Author Topic: RC Discussion - Special Case [Betterment of the league] (RC Members Only Please)  (Read 2116 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Flash

  • *ProFSL Staff
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 23232
  • Bonus inPoints: 319
    • :SFO:
    • :GS:
    • :SJ:
    • :California:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • :SF:
    • View Profile
I don't profess to have the solution to this problem but I have to say that I disagree with Flash's assessment.I will agree that any choice that is made at this point will almost certainly be subjective but I find a lot of fault with his reasoning.
According to this logic we need not even play the game; tie a bow around it and give it to the Yankees. As far as I know they've got the highest payroll. At the very least $53.5M more than mine.They'd play the aforementioned Cubs at $142.5 in the World Payroll Series and undoubtedly win because of the $46.5M salary difference between them and the Cubs.
But we all know that neither the Yankees nor the Cubs made our playoffs this year.
So while success may equal money (to paraphrase Flash), money doesn't necessarily equal success. IMO success in this league equals an understanding of the rules and scoring system, a decent eye for talent and mix in some savvy in trade negotiations. A little dedication doesn't hurt either.  I'm just not sure how to quantify those qualities

I think you have mistaken the gist of my post.  As you point out, in order to be successful in this league, you have to have "an understanding of the rules and scoring system".  I am a testament to that.  That's why I alluded to my own shortcomings--it's taken me a while to figure things out and get away from the Yahoo mentality I came in with.  But I don't want to engage in anymore self-flagellation.  I agree with your other points regarding talent, dedication and savvy.

However, my point about success = money was only a reference to the fact that the salary caps we have are based on the past success of our teams.  Didn't I make the following point:  Is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources?  You are actually reinforcing my perspective on this point.  The fact that the Yankees and Cubs, teams with large payrolls didn't make the playoffs is worth noting, but it doesn't address the issue at hand.

One of those teams is now vacant, and the other was the subject of the very dilemma we now face, and I certainly didn't want to get bogged down in a series of posts that sidestep what we are trying to accomplish.  In addition, we have another vacant team (Chicago White Sox) that needs a new GM.  I'm not complaining about the salary cap differences and I'm certainly not trying to say that money is a substitute for expertise.  The controversy surrounding the Dodgers change in ownership illustrates why it's necessary to come up with something that is viable and sustaining.  The Rules Committee cannot deal in vague generalities anymore when it comes to a transfer of ownership.  Since the team in question has a lot of resources and didn't make the playoffs, don't you think it would be a good idea for any GM who is requesting a transfer to outline how he is going to rectify that and why he is worthy of our support?  As a body, we voted to allow transfers on the basis that it was for "the good of the league" and now we need to get on with that task. 

I believe in this league.  It's unique and challenging, but more importantly, it's filled with a lot of good people.  I don't want anyone to think I'm tripping because I'm on the Rules Committee or that I think I'm so important. All of you know that I voted against transfers, but since we agreed to allow them, I think it's time to sit down and present something to the league that is acceptable.  In an effort to do just that, by the end of the weekend I will submit a draft of something I think might work.  As always, it can be tweaked or simply thrown away if the rest of the Committee can't get behind it.  However, it's time for us to get it done so we can get a GM for the Cubs (and White Sox.) 

Again, I'm not looking to antagonize anyone.  If I've struck a nerve or offended anyone, please accept my sincerest apologies.  If needed, send me a poison PM and tell me to jump in the lake. 

 :toth: 
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
🏆 2021 FGM World Series Champion - :SF:
🏆 2017 WCB2 World Series Champion - :SD:
🏆 2021 BSN Football Mt West Champion :UNLV:
🏆 2021 BSN Football Big 10 Champion -  :Nebraska:
🏆 2021 BSN Football Pac-12 Champion :California:

Offline BHows

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 12557
  • Bonus inPoints: 3
    • :CIN-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Kentucky:
    • :CIN:
    • View Profile
I think you have mistaken the gist of my post.  As you point out, in order to be successful in this league, you have to have "an understanding of the rules and scoring system".  I am a testament to that.  That's why I alluded to my own shortcomings--it's taken me a while to figure things out and get away from the Yahoo mentality I came in with.  But I don't want to engage in anymore self-flagellation.  I agree with your other points regarding talent, dedication and savvy.

However, my point about success = money was only a reference to the fact that the salary caps we have are based on the past success of our teams.  Didn't I make the following point:  Is it realistic to say that the GMs of the richer teams are any better than those who have less resources?  You are actually reinforcing my perspective on this point.  The fact that the Yankees and Cubs, teams with large payrolls didn't make the playoffs is worth noting, but it doesn't address the issue at hand.

One of those teams is now vacant, and the other was the subject of the very dilemma we now face, and I certainly didn't want to get bogged down in a series of posts that sidestep what we are trying to accomplish.  In addition, we have another vacant team (Chicago White Sox) that needs a new GM.  I'm not complaining about the salary cap differences and I'm certainly not trying to say that money is a substitute for expertise.  The controversy surrounding the Dodgers change in ownership illustrates why it's necessary to come up with something that is viable and sustaining.  The Rules Committee cannot deal in vague generalities anymore when it comes to a transfer of ownership.  Since the team in question has a lot of resources and didn't make the playoffs, don't you think it would be a good idea for any GM who is requesting a transfer to outline how he is going to rectify that and why he is worthy of our support?  As a body, we voted to allow transfers on the basis that it was for "the good of the league" and now we need to get on with that task. 

I believe in this league.  It's unique and challenging, but more importantly, it's filled with a lot of good people.  I don't want anyone to think I'm tripping because I'm on the Rules Committee or that I think I'm so important. All of you know that I voted against transfers, but since we agreed to allow them, I think it's time to sit down and present something to the league that is acceptable.  In an effort to do just that, by the end of the weekend I will submit a draft of something I think might work.  As always, it can be tweaked or simply thrown away if the rest of the Committee can't get behind it.  However, it's time for us to get it done so we can get a GM for the Cubs (and White Sox.) 

Again, I'm not looking to antagonize anyone.  If I've struck a nerve or offended anyone, please accept my sincerest apologies.  If needed, send me a poison PM and tell me to jump in the lake. 

 :toth:
There was no struck nerve here Ernesto. I just wanted to point out (or reemphasize if you like) that patience, prudence and dedication are the rules in a franchise league such as FGM. Especially for a small market team. How do you go about determining that a prospective GM has those qualities? Sounds like we're pretty much on the same page.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
2022 WCB2 Champions

Offline Colby

  • MLFB Founder
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jan 2009
  • Posts: 28820
  • Bonus inPoints: 27
    • :PIT-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PIT-NHL:
    • :PennState:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • View Profile
Seven (7) elements we can judge transfers on:

1) Quality of prospects - who has the best farm?

2) Performance against expectations - if a team had the 27th highest payroll and the finished 22nd that that is a +5, how did the other team do? Another unique way to measure this is look at percentage increase in future caps.

3) Tenure of service with their current team

4) Short term and long term strategy for the team they want

5) Number of posts - shows an element of activity

6) Any FGM awards? GM of the Year candidates should be shoe-ins.

7) Performance of franchise last season

Only #4 is subjective and voted by the RC whereas the rest are scored.

funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
Learn about :Commish: inPoints and the Invitationals.

Offline rcankosy

  • MVP
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2501
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
Are we not getting off topic?  It seems as if we are discussing criterion by which to rate GMs requesting a franchise transfer, rather than voting on the criterion for the transfer.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 05:44:13 PM by rcankosy »
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline BHows

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 12557
  • Bonus inPoints: 3
    • :CIN-NFL:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Kentucky:
    • :CIN:
    • View Profile
I was under the impression that Internal Transfers are now allowed:
http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=115022.10
Please correct me if I'm wrong
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
2022 WCB2 Champions

Offline rcankosy

  • MVP
  • ****
  • Join Date: Oct 2009
  • Posts: 2501
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • :Blank:
    • View Profile
That's correct, but I am still in favor of making these transfers exceedingly rare to the tune of 1 every 3-4 years at most.  To that point, I am only in  favor of allowing them as a last resort to filling teams that are vacant for 3 months.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

Offline Flash

  • *ProFSL Staff
  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Sep 2010
  • Posts: 23232
  • Bonus inPoints: 319
    • :SFO:
    • :GS:
    • :SJ:
    • :California:
    • :UnitedStates:
    • :SF:
    • View Profile
Seven (7) elements we can judge transfers on:

1) Quality of prospects - who has the best farm?

2) Performance against expectations - if a team had the 27th highest payroll and the finished 22nd that that is a +5, how did the other team do? Another unique way to measure this is look at percentage increase in future caps.

3) Tenure of service with their current team

4) Short term and long term strategy for the team they want

5) Number of posts - shows an element of activity

6) Any FGM awards? GM of the Year candidates should be shoe-ins.

7) Performance of franchise last season

Only #4 is subjective and voted by the RC whereas the rest are scored.

I think this is a pretty good list of indicators, although I don't necessarily think #5 is a necessary element.  I would also like to have a GM requesting a transfer submit a short explanation why granting the transfer is in the best interest of the league.  Obviously this becomes more subjective than the points Colby listed, but if someone believes such a transfer is important, they should be able to provide some coherent rationale.

As for Roy's concerns, I don't think we should allow a team to lie dormant for a long period of time.  Nor do I think we should rush ourselves and simply accept a warm body to fill a vacancy.  If it's important for a GM to be a part of this league, like it is for all of us, it should require some work to be accepted as a member. 

With this, I think new GMs should also present an application that includes an analysis that includes an evaluation of the team's roster in terms of strengths and weaknesses (#2, #4 & #7), it's EDRs (#1), and their experience with fantasy baseball contract leagues (#3 & #5).  They should also provide an explanation why they would like to be accepted into the league. 

Maybe some GMs think this will be too much work, and if that's the case, it's a good indication that their transfer or acceptance isn't really warranted.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
🏆 2021 FGM World Series Champion - :SF:
🏆 2017 WCB2 World Series Champion - :SD:
🏆 2021 BSN Football Mt West Champion :UNLV:
🏆 2021 BSN Football Big 10 Champion -  :Nebraska:
🏆 2021 BSN Football Pac-12 Champion :California:

Offline papps

  • Legend
  • *****
  • Join Date: Apr 2010
  • Posts: 8632
  • Bonus inPoints: 9
    • :PHI-NFL:
    • :PHI-NBA:
    • :PHI-NHL:
    • :Blank:
    • :PHI:
    • View Profile
I think this is a pretty good list of indicators, although I don't necessarily think #5 is a necessary element.  I would also like to have a GM requesting a transfer submit a short explanation why granting the transfer is in the best interest of the league.  Obviously this becomes more subjective than the points Colby listed, but if someone believes such a transfer is important, they should be able to provide some coherent rationale.

As for Roy's concerns, I don't think we should allow a team to lie dormant for a long period of time.  Nor do I think we should rush ourselves and simply accept a warm body to fill a vacancy.  If it's important for a GM to be a part of this league, like it is for all of us, it should require some work to be accepted as a member. 

With this, I think new GMs should also present an application that includes an analysis that includes an evaluation of the team's roster in terms of strengths and weaknesses (#2, #4 & #7), it's EDRs (#1), and their experience with fantasy baseball contract leagues (#3 & #5).  They should also provide an explanation why they would like to be accepted into the league. 

Maybe some GMs think this will be too much work, and if that's the case, it's a good indication that their transfer or acceptance isn't really warranted.

I agree with this entire post.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
🏆 - 2021 NFL Live Champion :TB-NFL:
🏆 - 2020 Bush League Champion :PHI:
🏆 - 2018 Franchise GM Champion :PHI:
🏆 - 2018 The League Champion :PIT-NFL:
🏆 - 2016 Moneyball II Champion :BOS:
🏆 - 2010 Agents vs GMs Champion :PHI:

Offline VolsRaysBucs

  • MVP
  • ****
  • Join Date: Jan 2010
  • Posts: 3677
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :ORL:
    • :TBL:
    • :Tennessee:
    • View Profile
Very well said Flash!
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions
It's not the deep water that drowns us...we die because we stop kicking.

Offline shooter47

  • MVP
  • ****
  • Join Date: Apr 2011
  • Posts: 4936
  • Bonus inPoints: 0
    • :MIN-NFL:
    • :MIN-NBA:
    • :MIN-NHL:
    • :NorthDakotaState:
    • View Profile
This discussion has lead to some good points about how to judge potential GM's who request a transfer but is starting to get off topic. We need to determine what situation must occur that would make it possible for a GM to transfer. So far the RC has only passed the case of "for the betterment of the league." This is pretty vague and we need to define what this situation actually is. The RC did not vote to allow internal transfers in all cases.

When I joined the league FGM used a process where GM's applied for an open position and then a vote was held to determine which GM got the position. This worked well however this process can be subjective and can lead to hurt feelings.

I would like to get this issue resolved quickly so we can fill the open positions of the Chicago White Sox and Cubs and get on with the offseason.
funny
0
like
0
dislike
0
No reactions
No reactions
No reactions

 

Forum Search


Quick Profile

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

* Chat Room

Refresh History
  • Daddy: @jwalkerjr88 aint never done more but use my account. Im paying for 32 teams and only watching the Rams.
    Yesterday at 05:20:53 PM
  • Daddy: I want my money back. I just looked it up. I want 31/32 refund. Well my Dad & Son benefited so 29/32 refund.
    Yesterday at 05:21:56 PM
  • indiansnation: How much it cost?
    Yesterday at 05:22:50 PM
  • Daddy: A lot. I think about $300 per season.
    Yesterday at 05:24:18 PM
  • Daddy: Added to the cable bill of like $200. That nobody ever used.
    Yesterday at 05:25:01 PM
  • Daddy: So i had DirecTV for 12 months to use Sunday ticket for 3 months and paid like 3 installments of roughly $100 added to my $200m bill.
    Yesterday at 05:26:18 PM
  • Daddy: For that i got two TVs that could watch any game any time any where. Problem is they getting played at the same times. You cant watch every game. Why you charging me for every game?
    Yesterday at 05:27:40 PM
  • Daddy: If thats the case i should have access to 32 different monitors. Right?
    Yesterday at 05:30:19 PM
  • Daddy: Or maybe 16. I would take 16. But two. Give me my bread back Mafia!
    Yesterday at 05:31:38 PM
  • Daddy: Making me watch  Bo Nix + Zach Wilson + Jared Stidham = you should be paying me
    Yesterday at 05:33:56 PM
  • Daddy: Me and coach Payton [link]
    Yesterday at 05:34:53 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Thats cap by the way. I pay for my own way to watch my team
    Yesterday at 05:41:55 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I dont have your account or login
    Yesterday at 05:42:07 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I used yours for 1-2 seasons.
    Yesterday at 05:43:32 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I used my mothers for a decade before that
    Yesterday at 05:43:46 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: But ive used my way for the past few years. Ill be paying attention like i said
    Yesterday at 05:44:27 PM
  • Daddy: She deserves a refund too
    Yesterday at 05:46:27 PM
  • Daddy: The point was DirecTV never got in your pockets and it was a rip-off but they had a monopoly on the product. Im not loving all the streaming games but DTV will be paying $$$.
    Yesterday at 05:48:22 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: The new iteration with Youtube TV isnt the greatest either but an improvement on Directtv version
    Yesterday at 05:48:37 PM
  • Daddy: And your grandfather used it every year besides those two :rofl:
    Yesterday at 05:49:26 PM
  • Daddy: I kept DirecTV and always willing to share. But thats my point.
    Yesterday at 05:49:47 PM
  • Daddy: If i had 3 monitors rather than two or four rather than two, either me or moms save money. Lots of it.
    Yesterday at 05:50:26 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Yea your point is just wrong is all. Theyve gotten into my pockets directly and indirectly
    Yesterday at 05:51:03 PM
  • Daddy: Oh, i was unaware. DTV must have got us all.
    Yesterday at 05:51:55 PM
  • Daddy: I know you dont endorse them. Never did. I paid for lots of crap i never used. Just for NFL Sunday Ticket.
    Yesterday at 05:52:45 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I dont and didnt endorse cable period. The irony is streaming is becoming cable now.
    Yesterday at 05:55:39 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: I paid for directtv version 1-2 years when i had my apartment. Not as much as the 35+ crowd but they did
    Yesterday at 05:56:34 PM
  • Daddy: Still never watched a game on YouTube. I miss the days of CBS = AFC >> FOX/NBC = NFC >> ABC = MNF
    Yesterday at 05:56:42 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: There was no reason to have directtv outside of sunday ticket. My apartment couldnt get it so i paid ONLY for sunday ticket
    Yesterday at 05:57:04 PM
  • Daddy: I was ok with TNF & SNF.
    Yesterday at 05:57:43 PM
  • Daddy: Its all over the place now. So ive stuck with what i know. The Ticket. I can't miss a Rams game. Not gonna do it.
    Yesterday at 05:58:45 PM
  • Jwalkerjr88: Now they stream some games only on amazon and peacock. I need a streaming lawsuit
    Yesterday at 06:01:20 PM
  • indiansnation: Dont forget disney + soon u will stream games pn their
    Yesterday at 09:43:09 PM
  • indiansnation: Disney trying yo buy nfl network and using espn as part of the trade off nfl will own a certain % of espn. First deal eas 70m for nfl network but nfl turned that down real quick
    Yesterday at 09:46:43 PM
  • indiansnation: Anyone want to talk trade nfl live,mlb live,fgm,armchair
    Yesterday at 10:00:02 PM
  • indiansnation: And any other league that im in that i didnt post yet
    Yesterday at 10:00:35 PM
  • Daddy: They keep throwing insane money at the NFL to televise games and owners share those shiny pennies just enough with the players.
    Yesterday at 10:39:25 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: I'm available.  Not sure if we match up anywhere other than NHL Live, but let me know if there's something you're interested in @Brian
    Yesterday at 10:45:39 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: The other leagues for me are FGM, MLB Live and DNHL in case any-one else is looking to do a deal
    Yesterday at 10:49:01 PM
  • Daddy: Healthy mix. Couple baseball, couple hockey, different scoring options.
    Yesterday at 11:08:15 PM
  • Daddy: You probably kick ass in all of them although NHL LIVE hasnt officially started.
    Yesterday at 11:08:42 PM
  • Daddy: I respect your gaming options
    Yesterday at 11:09:54 PM
  • Daddy: I would for sure be an FGM or Armchair owner if i were here for baseball. Powerhouse too. Why not? Great leagues with better LMs.
    Yesterday at 11:16:38 PM
  • Daddy: DNHL must be 15 years old. Gotta be doing something right. Most leagues dont make it past 5. Very few make it 10.
    Yesterday at 11:20:45 PM
  • Daddy: I think Rob been running that league longer than ive been on profsl. Legendary LM.
    Yesterday at 11:22:42 PM
  • indiansnation: Jmntl82 pm important messave about armchair
    Yesterday at 11:45:05 PM
  • jmntl82: indiansnation-replied
    Yesterday at 11:48:26 PM
  • ldsjayhawk: thanks @daddy.  I hold my own
    Today at 12:05:43 AM
  • Braves155: Will be around today for deal talks - ANY sport
    Today at 10:12:32 AM
  • Daddy: You tellem @Braves!
    Today at 11:47:14 AM