IBC

Craig- Cleveland
Ryan- Pittsburgh
Matt- Washington ?? (Im not sure what he has/has not done.)

Vacek . just kidding.

All other GM's are active in their own right, no?

I'd want to give Matt and Ryan at least an extended chance, since we know that they're good GMs if they're interested. Sometimes when you take over a crappy team and are in multiple leagues it comes and goes at first.

An extended chance? To do what exactly? More of nothing? because that's what we've gotten from both of them. We have a minimum standard, it's pretty darn low, which is to at least send in a roster from time to time. They can't even do that. Washington last did that on May 8th. They both should go, their priorities are obviously elsewhere. There is nothing whatsoever about either of them that has shown them to be productive members of the league. A new GM should be trying harder than the others to prove he belongs, not sitting on his ass doing less than anyone else and then given another chance to not do anything.. If you cut them from the league, I doubt either one would even notice. Hell, I was pretty sure Pitt had already been cut.
They suck, period. Let's find some new GM's who aren't already doing another league or three so they'll actually have some commitment to this one.

I really don't have a strong opinion on this, but all I'm saying is that at least the Nats guy IS a good GM, and while participation is necessary for a good league, so is having good GMs, and there is a shortage of good GMs. I'd just tend to give someone who I know is a good GM a longer leash, and again, the Was guy is a good GM.

Given all the chances we gave Matt LeRoy who massacred his team, which is worse than being inactive, and given all the chances we've given other GM's, I think we at least owe it to them to email them and say hey, can you do a little more until you have more time then open up the activity?

Astros wrote:Given all the chances we gave Matt LeRoy who massacred his team, which is worse than being inactive, and given all the chances we've given other GM's, I think we at least owe it to them to email them and say hey, can you do a little more until you have more time then open up the activity?

I agree and was going to write something to that effect ... i.e., a note to them indicating "you were invited to join the league because we were under the impression that you had the knowledge and wanted to participate in this league. The Executive Committee has a concern, not about your knowledge, but about your level of activity. Truth is we don't know anything about whether or not you have the baseball because your level of activity has been so low that we can not honestly judge your knowledge. If you want to remain a GM in the IBC we expect you to regularly submit rosters. If you don't want to remain a GM in the IBC, kindly let us know and we'll find someone who does ..."

IF we do need new GMs I May/may not have a potential new source, but then again, I feed in a lot of the GM's anyway. But I have brought in a bunch of good ones. Shawn most notably. Jake L is pretty good, very active and happy to contribute to the league. Brought in Brandon. That's about where my track record stops

I've brought in a fair share of busts too:
Matt L.
Mike L.

and others I'm sure.

Dan's buddy seems eager for another shot as well

Dan's buddy, who?

He was a GM for a month at the start of the season, I gave him the boot for the same reason that ptt and the Nats deserve it.

Yeah but what's his name?

Matt I believe.

Another Matt? No.