ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits => Topic started by: rcankosy on June 03, 2011, 10:01:36 AM
-
Dan and I are on record as being against owners switching teams. Everyone knew what they were getting into when they took over their current teams. Allowing owners to move creates a type of "squatting" for owners. Team switches will inevitably lead to hurt feelings among some and does not lead the league toward stability and team accountability. In my personal opinion, we should give the Rockies back to Howe and abolish the whole thing. Sorry if that came out too strongly or offended some of you, but I've always been a shoot from the hip guy.
Peace.
-
I couldn't disagree more. Yes, AS A LEAGUE, we should be judicious in doing so but I don't see anything wrong with a shake-up now and then.
-
I like transfers as it allows GMs to pursue other opportunities including their favorite teams. I will be releasing a fairly non-subjective transparent pecking order list. If we didn't allow GMs to move then they would just quit and reapply to the league.
-
I like transfers as it allows GMs to pursue other opportunities including their favorite teams. I will be releasing a fairly non-subjective transparent pecking order list. If we didn't allow GMs to move then they would just quit and reapply to the league.
:iatp:
-
I agree with you guys as well. Maybe make a rule where you have to have a certain win percentage or something before you are allowed to switch teams. That way owners cant leave there bad team for a good one. We already found out how hard it is to fill a bad team, or in the Mets case a super super young team.
-
I like transfers as it allows GMs to pursue other opportunities including their favorite teams. I will be releasing a fairly non-subjective transparent pecking order list. If we didn't allow GMs to move then they would just quit and reapply to the league.
:iatp:
-
I am a democratic kind of guy. Save yourself the grief of putting out a list that some may deem subjective and put ownership transfer in the hands of a committee if you are dead set on allowing it. I am pretty sure the RC would be more than happy to vote on it if you want to save yourself a headache.
-
I like Corey's ideas about having minimum qualifications required to be able to switch teams. It could be a combination of tenure, winning seasons, winning percentage and power rankings improvement/decline instead of just experience like we have right now.
-
I like Corey's ideas about having minimum qualifications required to be able to switch teams. It could be a combination of tenure, winning seasons, winning percentage and power rankings improvement/decline instead of just experience like we have right now.
These idea's are all fine when you have a winning team...would the league really rather me quit and reapply to get another team? That doesn't make logical sense.
-
These idea's are all fine when you have a winning team...would the league really rather me quit and reapply to get another team? That doesn't make logical sense.
Hence why tenure is the number one factor. Chris, you are earning your time each month you hold office in San Diego.
-
Chris I think that if you are a good GM your team will turn around and start getting results eventually. It is understandable that it is harder to get winning record with small market teams and that should be taken into account as well. I am not saying that it should be the best winning record always, but it would be interesting to develop a set of requirements to be able to rank candidates objectively.
-
Tenure will take care of candidates for the most part. We had a lot of new GMs between October and December 2009. The MLB team performance is something can be broken down factually. All seasons, including the current one, are taken into account.
-
Dan and I are on record as being against owners switching teams. Everyone knew what they were getting into when they took over their current teams. Allowing owners to move creates a type of "squatting" for owners. Team switches will inevitably lead to hurt feelings among some and does not lead the league toward stability and team accountability. In my personal opinion, we should give the Rockies back to Howe and abolish the whole thing. Sorry if that came out too strongly or offended some of you, but I've always been a shoot from the hip guy.
Peace.
I must say I'm also in agreement - I think the shuffling of owners takes away from the need to have a long-term plan and see it through, since you can just switch teams eventually. Sure there are some cases where it could be a good thing, but I don't like how big of a deal it's become.
-
Ben, I don't think the idea of switching teams is the issue, more so the process that determines it. It hasn't been consistent.
We fix the process, it won't be an issue. :koolaid:
-
Ben, I don't think the idea of switching teams is the issue, more so the process that determines it. It hasn't been consistent.
We fix the process, it won't be an issue. :koolaid:
I understand it's not the immediate issue, but I just wanted to voice my opinion that I've never really been a fan of the idea in general. I think owners should have to stick with their teams for multiple seasons because that's what this league is all about. You don't show you're a decent GM with a crappy team that becomes ok and then you get to take on a great team, you should make your crappy team into a great team over time ... it's just my opinion, I don't expect it to be the majority or any rules to change, but since someone else said something similar I thought I'd throw it out there.
-
Ben, I think most people agree with you which is why most teams do NOT switch. I think some of us longer GMs would only move for a new challenge to help the league or after we had great success.
-
I agree with Colby the option needs to be there. I have no intention of leaving the A's and have a plan. I will say that the constant discussion of rule changes and so called improvements often frustrates me and my plan. My plan is a blueprint based on the rules, scoring, etc of the league. These things are often up for debate and this can be very frustrating because the plan is often altered without my control and I must adapt. I do think that the RC does a good job, but also believe that topics should be posted, but the discussion should take place over a short period of time. These topics tend to hang in limbo and therefore handcuff GMs in which way they will need to adapt, if they even need to. This can create transactions based on things that are not accurate, also can create unhappiness with the league over certain rule changes. A GM only moved that player due to the rules, but under the new rules he would have kept, this scenario has been created several times.
All of that is to say, at a point in the future there may be a scoring or rule change that I do not believe the A's at the salary cap given can compete at. I would think that the option of switching teams would be a good thing to have in this league.
-
I agree with Colby the option needs to be there. I have no intention of leaving the A's and have a plan. I will say that the constant discussion of rule changes and so called improvements often frustrates me and my plan. My plan is a blueprint based on the rules, scoring, etc of the league. These things are often up for debate and this can be very frustrating because the plan is often altered without my control and I must adapt. I do think that the RC does a good job, but also believe that topics should be posted, but the discussion should take place over a short period of time. These topics tend to hang in limbo and therefore handcuff GMs in which way they will need to adapt, if they even need to. This can create transactions based on things that are not accurate, also can create unhappiness with the league over certain rule changes. A GM only moved that player due to the rules, but under the new rules he would have kept, this scenario has been created several times.
All of that is to say, at a point in the future there may be a scoring or rule change that I do not believe the A's at the salary cap given can compete at. I would think that the option of switching teams would be a good thing to have in this league.
I agree completely with Robert. Collectively, we have let issues drag on far too long. They should be open and closed within 30 days at the very latest imo. World peace summits have taken less time than for us to decide on sign and trades, extensions, scoring, etc!
-
Our RC vote on all of the extension related issues as well as the populous opinion poll on scoring (with an RC vote to follow) should put the rest to all such issues along with my executive ruling of having the tenure based transfer priority list. It generally takes a few years for old issues to sort themselves out in new leagues like this and we are in year three, so I will be pleased to see the league have some consistency in its rules from here on out.
-
Agree with all three of you.