Future Rules on League Openings - RC Only

[Eric]

who are you missing if you don't mind me asking

[rcankosy]

I personally have never been in favor of internal transfers, but see why they can occasionally be good for the league (ex: Jake turning the Nats around when no one wanted them).  I do not think it should be a common occurrence or something an owners aspires towards like a promotion.  Your job is to make your team a contender, not prepare your resume to then win with someone else's team.

Do we need special rules for internal transfers versus hiring external managers?  Why not just let all managers apply and either the Commish or RC can vote on who to hire.  We can be transparent with the criteria candidates will be evaluated by and why we vote the way we do.  Sure this leaves some subjectivity to it and people may get upset, but the premise of the RC is to have league elected people represent the best interests of the league (ie: if the league as a whole is unhappy with the RC decisions, they should elect new RC members).

We tried combining internal and external transfers with the Dodgers and it left us with this mess.  Therefore, I have proposed that we vote on internal transfers first, because it guides all of the other decisions.  You are free to correct me if I am wrong, but I took your comments as a no vote to question # 1.

The vote stands at 2-2 for allowing internal transfers.  I am not trying to rush anyone, but I would like this vote wrapped up by tomorrow evening.

[Brewers GM]

I personally have never been in favor of internal transfers, but see why they can occasionally be good for the league (ex: Jake turning the Nats around when no one wanted them).  I do not think it should be a common occurrence or something an owners aspires towards like a promotion.  Your job is to make your team a contender, not prepare your resume to then win with someone else's team.

Do we need special rules for internal transfers versus hiring external managers?  Why not just let all managers apply and either the Commish or RC can vote on who to hire.  We can be transparent with the criteria candidates will be evaluated by and why we vote the way we do.  Sure this leaves some subjectivity to it and people may get upset, but the premise of the RC is to have league elected people represent the best interests of the league (ie: if the league as a whole is unhappy with the RC decisions, they should elect new RC members).

[Colby]

People like to run their favorite teams, so I get the part about internal transfers to a degree.  I think if we put strict limits on them and have a valuation determination that I proposed then it will be a straight forward process.

[rcankosy]

I would like to add a few more points in defense of eliminating internal transfers altogether.

1.  We would eliminate the inevitable hurt feelings by owners on the short end of transfer requests.  I firmly believe that no matter how hard we try to be objective about it, we will lose league members in the future who do not agree with the RC's decisions.  It has happened before, and it will happen again.

2.  It is simply not necessary, and we have proof of it.  The Oakland As in our own league have been the model franchise for small market teams.  The second example is the Padres in Moneyball when their GM was JMACisBACK. 

It would be one thing if we had to sell tickets or convince our owners to increase our cap space or approve trades, but neither is necessary.  Our caps go up as we win, although I will admit it is a slow process that should perhaps be reviewed in the near future. 
Moreover, it may take a while for prospects to pan out, but you can usually flip a decent prospect for good value right off the bat if you were so inclined. 

[kungfuwig]

1) Yes, internal transfers should be allowed once every five years and a maximum of three times.  This also means that a person can only manage up to three different teams.

2) H2H-categories with three categories: Tenure with franchise, franchise performance, franchise performance vs. expected performance (if team had 29th highest cap and they finish 27th then that is a +2 in expectations).

3) I answered that with #2, but for external hires, we should use time on the waiting list, # of posts per month at ProFSL, and a rating of past performances in MLB and/or FGM as the three roto-categories.  Only one is subjective and that is the last one.

I think this sounds perfect and I answered how I feel about internal transfers in the other thread. Similar w slightly shorter timelines

[Colby]

I have already decided that all future league openings will be decided by the RC.  THat said, I see 3 critical questions that must be answered once and for all:

1.  Should internal transfers be allowed going forward?

2.  If yes, how should existing league members candidacies' be weighed against one another?

3.  Regardless of the answer to # 1, how should candidates in general be judged against one another.

We will start by having the RC rule on question # 1 in a separate post.

1) Yes, internal transfers should be allowed once every five years and a maximum of three times.  This also means that a person can only manage up to three different teams.

2) H2H-categories with three categories: Tenure with franchise, franchise performance, franchise performance vs. expected performance (if team had 29th highest cap and they finish 27th then that is a +2 in expectations).

3) I answered that with #2, but for external hires, we should use time on the waiting list, # of posts per month at ProFSL, and a rating of past performances in MLB and/or FGM as the three roto-categories.  Only one is subjective and that is the last one.

[rcankosy]

I have already decided that all future league openings will be decided by the RC.  THat said, I see 3 critical questions that must be answered once and for all:

1.  Should internal transfers be allowed to fill team openings going forward? 

2.  If yes, how should existing league members candidacies' be weighed against one another?

3.  Regardless of the answer to # 1, how should candidates in general be judged against one another.

We will start by having the RC rule on question # 1 in a separate post.