Analyzing the Hiring Process

[Mr.TradeKing]

Hey MTK,

(in my best Terrell Owens voice) We all know you love you some you!!!

This may be true, but I was implying that I wasn't handed this team on a silver platter either.

~MTK

[VolsRaysBucs]

This may be true, but I was implying that I wasn't handed this team on a silver platter either.

~MTK

Understood, but essentially every team sans a handful had to "craft" their roster.  I have a paltry payroll and the previous GM did not even bother to tender several FA (Garza, Zobrist to name a few).  Only a few teams can really cry "woe is me" and IMO, Atlanta and Tampa are not in that group. 

Was only having fun, all implications were understood from the jump 

[Daniel]

I would like to chip in my 2 cents to this conversation.

First of all, what is done is done. Even Chris has given Ltd his welcome as Yankees GM and there is no need for him to resign or feel any sort of hostility in the environment. Also, whether or not you approve with the way things were handled, the new Yanks GM has no part of this and is in no way guilty, so it would be much appreciated if no one bears any grudges or ill-will against him.

Second, I for one had understood from the beginning that actual GMs with more than a year with their respective teams would always get first dibs when a GM resigned his post. Ever since I signed up I have stated my desire to take over my favorite team, the Dodgers, and even if I have grown to love my Jays and would have to think hard before leaving my team, I would be mad if the Dodgers are given to a new GM without being offered to eligible owners beforehand. However if the league wants to make a finding-a-replacement rule, it can be discussed properly by the rules committee.

Third, whether Chris is a Boston fan or not, it is no one's business but his own to judge whether or not he should or should not want to manage the Yankees. I for one would never want to manage the Yankees and their Evil Empire for the simple reason that I don't want to help them win. In fact, one of the reasons why I chose the Jays out of the teams that were available was because I enjoyed the challenge of playing in the league's toughest division (At least at the time I joined, now it may be the NL Central) and because I wanted to enjoy myself being a rock in the Yanks' shoes. But, that's just me.

Fourth, I like Jake's set goals idea. Maybe we can elaborate further on this point? It would provide added pressure for GMs with stable teams. However I would suggest two-year goals to minimize turnover and, instead of firing a GM outright for failing to fulfill his goals, that the team (a commission of at least three chosen members) interviews possible new GMs who want to leave their teams and evaluates if there is an adequate replacement.

Finally, Let's focus on clearing up any cloudy areas that may still surround this move to avoid having similar problems in the future. With a clear set of rules, this won't be a problem. If making a waiting list for teams is the way to go, then let's make one. Or whatever. My suggestion is to have the rules committee discuss this and inform the rest of the owners of the decision, so that no further disagreements will ever happen regarding this matter.

[MillerTime]

I would like to reiterate one of Daniel's points.  We as a group need to improve on how New GMs are treated in this league.  We have had issues with some recent hires.  If day 1, even one of the GMs in this league makes them feel unwelcome, it is possible that alone causes them to leave or go inactive.     

We are all concerned that a GM may come in and go inactive on us.  This is great as a whole, but it does not need to be stated each time a GM is hired.  If there are issues about league Fundamentals or overall concerns that are not specific to this GM, they need to be brought up away from the Welcome the New __________ GM post. 

[Dan Wood]

Been away for a few days and everything goes to pot. Haha... anyway, in regards to GMs being given new teams, I am opposed of it in total. Whether it be a GM going from a bad team to a good team, or a good team to a bad team. The best part about this league is that we all have a plan, and pretty much have to enact it. This isn't a quick fix league. Most teams were neglected prior to the beginning of last season, except for a few. That's the hard truth of the matter. I think once a GM starts down a trail, whether it be to rebuild, go for overpriced stars etc, that's it, it is your team. I thought about leaving the Reds for the Mets, just because of my insane allegiance to the colors blue and orange, but I didn't want to leave MY team behind. I built my team, good or bad, and I have pride in what I have done. As do most of the GMs in this league. Better opportunity or not, time spent or not, I don't think someone should be able to jump from team to team. That is just my opinion.

I could take over a crap team, jerk around for a year, then hope a 200 million dollar payroll team opens up too. My point being, just showing up should have nothing to do with whether or not you get a new team. You got a team, now run with it. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, this is just an ongoing rant and I have voiced my opinion about it to other members in the league before. Build a franchise, isn't that the point of this league?

[rcankosy]

Been away for a few days and everything goes to pot. Haha... anyway, in regards to GMs being given new teams, I am opposed of it in total. Whether it be a GM going from a bad team to a good team, or a good team to a bad team. The best part about this league is that we all have a plan, and pretty much have to enact it. This isn't a quick fix league. Most teams were neglected prior to the beginning of last season, except for a few. That's the hard truth of the matter. I think once a GM starts down a trail, whether it be to rebuild, go for overpriced stars etc, that's it, it is your team. I thought about leaving the Reds for the Mets, just because of my insane allegiance to the colors blue and orange, but I didn't want to leave MY team behind. I built my team, good or bad, and I have pride in what I have done. As do most of the GMs in this league. Better opportunity or not, time spent or not, I don't think someone should be able to jump from team to team. That is just my opinion.

I could take over a crap team, jerk around for a year, then hope a 200 million dollar payroll team opens up too. My point being, just showing up should have nothing to do with whether or not you get a new team. You got a team, now run with it. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, this is just an ongoing rant and I have voiced my opinion about it to other members in the league before. Build a franchise, isn't that the point of this league?

I agree 100% with this post.

[Canada8999]

I agree with Dan's points.

Personally, I think something as simple as publicly posting potential openings for a week before hiring a new GM would have avoided this issue - Chris (or anyone else who might have been interested) would have had a chance to plead his case, and Corey could have vouched for our new guy.  Ultimately Colby will get to make the call, but transparency should go a long way to keeping people from getting upset.

I'm not really in favor of the contracts thing.  If for some reason the Brewers missed their mark, I'd be pretty pissed if someone told me I can't manage them anymore.  Like Dan said, it's my team and I'm not giving it up.

[lp815]

it's my team and I'm not giving it up.

well then...

[kungfuwig]

I feel I need to say something. If in the past GM's were given first choice at new teams then that should always be the case. I personally never want to leave my team. I have been with them for a while now and have a plan and do not want to start over again even if I start with a stacked team. I enjoy trying to decide which prospects are the best and take gambles on young guys....especially since I am a long time Yankee fan and have always seen winnings, haha. That is just my opinion, but I think we should first allows other GMs to have a go at the team, and maybe a committee to vote on who should be able to move to the new team based on their activity, success, and tenure in the league.

As far as making goals for teams, I think that would be really tough. Every team will have a different take on how they want to go. Someone mentioned that they do this in video games, but thats cause the GM is asking you to, you are the GM here. The goals cannot be something like "get your team to .500 by x year" because there could always be events that occur to a team that are out of their control. If Prince Fielder goes down on my team for half the year I am screwed. With him I am competitive. The only type of goals that I feel to be fair are activity goals or contribution goals. I am not always an active participant in conversations, but I take my time to read everything and am on as frequently as possible given my busy schedule, but an activity or contribution to the league goal would not be a horrible idea.

[joeshmoe]

I feel I need to say something. If in the past GM's were given first choice at new teams then that should always be the case. I personally never want to leave my team. I have been with them for a while now and have a plan and do not want to start over again even if I start with a stacked team. I enjoy trying to decide which prospects are the best and take gambles on young guys....especially since I am a long time Yankee fan and have always seen winnings, haha. That is just my opinion, but I think we should first allows other GMs to have a go at the team, and maybe a committee to vote on who should be able to move to the new team based on their activity, success, and tenure in the league.

As far as making goals for teams, I think that would be really tough. Every team will have a different take on how they want to go. Someone mentioned that they do this in video games, but thats cause the GM is asking you to, you are the GM here. The goals cannot be something like "get your team to .500 by x year" because there could always be events that occur to a team that are out of their control. If Prince Fielder goes down on my team for half the year I am screwed. With him I am competitive. The only type of goals that I feel to be fair are activity goals or contribution goals. I am not always an active participant in conversations, but I take my time to read everything and am on as frequently as possible given my busy schedule, but an activity or contribution to the league goal would not be a horrible idea.