Mets & Angels GMs canned

[Colby]

Well, the only problem I foresee with the recommendation letters is we will have a hard time getting outside owners and most owners already here are maxed out for the most part. Secondly, are willing to take recommendation letters from people outside of ProFSL (integrity problem?)? If not, then how will we ever get outside owners?

~MTK

Turnover is infrequent in this league.  There is always an up and comer that someone can approve.

[Mr.TradeKing]

Well, the only problem I foresee with the recommendation letters is we will have a hard time getting outside owners and most owners already here are maxed out for the most part. Secondly, are willing to take recommendation letters from people outside of ProFSL (integrity problem?)? If not, then how will we ever get outside owners?

~MTK

[Colby]

Hey Guys,

I just read through the thread, and I'll try to provide more feedback later but just wanted to say overall I'm agreement with a lot of what was said/decided, and am pretty proud of the strong group of leadership here - we have a lot of really good owners, both at playing the game and keeping a great league going strong.   

Agreed... look at how passionate and deep this thread has been!

[Canada8999]

Hey Guys,

I just read through the thread, and I'll try to provide more feedback later but just wanted to say overall I'm agreement with a lot of what was said/decided, and am pretty proud of the strong group of leadership here - we have a lot of really good owners, both at playing the game and keeping a great league going strong.   

[Colby]

+1 to two layers of review and an extended probationary period.  1 month?  Dont want to drive too many people away.

I also think the hiring process needs an overhaul; that would fix our issues.

We may have two recommendations for bigbenxl786.  We are at the point where we agree that the overhaul needs to be made to the hiring process.  Some collective ideas...

• Having guys on the waiting list is one thing, but we need at least three recommendations from members in FGM.
• Instead of a two-week no moves period, have a moves review period not for an extended time, but for a certain amount of moves such as the first 10 drops, 5 trades, 5 FA bids as well as the first three extensions.  It may be a bit excessive, but we could track this in a GM watch post in the transactions board.  The post would have that members' ProFSL name.  Members of the EC, in addition to the TC (for trades), will review the moves to make sure they are for the good of the franchise and that the new GM understands the rules.
• We could always not allow a team to trade a Type A/B FA or a top 100 prospect, but that may be too much tracking.  A general dedicated review may be better.

[joeshmoe]

That is a good idea.  Two layers of review.  Maybe make it for 2 months, instead of two weeks.

+1 to two layers of review and an extended probationary period.  1 month?  Dont want to drive too many people away.

I also think the hiring process needs an overhaul; that would fix our issues.

[joeshmoe]

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.

 

[joeshmoe]

The Mets have been seriously abused by previous GMs.  However, with their salary cap they could easily be a .500 team next year with a good GM.  They also have an opportunity to improve the farm system during the remainder of this season.  I seriously considered taking the team and would have if my team didn't have a good shot at this year's playoffs.  We just need someone who is knowlegeable and willing to work like Kris is doing with the Cubs.  No need to rush into filling the vacancy or making any big changes to the system.

If Paul moves to NYM (for whatever reason) I want dibs on St. Louis    haha

2.  To me, this proposal hints at a big problem in this league.  I don't want to point fingers at the TC or anyone, but I privately voiced concerns to Colby about some of the deals approved in the past.  Certain teams like the Mets now appear to be in disarray from both a talent and cap perspective.  I know that we want to extend owners a wide range of freedom in choosing how to run their teams, but maybe we should try to be a little more critical in the type of trades that we allow to get approved.  An owner can ruin a team in a dynasty league, especially one with a salary cap, in a very short time and fixing the team could take years.

I think the TC should not arbitrate trade value.  Primarily, trade value IS an extremely subjective discussion.  It is difficult to agree on whether or not a trade is good for a team if we don't know a potential owners big picture.  I think we should instead have a membership prerequisite; a Letter of Recomendation from another league commish of which they're active members.  This will ensure that FGM is only for dedicated members.  Consistency will level the playing field as well.  The Letter would also ensure these members are active.

Letters could be very simple and could be 2-3 sentences.  It is just too hard to agree on trade value.  Certainly the board was vocal during the AGON trade so we do see some oversite.  Actively valuing every trade would be inconclusive, IMO.

I'm going to post another post because I'm reading and theres a lot I'd like to reply about.  I am more libertarian about this issue and if we simply control the talent of members then we shouldn't need to police trades.  I know questionable trades have been made in which they were approved simply because the members were believed to be (and may be) good members at PROfsl.  I am against policing GM's moves.

Also I resent any statement about the Padres being 'Awful'...we're a work in progress.    (Corey *Cough* )

[rcankosy]

I think additional time to review trades is a good idea.

[Needle Juice]

The TC has improved... One thing we could do is instead of the two week no moves period... Have several of a new GM's first moves be reviewed by the EC.

That is a good idea.  Two layers of review.  Maybe make it for 2 months, instead of two weeks.