Analyzing the Hiring Process

[joeshmoe]

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. 

[joeshmoe]

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.

[joeshmoe]

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.

[OUDAN]

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

[joeshmoe]

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.   

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. 

[Mr.TradeKing]

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

[shooter47]

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.

[joeshmoe]

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. 

[MillerTime]

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. 

[VolsRaysBucs]

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!!!