Mets & Angels GMs canned

[Colby]

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.

[Paul S.]

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.

[BHows]

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.

[Needle Juice]

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.       

[rcankosy]

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. 

[BHows]

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

[Colby]

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.

[bravesfan4]

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.

[Needle Juice]

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. 

[Needle Juice]

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.