ExCo Standards

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:17 am

As members fo the Executive Committee, the six of us are, essentially, all Co-Commishes running the league.
It's important to bear in mind that as someone who has influence over the policy of the league, that we may be subject to additional scrutiny and need to be a little more cautious in some of our decision making regarding not just our decisions about the league, but our decisions about our own teams. This is something I have personally learned the hard way by screwing up and taking, usually rightfully, a beating for it.
This means that when dealing with an issue such as replacing or punishing a GM on some unusual circumstance (I.e. something other than a DL penalty), it is not appropriate to conduct trade negotiations with that GM. This is not intended as a shot at JP, we've both presented our opinions on his situation and understand each others position even if we don't agree and besides, what's done is done. In the future though, it is something to be very careful of. If a trade is done, for example, and the GM in question is spared removal, perhaps by even one vote, then it may raise questions or it may not. If the trade is done and the GM in question is voted out though, then it could look very bad in front of the entire league. Since we cannot know for certain the result of such a vote before hand, once a GM's status in the league is questioned, trade negotiations should be put on hiatus until it is resolved. It doesn't matter if nothing improper was intended, the perception or interpretation is there and is enough to do damage and create an issue.

One thing I would suggest also is that on issues that become hot topics, that whatever we decide amongst ourselves on the issue, that we present a unified front on the issue when presenting it to the league once we vote on it. It shouldn't matter to the league what each of us thinks individually, once we've voted, it should be, as JP put it "Thus spake the ExCo" as a unified group.

If i got preachy in writing this, my apologies, I'm just one opinion of 6, I just don't want us to stumble into any problems we ought to be able to avoid.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:37 am

I guess I'm a little confused on this issue. JP has been calling for Craig to be removed for months, from before you did the Peavy deal. The Peavy deal is the most questionable thing that the guy has done in this league. JP came to that agreement before we started the vote on dismissing Craig and Ryan. How does all of this add up to JP being the one who is acting inappropriately? I'm not suggesting that you acted inappropriately, just that he did exactly the same thing that you did, except to a much lower degree, did a deal while there were suggestions that Ryan's membership should be reviewed. That you/we started this vote after his deal was already done has no bearing.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:42 am

Your definitely right to put this out there. As I mentioned in the lame duck GM thread I feel like if a GM is participating meaningfully in trade discussions that should be enough to keep them off the chopping block as that kind of participation is much harder to replicate than sending in a roster, which the SIM can do on its own. If there is another punishment situation out there then obviously that's a different circumstance. Also I second Thus spake the ExCo as being a good idea, with that phrase never uttered until we've all settled our internal debate and waiting as long as possible for everyone in the league to get as much off their chest as possible (so that people don't bitch about not being heard).

ETA - If the trade turns out to be a total rape job then boot the guy and undo the trade, I'm assuming that the trade discussions were legit.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:06 am

First, not only do I agree on the Thus spake the ExCo, but all decisions reached should be supported by all members, whether or not they were in favor by vote, to avoid having factions amongst us.

Second, I agree that we should watch ourselves closely, especially with things such as this, but we also have to be careful that we don't set too high a standard for ourselves where we're actually handicapping our teams. The fact that Ryan has received 3 KEEP votes seems to make it clear that his position wasn't wholely in jeopardy and the fact that JP had this trade done last week speaks volumes to its lack of impropriety.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:16 pm

There was no discussion or suggestion about removing Craig during or around the Peavy negotiations. Craig's membership had been challenged in the past and upheld. He's a pain to make a deal with certainly, JP and I were both negotiating with him about Peavy for over a month (I want to say possibly more than 2 months but I'm not entirely sure and don't care enough to check) and several times he declared the talks 'dead' but JP and I both were persistent. He just takes patience to deal with.

Jake, I couldn't disagree more. Submitting rosters and checking the DL are the most important parts of being a member. For a long time I thought this guy was already gone and wasn't sending him DL penalties, I was just watching his team myself and any time someone was DLed, I farmed him myself. He's got to be owed DL penalties on close to a dozen players for that period. The DL problem has been THE biggest problem for the length of the IBC, being so bad in that area ought to cause a GM to be removed, no matter how many trades he makes (Pitt has ONE trade in the last 2+ months).

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:12 am

RedSox wrote:There was no discussion or suggestion about removing Craig during or around the Peavy negotiations. Craig's membership had been challenged in the past and upheld. He's a pain to make a deal with certainly, JP and I were both negotiating with him about Peavy for over a month (I want to say possibly more than 2 months but I'm not entirely sure and don't care enough to check) and several times he declared the talks 'dead' but JP and I both were persistent. He just takes patience to deal with.

Sure there was discussion and suggestion about removing him during that time. You may have been too busy to have been paying attention to or just ignoring JP's suggestions, but they were there at that time. I know because I talked to both JP a lot and Craig a little during that period.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:39 am

And yet, the logical person to talk to about actually getting a GM removed would have been me.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:43 am

I'm sure I mentioned it. I was harping for Craig to get the boot for a long, long time.

I mean, I like Craig. He's a nice guy. He's cool to talk to if you actually catch him. He just is unreachable most of the time.

Regardless, I digress, I know I brought it up to you before.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:06 am

RedSox wrote:And yet, the logical person to talk to about actually getting a GM removed would have been me.

Not sure if you read what I said there, but he DID talk to you, at least from what he relayed to me. You just weren't interested in addressing it at the time.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 1:25 am

JP DID talk to me in the past (as I mentioned somewhere, might have been in a chat with someone) and I'm pretty sure we put Craig up for a vote last fall some time and he survived, just like he survived this particular one.
That's another thing to bear in mind, even though we may vote on an issue and have it be decided, the league still needs to vote on some issues. I.E. looks like Washington is the only one still in line to get the boot, he probably doesn't need a leaguewide vote but Craig or Ryan would. I've had members ask me about each and why they're being considered for removal (aaron specifically)

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 9:09 am

I know I've been pushing for Craig's removal for quite some time and pretty much constantly since as well (I can back that up by emails if so desired), so to say there was no discussion of removing Craig seems absurd at this point.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:40 pm

As I've said before as re: Craig, I like him and he seems like a good guy. I just wish he would give a crap and be active and reachable. During the Peavy negotiations that I lost out on, it was days before I'd get a reply which made coming up with a great offer very difficult.

Regardless, I was calling for his removal for awhile. I'm not sure I have the emails/gchats to back it up because Im not sure if I was Houston or Milwaukee at the time but I think I was Houston so I probably do. The ones from earlier in the winter, I definately don't since I was Milwaukee.

Anyway, it's all moot. He's sitting on a pretty solid roster and isn't doing anything at all with it.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:13 am

again, that doesn't necessarily mean the discussion was with me. I haven't been exactly chatty for the last year or so and have missed a lot of the gossip/chattiness (unfortunately as it's left me feeling very disconnected at times)

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:12 am

Bren don't even try to shovel that horseshit that you didn't know we wanted Craig gone, I brought it up to you personally at least 3-4 times in the last year, often if not always with JP right behind me. I'll furnish email and AIM records when I get home tonight.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 12:47 pm

Agreed with what Shawn said.

When is it OK To communicate/negotiate with Craig or Ryan again? They're not going to get kicked out via vote so it should be fair game no? The fact that I even have to ask this is ridiculous.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:35 pm

Their vote is decided, so it's fine, though if Ryan doesn't get a roster in soon, I'm going to suggest he get voted on again. I've IMed him and it sounded like you were going to talk to him.
Shawn, the only time you and I have discussed Craig since Early December (which is when my IM Logger starts) was to discuss who hadn't voted on a deal.

JP mentioned Craig as part of a large list of GM's to remove and then made a case for not removing him.
brendilon: Why craig?
stlvertigo: yea, i dunno, he's ok
stlvertigo: hes just silent
stlvertigo: it would be nice to see him post and stuff
stlvertigo: i mean, he checks his stuff, but its like a heller keller member
stlvertigo: but in his defense, he's an ice guy
stlvertigo: and has an idea what to do with his team
stlvertigo: i.e., youth and building around peavy
stlvertigo: all the others are just dead weight, though Rich I would keep because when he's active he's a good precense to have in the league
brendilon: He's been pretty prompt with his emails too. I sent him a trade proposal back to me and got back within 10 minutes
stlvertigo: yeah, he's good, i'd just like him to talk more

If you guys were having a ton of discussions about Craig, you weren't cluing me in to it.

So the guy doesn't talk enough.
There are two qualities to GM's in the league, basically. Activity and Ability. It would be great to have 30 gm's with high levels of both, but we all know that isn't going to happen. Given a choice between active idiots or less active knowledgeable GM's (who can at least submit a roster to update their DL stuff), I prefer the knowledgeable ones (mostly). We have a mix of the two and i think that's healthy.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:58 pm

I'm sure I spoke more than that of him.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:12 pm

We talked a lot (and by a lot I mean several times a day at some points) about our respective offers for Peavy and asking if each other had gotten another email from him and whether either of us was ready to give up on the issue, but that was the only relevant comment to removing him.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:18 pm

there have been things prior to that, i know for sure that ive spoken more than that about removing Craig.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:44 pm

I agree we've discussed it in the past, but not since early December

ExCo Standards

ExCo Standards

Re: ExCo Standards