'm always involved in these heated debates huh?! Noticed I've stayed away from rule changes :rofl:
-
So there is a fix. We need a thread of Current GM's open to other opportunities. Similar to the waiting list. Chris would sign up, while I would not, right now. This list can be updated at any time.
The system is changes slightly. If there is potential for a change like this, Chris is given X days to find a good replacement for the Padres. If that GM becomes inactive within a month, Chris is responsible for finding another or he himself must go back to the Padres.
This is one solution. Jake's idea of a contract is another. There are many solutions, that can outlined and defined.
-
A good idea, Rob, but how would we determine the order for active GM's? Tenure with the league?
-
That idea was a failed attempt at humor, Chris. Everyone knows I can field a .800 team within two years. :koolaid:
And I'm pretty good at picking up humor.
I took it as a serious proposal though. Thought it out in my mind and everything...hence the critique. At this point I am less b****y than I was earlier. I just wanted to bring some attention to the hiring policies...as I truly would have considered the move to NYY. I wouldn't create this big problem if I wouldn't have seriously considered it.
I don't like being a thorn.
-
A good idea, Rob, but how would we determine the order for active GM's? Tenure with the league?
Tenure makes the most sense and gives respect to the members that have been in the league the longest.
-
I may be bias, but I feel like the Braves are in the position they because of my trading/handling. I have a hard time believing that they would be in this position otherwise.
~MTK
-
So there is a fix. We need a thread of Current GM's open to other opportunities. Similar to the waiting list. Chris would sign up, while I would not, right now. This list can be updated at any time.
The system is changes slightly. If there is potential for a change like this, Chris is given X days to find a good replacement for the Padres. If that GM becomes inactive within a month, Chris is responsible for finding another or he himself must go back to the Padres.
This is one solution. Jake's idea of a contract is another. There are many solutions, that can outlined and defined.
I think the waiting list is enough; so long as GMs are open about changing jobs. I wouldn't want to find my replacement and then have to go back if they don't work out. The Padres should not be of my concern once I've left that post. It would make trading more difficult. And, then you'd have to still find a player to take the job you just left to go back to the one that you filled but failed (Padres).
GM's just need to let the league know when they're planning a change or a swap. This way nobody is left out of the opportunity. The only thing I would create to make the system better, is a list based upon time put into the league. The person with the most time in the league should get the first choice for a job...and so forth down the list. If this is even necessary.
The real necessity and solution is what I stated before. Corey should have made a post about him going to the Mets and how the Yanks would be open. That would have solved the issue.
-
It'd be an interesting idea to say the least, each team (not GM) has 2 or 3 requirements to meet each season, and if the GM can't fulfill, say, 66% of those goals within his contract he must switch with another GM who has 'failed' (I use that term lightly) and they try again with new teams and new goals.
This is used in many baseball video games the last few years, by the way. So this isn't a monkey flying out of my butt.
-
I may be bias, but I feel like the Braves are in the position they because of my trading/handling. I have a hard time believing that they would be in this position otherwise.
~MTK
Certainly, we'd agree though, the Braves are not a bottom tier team.
-
So there is a fix. We need a thread of Current GM's open to other opportunities. Similar to the waiting list. Chris would sign up, while I would not, right now. This list can be updated at any time.
I like this idea and think it would help in situations like this. Not sure what would be used to determine who gets priority to move to a new team but overall sounds like a good idea. Maybe each team can name 5 teams it would like to move to in order of preference and if an opening for a team comes up the GM with the highest order of preference would get first chance to move. Tenure could break any ties between GM's who have the same ranking.
-
I like this idea and think it would help in situations like this. Not sure what would be used to determine who gets priority to move to a new team but overall sounds like a good idea. Maybe each team can name 5 teams it would like to move to in order of preference and if an opening for a team comes up the GM with the highest order of preference would get first chance to move. Tenure could break any ties between GM's who have the same ranking.
I think we should be careful with strategy. Having to list the teams your waiting for could or could not play into this. I just want to know about the open opportunities when they exist. I don't want to find out about them through a post announcing their opening and closing.
-
I think the waiting list is enough; so long as GMs are open about changing jobs. I wouldn't want to find my replacement and then have to go back if they don't work out. The Padres should not be of my concern once I've left that post. It would make trading more difficult. And, then you'd have to still find a player to take the job you just left to go back to the one that you filled but failed (Padres).
GM's just need to let the league know when they're planning a change or a swap. This way nobody is left out of the opportunity. The only thing I would create to make the system better, is a list based upon time put into the league. The person with the most time in the league should get the first choice for a job...and so forth down the list. If this is even necessary.
The real necessity and solution is what I stated before. Corey should have made a post about him going to the Mets and how the Yanks would be open. That would have solved the issue.
The reason, I put in finding the replacement is for the concept that we have discussed here. You should not be able to freely move to the more marketable team without having some ownership of finding you replacement that is an active GM. If you can't replace the GM in SD, then the more maketable team, NYY in this case, would make more sense for the league to replace to stay at a full, active count of GMs.
-
I think we should be careful with strategy. Having to list the teams your waiting for could or could not play into this. I just want to know about the open opportunities when they exist. I don't want to find out about them through a post announcing their opening and closing.
I agree completely with you. An open GM spot should be made public to the entire league so everyone has the same oppurtunity. My questions is if multiple GM's would like to switch how will that decision be made? I am a big fan of the twins and if that position ever comes open I would love the chance to take over them. If they are a good team and someone else gets to take over them because of tenure that would be fine I guess but I would still like a chance at throwing my hat into the ring. Maybe interested GM's could make a posting about there plan as the new GM and why they would like to switch and then either a league vote of panel of members gets to make the choice?
-
The reason, I put in finding the replacement is for the concept that we have discussed here. You should not be able to freely move to the more marketable team without having some ownership of finding you replacement that is an active GM. If you can't replace the GM in SD, then the more maketable team, NYY in this case, would make more sense for the league to replace to stay at a full, active count of GMs.
Please read why the better team - better GM is not a valid argument. I posted as to why that was faulty logic. A perfect example is myself. I took a bad team because it was the only one available. Not many people are breaking the door down to be the Padres. Should I be stuck in SD because I took the only available team at the time I joined? Should I have to quit and reapply to get away from there? It's counter productive.
-
I agree completely with you. An open GM spot should be made public to the entire league so everyone has the same oppurtunity. My questions is if multiple GM's would like to switch how will that decision be made? I am a big fan of the twins and if that position ever comes open I would love the chance to take over them. If they are a good team and someone else gets to take over them because of tenure that would be fine I guess but I would still like a chance at throwing my hat into the ring. Maybe interested GM's could make a posting about there plan as the new GM and why they would like to switch and then either a league vote of panel of members gets to make the choice?
I kinda have a problem with 'making a plan' to tell everybody. I don't want anybody to know my strategy.
Tenure would be the best tie-breaker for two people vying for one team. I'd even say tenure in this league not on the site.
-
Please read why the better team - better GM is not a valid argument. I posted as to why that was faulty logic. A perfect example is myself. I took a bad team because it was the only one available. Not many people are breaking the door down to be the Padres. Should I be stuck in SD because I took the only available team at the time I joined? Should I have to quit and reapply to get away from there? It's counter productive.
I get the logic, but in saying that you want the Padres in the 1st place, there is a responsibility to that. You could have said, no I want to wait on a better opening. I understand not waiting and jumping in, but there is a responsibility to the league when you say I will take on the Padres. Some GMs fail on following through on this responsibility and therefore are no longer in the league.
Just the other side of the coin.
-
I kinda have a problem with 'making a plan' to tell everybody. I don't want anybody to know my strategy.
Tenure would be the best tie-breaker for two people vying for one team. I'd even say tenure in this league not on the site.
Okay maybe the commish can send out a private message and anyone who is interested can put their name in for consideration. I have a hard time excepting that Tenure should be the ultimate deciding factor. I think it should be considered but not the only reason a decision is made. I think a GM's credentials, favorite team, activity in the league, should all be considered to help find the person who is the best fit for the team. This is a large 30 team league with a few memebers who will never leave. With the top 5-10 members getting the chance to move first just for the reason of being here first I may never get a chance to move to a different team.
-
FYI to shooter, GMs must spend almost a year with a franchise before being eligible to switch.
-
FYI to shooter, GMs must spend almost a year with a franchise before being eligible to switch.
I have no plans on switching anytime soon. I am committed to re-building the Orioles and turning them into a contending franchise. However I would like the option in the future to move to a different team if being the GM of the Orioles becomes stagnant and uninteresting to me.
-
I get the logic, but in saying that you want the Padres in the 1st place, there is a responsibility to that. You could have said, no I want to wait on a better opening. I understand not waiting and jumping in, but there is a responsibility to the league when you say I will take on the Padres. Some GMs fail on following through on this responsibility and therefore are no longer in the league.
Just the other side of the coin.
Exactly why there is a system already in place for this. A GM must be with a team for so long before they can swap teams. This establishes whether or not an owner will be good for the league or not. My obligation to the Padres was to fill the team for a season, which I did. If I fail to do this I would truly not be worthy of a new opening, yes. But our policies currently in place, do in fact police this issue.
You cannot be disagreeing with me, that good teams = good gms and bad teams = bad gms. Not logical. I will not accept that as a premise for any argument.
Furthermore; and follow me here.
I take the Yankees, person John Doe takes the Padres. Within the first month (most likely days after), John Doe doesn't show up here at ProFSL and leaves the Padres needing a new GM. I must then vacate the Yankees position to return to SD. We now have the same issue, a team, the Yankees, without an active and good (which is subjective) owner. Does it matter which team is unfilled? NO. Certainly we would rather have the good team being played, and the bad team being left to wait for an owner; if it mattered at all.
-
I have no plans on switching anytime soon. I am committed to re-building the Orioles and turning them into a contending franchise. However I would like the option in the future to move to a different team if being the GM of the Orioles becomes stagnant and uninteresting to me.
You can but there are none allowed within the time frame. It's in the rules.
-
Okay maybe the commish can send out a private message and anyone who is interested can put their name in for consideration. I have a hard time excepting that Tenure should be the ultimate deciding factor. I think it should be considered but not the only reason a decision is made. I think a GM's credentials, favorite team, activity in the league, should all be considered to help find the person who is the best fit for the team. This is a large 30 team league with a few memebers who will never leave. With the top 5-10 members getting the chance to move first just for the reason of being here first I may never get a chance to move to a different team.
Well tbh, if I put in the time to be here for a long time, I'd want the choice to move first. I'd have earned it. And, if I didn't move after say 5 years, I probably will not do it, but if I want to I should be able to. Maybe tenure with your current club should be the deciding factor.
Favorite team should play NO part in deciding if you should get a team over somebody else. It is merely a logo. The financial aspect and player roster are way more important.
-
i have no problem stepping aside im not into leagues with all this tension i wanna have friendly competition. i dont know any of u or this league yet so just let me know
-
i have no problem stepping aside im not into leagues with all this tension i wanna have friendly competition. i dont know any of u or this league yet so just let me know
This is a discussion about fundamentals. We should conduct business in a similar manner every time we do it. There should be no backroom discussions about hiring before we have an internal hiring process first. I stand by that conviction.
Principally, because you were given the position and you have become invested, you should be the Yankees GM as you were hired to be. Welcome to this league and good luck. Watch out for those Padres they're a rowdy bunch. :thumbsup:
Back to the point though. Can we all agree, future hiring should be done with everybody knowing. Corey should have quit, gone to the Mets and left the Yankees position open to the internal group first. Had the position been left open, then we could have offered it to LTD...in the future of course. Or even throw his name in amongst the internal candidates. If he is truly worthy he will be hired no matter what. I really think internal should have very first choice however.
-
Chris,
There is a strong correlation between favorite team and GM's staying active. Another thing, is it really a good idea to have a GM switching back and forth between to teams because we can't find an active owner? Seems like that would just hurt both teams. Personally, I would rather of the Owner player with the bad team because the good team doesn't need as much attention. If a bad team is allowed to get worse then we will never find a replacement.
~MTK
-
Well tbh, if I put in the time to be here for a long time, I'd want the choice to move first. I'd have earned it. And, if I didn't move after say 5 years, I probably will not do it, but if I want to I should be able to. Maybe tenure with your current club should be the deciding factor.
Favorite team should play NO part in deciding if you should get a team over somebody else. It is merely a logo. The financial aspect and player roster are way more important.
I know I am new to the league and don't want to step on anyones toes who has been here a long time and invested time into this league. I am a dedicated manager and will continue to be. I think that the best GM for any open spots should be picked when GM's want to switch. I don't think Tenure or any other criteria should be the end all solution for picking who gets to switch. In the real life there isn't a waiting list or an order that GM's are picked in. They have to interview for the spot and the franchise picks the person they think is the best fit for the current direction the franchise is moving in. To get into the league I went up against another prospective GM and for whatever reason was chosen to be the person right for the job.
I believe that favorite teams should be considered slightly but not to any extreme. I would feel more passionate bringing a title to the Twins franchise then the Orioles because they are my favorite team in real life. I agree that it shouldnt be the only reason though. If two GM's both want the job and have similar resumes (tenure, winning, building good teams are all the same) and one is a fan of that team in real life and one just wants the team because they are good how would you pick the GM for the job? To me the person who is a fan in real life would be the better fit for the team.
-
Chris,
There is a strong correlation between favorite team and GM's staying active. Another thing, is it really a good idea to have a GM switching back and forth between to teams because we can't find an active owner? Seems like that would just hurt both teams. Personally, I would rather of the Owner player with the bad team because the good team doesn't need as much attention. If a bad team is allowed to get worse then we will never find a replacement.
~MTK
It certainly is a good theory, but it fails. I can be a perfect example. I have no affinity to the Padres or a single player on the roster. I am a Sox die hard. Most of their players are simply unattainable with my roster and cap space. Does that mean I am not going to be active? No. Does it mean that a bad owner in general should be enticed to the league because their favorite team is open? No. Does a good team = a good owner? No. Does attractiveness to an outsider play any part? No. I have answered all these questions in my posts. Feel free to read them, but it is not fruitful to restate my opinions. I have done so already.
I can't tell if you think I'm supporting a GM switching back and forth. I am against that.
I also do not believe it matters which team is open. A good team with no owner = players which are unattainable and prized. That would be bad for the league. A bad team with no owner = draft choices and prospects on a roster that was going to lose games anyways while they wait to mature.
-
Exactly why there is a system already in place for this. A GM must be with a team for so long before they can swap teams. This establishes whether or not an owner will be good for the league or not. My obligation to the Padres was to fill the team for a season, which I did. If I fail to do this I would truly not be worthy of a new opening, yes. But our policies currently in place, do in fact police this issue.
You cannot be disagreeing with me, that good teams = good gms and bad teams = bad gms. Not logical. I will not accept that as a premise for any argument.
Furthermore; and follow me here.
I take the Yankees, person John Doe takes the Padres. Within the first month (most likely days after), John Doe doesn't show up here at ProFSL and leaves the Padres needing a new GM. I must then vacate the Yankees position to return to SD. We now have the same issue, a team, the Yankees, without an active and good (which is subjective) owner. Does it matter which team is unfilled? NO. Certainly we would rather have the good team being played, and the bad team being left to wait for an owner; if it mattered at all.
I am fine with all of this. I was lobbing something out there, basically to show there is a simple solution. The tweaking and getting it right will take discussion.
-
I may be bias, but I feel like the Braves are in the position they because of my trading/handling. I have a hard time believing that they would be in this position otherwise.
~MTK
Hey MTK,
(in my best Terrell Owens voice) We all know you love you some you!!! :rofl:
-
Hey MTK,
(in my best Terrell Owens voice) We all know you love you some you!!! :rofl:
This may be true, but I was implying that I wasn't handed this team on a silver platter either.
~MTK
-
This may be true, but I was implying that I wasn't handed this team on a silver platter either.
~MTK
Understood, but essentially every team sans a handful had to "craft" their roster. I have a paltry payroll and the previous GM did not even bother to tender several FA (Garza, Zobrist to name a few). Only a few teams can really cry "woe is me" and IMO, Atlanta and Tampa are not in that group.
Was only having fun, all implications were understood from the jump :toast:
-
I would like to chip in my 2 cents to this conversation.
First of all, what is done is done. Even Chris has given Ltd his welcome as Yankees GM and there is no need for him to resign or feel any sort of hostility in the environment. Also, whether or not you approve with the way things were handled, the new Yanks GM has no part of this and is in no way guilty, so it would be much appreciated if no one bears any grudges or ill-will against him.
Second, I for one had understood from the beginning that actual GMs with more than a year with their respective teams would always get first dibs when a GM resigned his post. Ever since I signed up I have stated my desire to take over my favorite team, the Dodgers, and even if I have grown to love my Jays and would have to think hard before leaving my team, I would be mad if the Dodgers are given to a new GM without being offered to eligible owners beforehand. However if the league wants to make a finding-a-replacement rule, it can be discussed properly by the rules committee.
Third, whether Chris is a Boston fan or not, it is no one's business but his own to judge whether or not he should or should not want to manage the Yankees. I for one would never want to manage the Yankees and their Evil Empire for the simple reason that I don't want to help them win. In fact, one of the reasons why I chose the Jays out of the teams that were available was because I enjoyed the challenge of playing in the league's toughest division (At least at the time I joined, now it may be the NL Central) and because I wanted to enjoy myself being a rock in the Yanks' shoes. But, that's just me.
Fourth, I like Jake's set goals idea. Maybe we can elaborate further on this point? It would provide added pressure for GMs with stable teams. However I would suggest two-year goals to minimize turnover and, instead of firing a GM outright for failing to fulfill his goals, that the team (a commission of at least three chosen members) interviews possible new GMs who want to leave their teams and evaluates if there is an adequate replacement.
Finally, Let's focus on clearing up any cloudy areas that may still surround this move to avoid having similar problems in the future. With a clear set of rules, this won't be a problem. If making a waiting list for teams is the way to go, then let's make one. Or whatever. My suggestion is to have the rules committee discuss this and inform the rest of the owners of the decision, so that no further disagreements will ever happen regarding this matter.
-
I would like to reiterate one of Daniel's points. We as a group need to improve on how New GMs are treated in this league. We have had issues with some recent hires. If day 1, even one of the GMs in this league makes them feel unwelcome, it is possible that alone causes them to leave or go inactive.
We are all concerned that a GM may come in and go inactive on us. This is great as a whole, but it does not need to be stated each time a GM is hired. If there are issues about league Fundamentals or overall concerns that are not specific to this GM, they need to be brought up away from the Welcome the New __________ GM post.
-
Been away for a few days and everything goes to pot. Haha... anyway, in regards to GMs being given new teams, I am opposed of it in total. Whether it be a GM going from a bad team to a good team, or a good team to a bad team. The best part about this league is that we all have a plan, and pretty much have to enact it. This isn't a quick fix league. Most teams were neglected prior to the beginning of last season, except for a few. That's the hard truth of the matter. I think once a GM starts down a trail, whether it be to rebuild, go for overpriced stars etc, that's it, it is your team. I thought about leaving the Reds for the Mets, just because of my insane allegiance to the colors blue and orange, but I didn't want to leave MY team behind. I built my team, good or bad, and I have pride in what I have done. As do most of the GMs in this league. Better opportunity or not, time spent or not, I don't think someone should be able to jump from team to team. That is just my opinion.
I could take over a crap team, jerk around for a year, then hope a 200 million dollar payroll team opens up too. My point being, just showing up should have nothing to do with whether or not you get a new team. You got a team, now run with it. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, this is just an ongoing rant and I have voiced my opinion about it to other members in the league before. Build a franchise, isn't that the point of this league?
-
Been away for a few days and everything goes to pot. Haha... anyway, in regards to GMs being given new teams, I am opposed of it in total. Whether it be a GM going from a bad team to a good team, or a good team to a bad team. The best part about this league is that we all have a plan, and pretty much have to enact it. This isn't a quick fix league. Most teams were neglected prior to the beginning of last season, except for a few. That's the hard truth of the matter. I think once a GM starts down a trail, whether it be to rebuild, go for overpriced stars etc, that's it, it is your team. I thought about leaving the Reds for the Mets, just because of my insane allegiance to the colors blue and orange, but I didn't want to leave MY team behind. I built my team, good or bad, and I have pride in what I have done. As do most of the GMs in this league. Better opportunity or not, time spent or not, I don't think someone should be able to jump from team to team. That is just my opinion.
I could take over a crap team, jerk around for a year, then hope a 200 million dollar payroll team opens up too. My point being, just showing up should have nothing to do with whether or not you get a new team. You got a team, now run with it. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, this is just an ongoing rant and I have voiced my opinion about it to other members in the league before. Build a franchise, isn't that the point of this league?
I agree 100% with this post.
-
I agree with Dan's points.
Personally, I think something as simple as publicly posting potential openings for a week before hiring a new GM would have avoided this issue - Chris (or anyone else who might have been interested) would have had a chance to plead his case, and Corey could have vouched for our new guy. Ultimately Colby will get to make the call, but transparency should go a long way to keeping people from getting upset.
I'm not really in favor of the contracts thing. If for some reason the Brewers missed their mark, I'd be pretty pissed if someone told me I can't manage them anymore. Like Dan said, it's my team and I'm not giving it up.
-
it's my team and I'm not giving it up.
well then...
-
I feel I need to say something. If in the past GM's were given first choice at new teams then that should always be the case. I personally never want to leave my team. I have been with them for a while now and have a plan and do not want to start over again even if I start with a stacked team. I enjoy trying to decide which prospects are the best and take gambles on young guys....especially since I am a long time Yankee fan and have always seen winnings, haha. That is just my opinion, but I think we should first allows other GMs to have a go at the team, and maybe a committee to vote on who should be able to move to the new team based on their activity, success, and tenure in the league.
As far as making goals for teams, I think that would be really tough. Every team will have a different take on how they want to go. Someone mentioned that they do this in video games, but thats cause the GM is asking you to, you are the GM here. The goals cannot be something like "get your team to .500 by x year" because there could always be events that occur to a team that are out of their control. If Prince Fielder goes down on my team for half the year I am screwed. With him I am competitive. The only type of goals that I feel to be fair are activity goals or contribution goals. I am not always an active participant in conversations, but I take my time to read everything and am on as frequently as possible given my busy schedule, but an activity or contribution to the league goal would not be a horrible idea.
-
I feel I need to say something. If in the past GM's were given first choice at new teams then that should always be the case. I personally never want to leave my team. I have been with them for a while now and have a plan and do not want to start over again even if I start with a stacked team. I enjoy trying to decide which prospects are the best and take gambles on young guys....especially since I am a long time Yankee fan and have always seen winnings, haha. That is just my opinion, but I think we should first allows other GMs to have a go at the team, and maybe a committee to vote on who should be able to move to the new team based on their activity, success, and tenure in the league.
As far as making goals for teams, I think that would be really tough. Every team will have a different take on how they want to go. Someone mentioned that they do this in video games, but thats cause the GM is asking you to, you are the GM here. The goals cannot be something like "get your team to .500 by x year" because there could always be events that occur to a team that are out of their control. If Prince Fielder goes down on my team for half the year I am screwed. With him I am competitive. The only type of goals that I feel to be fair are activity goals or contribution goals. I am not always an active participant in conversations, but I take my time to read everything and am on as frequently as possible given my busy schedule, but an activity or contribution to the league goal would not be a horrible idea.
:iatp: