A way to make teams more appealing...

Ok, we all know that some teams are less appealing than others, but I think I have a way to make some of these teams better. A reliable gm will be able to "take over" the other organization for a little bit. They still keep their old team, but they are trying to rebuild the other teams by getting good young players. They wont be able to trade with their own teams. Also, when you take over a team, you must write down a detailed plan of what you are going to do with the team, and how you are going to do it. The goal of this is to get teams out of debt, and set up their foundation for the future. If they dont follow their plan, they lose their second team. Also, the second teams will be available at all times, so if someone joins and wants them, you must give them up. Also, you cant switch to your second team under ANY circumstance. You are just trying to get these organizations on their feet.



What do you guys think?


PS: If this goes through, I call Pittsburgh!!

If I'm reading this correctly, when you say second team you are referring to a GMs original team, in which case I think losing your original team for not following a plan seems a bit extreme. Not all projects go according to plan, I think if we're hiring reliable GMs for these teams they should also have the discretion to fold up and resign from that team if they find the task too difficult.

hoosier31 wrote:

If I'm reading this correctly, when you say second team you are referring to a GMs original team, in which case I think losing your original team for not following a plan seems a bit extreme. Not all projects go according to plan, I think if we're hiring reliable GMs for these teams they should also have the discretion to fold up and resign from that team if they find the task too difficult.

No, the second team is the team they would pick second, like Milwaukee. And they wont lose their original team. And they can resign at any time due to many reasons.

I vote no, not a good idea. It's just not a good situation. Sure you can say that you can't deal with your own team but there's too much you could do to manipulate things. Plus, it would be kinda dumb for guys to have two teams. Let's just find active owners.

In an effort to help the league, after this season I would like to step down as the Marlins GM, and sign on as the Pirates GM. Someone new to the game will find it much easier to get accustomed to everything with a successful team, than one that is almost $100mil in debt. Even if no GM signs on, the team should still be successful for another season (hopefully we'll find someone 2 years in).

Also, being in the NL Central I will be able to directly compete with STL

I was also leaning towards taking on Pitt or San Diego. If hoosier takes on Pitt, I'd be willing to take on San Diego.

Geesh, then I get to compete directly (or indirectly) with you folks. This
could be interesting.

-Cinci'

i like it. but recuiting new gms is better

Well in that case since everyone just wants to move in and come after me, I think I'll just move to OAK and let you guys deal with the Cubs who are going to be monsters next season And TB, recuriting more GMs is nice on paper but a lot harder than that in reality. If you look over the GMs outside of the first season (STL, TB, MIN, NYM, ARZ, BAL, BOS, DET, TEX) and look at the other owners as a group, you have you, CHC, and Steve that have been very active and good owners, but just the same u've had a merry go round of owners in CWS, SF, OAK, ATL, TOR, PHI, and CIN. It's a lot tougher than you think to get more active owners.

I would just want to switch totally over - someone can have my well-stocked Baltimore team and I'd take the bullet. This league screwed up letting some of these teams get to where they are now, but I'd be willing to help bring one of them out.

ahsfl wrote:

Well in that case since everyone just wants to move in and come after me, I think I'll just move to OAK and let you guys deal with the Cubs who are going to be monsters next season And TB, recuriting more GMs is nice on paper but a lot harder than that in reality. If you look over the GMs outside of the first season (STL, TB, MIN, NYM, ARZ, BAL, BOS, DET, TEX) and look at the other owners as a group, you have you, CHC, and Steve that have been very active and good owners, but just the same u've had a merry go round of owners in CWS, SF, OAK, ATL, TOR, PHI, and CIN. It's a lot tougher than you think to get more active owners.

I agree. Finding gms who will stay active is really difficult.

And a fyi, I said no to this idea. Just doesn't seem good to me...

I honestly don't like for pretty much everything that has been said before... all the concerns are what I talked about in Admin chats and it seems the league pretty much agrees...

uscsteve wrote:

I vote no, not a good idea. It's just not a good situation. Sure you can say that you can't deal with your own team but there's too much you could do to manipulate things. Plus, it would be kinda dumb for guys to have two teams. Let's just find active owners.

We would be able to tell if someone was manipulating their team. How could they manipulate the league?

And I dont understand how its dumb to have two teams. All you would be doing for the other team is building up a farm system and getting the teams out of debt.

And honestly, I cant think of anything that could go wrong.