Reds Resolution

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:07 pm

The ExCo, by unanimous decision, has decided that it is appropriate to boot Nate for lack of activity/gross injury negligence.

The team will be managed on a day-to-day basis by the American League ExCo GMs (Brett, Jim and Andrew). Additionally, because of the unique situation with the Reds being a serious contender, we have decided that they will be eligible for the playoffs due to the significantly changed playoff landscape if they were to be excluded. However, any injury penalties accumulated while Nate was the GM will be enforced.

Discussion as to what to do to the roster after this season is continuing, and ideas would be welcomed.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:16 pm

Kudos to the ex-co for taking swift and appropriate action.

I'd say the new Milwaukee GM should have the option of going into an reallocation draft with the new Cincy GM - I'd also be willing to listen to arguments to open this to any GM who just completed their first full season in the IBC. I'm not comfortable just handing Nate's team to someone new - however.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:17 pm

All other GM's have completed at least one full season already.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:22 pm

I agree that milwaukee should join in the minidraft, a team that stacked should not be just handed over to a newbie. I think it's worth discussing allowing other GM's to join in as well on a voluntary basis.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:37 pm

Royals wrote:Kudos to the ex-co for taking swift and appropriate action.

I'd also be willing to listen to arguments to open this to any GM who just completed their first full season in the IBC.

The 2008 season was the first full season for a few owners I think. But speaking for myself, I wouldn't be interested in participating in a mini-draft.

My vote is that Milwaukee and Cincy enter a mini-draft....but I would not be in favor of this if Ben were against it, simply due to the fact that he's already invested significant time in his team with respect to trades, etc.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:51 pm

Astros wrote:My vote is that Milwaukee and Cincy enter a mini-draft....but I would not be in favor of this if Ben were against it, simply due to the fact that he's already invested significant time in his team with respect to trades, etc.

Just for what it's worth, no team (aside from Cincy obviously) would be forced into a minidraft, if in fact there is one. Anyone included would be optional.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:53 pm

If anyone is curious, JP and probably Andrew can speak to efforts to communicate with Nate through this process, which has been ongoing for a while. The last thing anyone wanted to do is boot Nate.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:56 pm

Sad to see fellow Reds fan Nate gone, it was Nate who recruited me into the league many years ago. The decision is well timed and proper and it is appropriate to have the AL ex-co members handle the team until the end of the season. Will there be any trading or other types of roster moves permitted by the Reds for the duration of the season? The minidraft option makes the most sense provided Ben is a willing participant.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 3:58 pm

I feel with a roster of this caliber, it makes sense to open up an offseason minidraft to anyone who wants to. Length of service shouldn't preclude a GM from being part of it.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:01 pm

Nationals wrote:Will there be any trading or other types of roster moves permitted by the Reds for the duration of the season?

The plan right now is to be very conservative with Cincy's moves.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:11 pm

I think I should get to pick 50 players between the two teams and then the remaining 50 can go into a mini-draft... I need some more talent.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:11 pm

Tigers wrote:If anyone is curious, JP and probably Andrew can speak to efforts to communicate with Nate through this process, which has been ongoing for a while. The last thing anyone wanted to do is boot Nate.

Have gone through great lengths to contact him consistently over the past month and have received sporadic (if any) replies, and obviously, no attention to the roster whatsoever. I feel as though I personally gave him as many chances as possible and reached out further to him than I did any other GM in the past, but to no avail.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 4:16 pm

I also e-mailed Nate multiple times and told him he needed to get in touch with the exco in the last email I sent about a week ago, he never replied.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:12 pm

I feel very strongly that established GMs (meaning anyone with 3+ years in the league) should not be allowed to participate in any minidraft, as I think it could change the character of the league too greatly. If you've had a chance to build your team and you've been in a minidraft then you shouldn't get to benefit from Nate's flakiness. The NL Central is strong enough that if you split Nate's roster with Ben's you'd have two reasonable teams.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:01 pm

Oh come on, you can't tell me that JB participating in the minidraft would be a bad thing for the league in any way! Sure it would change things, but not necessarily for the worse. the only drawback to teams participating in the minidraft in the past is that the more teams join, the more complicated the draft is to manage.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:05 pm

RedSox wrote:Oh come on, you can't tell me that JB participating in the minidraft would be a bad thing for the league in any way! Sure it would change things, but not necessarily for the worse. the only drawback to teams participating in the minidraft in the past is that the more teams join, the more complicated the draft is to manage.

Assuming we go such a route, which is certainly no sure thing one way or another since we'll be discussing for a bit as to what to do exactly, the complexity of it wouldn't really be that big of a deal. It would be something done in the offseason in all likelihood and we'd have plenty of time to manage it properly.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:12 pm

The bigger question is going to be teams moving. I'm sure that there is going to be at least one person who will want to have the Reds, which opens up the option for another move or two.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:26 pm

RedSox wrote:The bigger question is going to be teams moving. I'm sure that there is going to be at least one person who will want to have the Reds, which opens up the option for another move or two.

We usually have a move or two every year no matter how often we swear that we won't. If there's just cause for moving, i.e. our favorite team clause or somebody has just been stuck in their division for awhile and are fed up with it, we always handle it appropriately on a case by case basis. I don't think that's a big deal either.

Brewers · Post by **Brewers** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:02 am

I know it seems stupid to pass a chance at Hanley or Wright, but I would rather build my team the old fashioned way. I took this team knowing that I had a rebuild coming, and as someone who has 6 teams, it is nice to have teams on different levels of the competition spectrum.

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:38 am

Brewers wrote:I know it seems stupid to pass a chance at Hanley or Wright, but I would rather build my team the old fashioned way. I took this team knowing that I had a rebuild coming, and as someone who has 6 teams, it is nice to have teams on different levels of the competition spectrum.

Love it. My new fave IBC NL team is the Brew Crew. Sorry to my pals in NYC and ARZ (at least they're all in separate divisions).

Angels · Post by **Angels** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 6:47 am

BTW - if there is a dispersal draft, I as well will not participate. I've gotten too much crap to not stick with it in an attempt prove you doomsayers eventually wrong.

Phillies · Post by **Phillies** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 8:59 am

how about in the offseason each team trades a good prospect for an awesome player. like ill trade Lindblom for Halladay. seeing how great of an idea this is, I obviously already have dibs on Halladay.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:38 pm

Based on the initial few responses, are there teams out there that would even be interested in a mini-draft?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 2:19 pm

we can't just hand that team over as is to a new GM.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Wed Jul 22, 2009 3:20 pm

RedSox wrote:we can't just hand that team over as is to a new GM.

Totally agree.