Nate

[Royals]

We've got two or three threads bitching about me and my draft pick (cuz, y'know, it's not like it was christmas or folks are busy this time of year)...
meanwhile, where is the discussion about what to do about one of our oldest members dropping off the planet?
Priorities?

As I mentioned once before, I called Nate, no reply. Called him again today and left a message (again).
Once I get my player evaluations done and pick, i expect we'll get to Nate's pick quite quickly.

There's a good chance this is the end for Nate, if it is, we can't just skip his pick, we'll have to pick for the Reds. at what point do we give up on Nate?

Also, we can pretty much count on at least Ken wanting to move to Cinci. Not sure who else is a Reds fan.

[Rangers]

I think that we give him the highest drafted player, since we have to consider the possibility that we are drafting for someone else. Otherwise I'd say pass him.

[Padres]

I think that we give him the highest drafted player, since we have to consider the possibility that we are drafting for someone else. Otherwise I'd say pass him.

I think we pass him (and any other GM who acts in a similar manner during the draft) until the end of the round ... then we assign that team the highest signed MLB draftee not drafted yet in the IBC.

During the untimed 1st round I recommend we would give him, and any other GM, 48 hours from the time his pick came up to post on the board that he is "working" his pick ... soliciting a trade or whatever ... before his team is passed. If he , or any other passed GM, resurfaces prior to the end of the round he was passed in, he can select from among those players still eligible to be drafted in the IBC.

[Royals]

I think that we give him the highest drafted player, since we have to consider the possibility that we are drafting for someone else.

I'm inclined to agree.

With GM's who miss picks, they're supposed to be able to make up that pick at any time, not just at the end of the round.

[Padres]

I think that we give him the highest drafted player, since we have to consider the possibility that we are drafting for someone else.

I'm inclined to agree.

With GM's who miss picks, they're supposed to be able to make up that pick at any time, not just at the end of the round.

I said he could draft before the end of the round if he resurfaces prior to the end of the round. I also feel it ought to be the highest drafted SIGNED player when ever that selection is made for him (if it is ...)

[Royals]

Signed is not an issue as draft and follows don't exist anymore. All players have to sign by something like August 31 or they go back into next year's draft (part of the last CBA).

[Padres]

Signed is not an issue as draft and follows don't exist anymore. All players have to sign by something like August 31 or they go back into next year's draft (part of the last CBA).

The 59th overall pick in the draft, Corey Brown, did not sign. He would likely fall out as the highest undrafted (by an IBC team) player in tthe IBC's 2nd or 3rd round and should not be assigned to an IBC team.

[Cardinals]

At what point do we look at replacing him? I would say sometime around Spring training / March/ the start of the year, no?

[Royals]

Much as I hate to say it (and I really, really do) we've gotta start sooner than that. nate was absent for most of the season....I can't recall another GM that has been extended this much leeway.

[Cardinals]

Fair enough. What are the rest of ExCo's thoughts? It's never easy to boot a GM from the league, let alone a pretty darn good one. Even if he has slipped the past two years, he still has one of the better teams in the league. But I agree- the first part of the league before being a good GM and before being a decent person to talk to is being active. Nate hasn't been active at all since probably 2006.

[Giants]

If he's still incommunicado by the end of the draft we need to take a more serious look at it. Does anyone have another number for him?

[Rangers]

Just in case it needs to be said, Jim's right, we obviously only need to assign a signed player to a team in Nate's case.

[Cardinals]

The more I think about it the more I think Nate may need to be replaced. We've given him so much leeway over the past two years and he's been basically absent. I've talked to a few of you on this separately and you know how conflicted I've felt on booting a pretty good GM. I've asked a few people in the league who've been around for awhile (Aaron, Zalaski) what they think should happen and they were pretty shocked, well Z was, that Nate hadn't had any communication with anybody for basically two months.

I know he's a good GM, but isn't the premise of this league being active? I know back in the day if we were gone even for a month or two while missing our monthly Roll call, we'd have been booted, unless we gave a league wide notice we'd be gone for awhile. Granted, we're in more of a comfort zone now, but Nate hasn't been an active participant in this league since I would say the 2005 season and has been sporadically involved since. I don't WANT to boot him, but is he leaving us with any choice?

[Giants]

Two issues on replacing Nate, first of all does anyone know a competent GM to replace him? Second of all shouldn't we wait until there's another team also vacant so that a newbie doesn't get that team?

[Royals]

Two issues on replacing Nate, first of all does anyone know a competent GM to replace him? Second of all shouldn't we wait until there's another team also vacant so that a newbie doesn't get that team?

Exactly what I discussed with JP yesterday.
On the second issue, the most recent set of newbies didn't do a minidraft so we could ask them if they want in.

[Dodgers]

Obviously with Nate's post this looks like a non-issue.

[Royals]

yup