If you were in charge, what would you do?

OCBLcommish · 07-05-2003, 09:45 PM

I've been in the BMN almost since it started up (I was the 2nd owner of the Twins in this league, taking over late in the 1st season of league play).
Since then, one owner (although a good guy and popular and friends with most of the other owners) has put up many a fusses. Some warranted, some not. However, more than just a couple times he's threatened to quit over crap and showcased the "Well if thats how its gonna be then I'm gonna take my ball and go home!" approach to things. In the end, he was always either appeased or relented from his comments.
Our commish then went AWOL, came back and then went AWOL a second time (all in one sim season). Shortly before he went AWOL the second time the owner in question did another threat of quitting over the commish's first AWOL and followed through with it.
The commish replaced him with another owner and we finished off September and went into the playoffs before the commish went AWOL again.
Many of us patiently waited for the commish to come back again while others quit (and were not replaced as the league's fate was still up in the air).
Since then, one of the owners decided if he could manage to pull it off, he'd take helm of the league and try to get some of the old guys back in. So guys who quit were told and said okay and got their teams back. However, the original Blue Jays owner is mulling over if he wants in or not (assumingly just waiting until he knows for sure if the league will be back or not) and apparently he has been promised the Blue Jays ownership once again.
To which I flipped out about. I have nothing personal against this owner (or former owner) or anything like that. I just think its horribly unfair to the current Jays owner to say "Hey we like you and all and want you to stay in the league, but if this guy wants back in he gets the Jays and you can choose another open team to run"

So let me ask you guys, what would you do if you were the ones making this decision? Would you appease the original Jays owner and let him reclaim the Jays and either kick the current owner to the curb or let the current guy take an open team....OR.....would you let the current Jays owner retain his team and tell the original Jays owner "We'd love to have you back, but you'd have to take an open team since you quit and missed actual sim time"?

Let me hear your thoughts.

Cooleyvol · 07-05-2003, 09:50 PM

There's no decision to make, as I see it.

He left; he was replaced as Jays owner.

He has no right to come back as the Jays owner UNTIL the current Jays owner makes it known that he is not returning.

Old Man · 07-05-2003, 09:52 PM

So hard to answer this question without being involved in the league. The league owners should be asked this question. Since I am not a league owner I will pass.

OCBLcommish · 07-05-2003, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Man
So hard to answer this question without being involved in the league. The league owners should be asked this question. Since I am not a league owner I will pass.

The man taking over the league said he'd leave it up to the league if he had to but that he supported bringing the original owner back in his original role. He also said the following:

Quote:

I like to think that Pappy's reactions were indicitive of his disgust with Tim's disapearance and nothing else. I would also agree with Shauns sentiments wholeheartedly if Glenn had been gone for a full season, or even half a season for that matter, but he quit right before the playoffs started. I know it seems like a long, long time ago, but Glenn only missed a couple weeks worth of "game time".

Fact of the matter is, he quit the league, he was replaced and sims were done after he was replaced. Seems like a moot point to me. I compared this to telling a girl that if the girl I asked to Prom turns me down, then I'll go with you kinda thing.

asamford · 07-05-2003, 10:18 PM

Looking at it from the outside, you offer the old owner an open team. If the Jays already have a new owner, you can't take that team away from the new owner, that will just cause further problems for your league. Offer the old owner a chance at any other open team, and if he doesn't want to do that, then he really doesn't want to be in the league, he just wants his team back.

I agree with Cooley on this one.

OCBLcommish · 07-05-2003, 10:22 PM

So far, so good...everyone agreeing with me on this one lol.

Just as a side note, there is precedent on this sort of thing within the league. One owner went AWOL and was replaced by a new guy. The original Padres owner then came back demanding his team and the league came to the new owner's defense and eventually the original Pads owner relented and took the White Sox (who were open).

The only difference, as I see it, is the amount of time the replacement owner spent in actual sim time and the popularity of the original owner.

asamford · 07-05-2003, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OCBLcommish

The only difference, as I see it, is the amount of time the replacement owner spent in actual sim time and the popularity of the original owner.

shouldn't matter. he left, he gave up his team, and someone else took it over. If the new guy has no problem taking over another team besides the Blue Jays, then there's no problem, but that should be between the commish and the new Blue Jays owner. If the old guy refuses to re-join unless he gets his old team, then, even if he is a popular guy, you'd probably be better off without him.

OCBLcommish · 07-05-2003, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by asamford
If the new guy has no problem taking over another team besides the Blue Jays, then there's no problem

I havent talked to the new Jays owner about this situation. However, I figure he may opt to just appease the old owner and or the guy who is taking over by taking an open team as to not cause waves.
Granted its his call and not mine, I just think it unfair he should be put in such a situation.

TC Dale · 07-05-2003, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OCBLcommish
I havent talked to the new Jays owner about this situation. However, I figure he may opt to just appease the old owner and or the guy who is taking over by taking an open team as to not cause waves.
Granted its his call and not mine, I just think it unfair he should be put in such a situation.

If you guys railroad that guy off his team for an old owner, you should be shot.

Sorry to be so blunt, but come on,you don't have to be a scientist to see that the guy that wants back in should get an open team..... to bump the guy that took over for a someone that left ONCE is just asking for that league to collapse onto itself.

Don't leave it up to the GM to decide his own fate. If the league decides to let the previous owner have his team back, then that league is not one I would want to be a part of, that is for sure.

Sorry to be harsh, but this is common sense IMO.

You boot the guy and you all look really bad.

Flame away if you want. I can take it.

woody5254 · 07-05-2003, 11:26 PM

Offer the old owner an open team. If he refuses he isn't really what you want in the league anyway. Without a doubt you shouldn't get rid of the new owner.

Old Man · 07-05-2003, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by OCBLcommish
The man taking over the league said he'd leave it up to the league if he had to but that he supported bringing the original owner back in his original role. He also said the following:

Fact of the matter is, he quit the league, he was replaced and sims were done after he was replaced. Seems like a moot point to me. I compared this to telling a girl that if the girl I asked to Prom turns me down, then I'll go with you kinda thing.

Like I said the Gm's in the league know the situation the best. Why the commish would not ask the league for an opinion? Seems fishy to me. Given the info you presented, if I was an owner in the league I would feel the same way you do.

OCBLcommish · 07-05-2003, 11:34 PM

He (the guy taking over as Commish) has offered to leave it up to a league wide vote if needed.

Myself, I'm contemplating leaving the league in protest if he is given the Jays ownership again...only, I hate to deliver such an ultimatum when blasting a guy who uses the "I'll take my ball and go home" tactic.

The Professor · 07-06-2003, 12:07 AM

I'm with Cooley, Samford, T.C. and Co. on this one...

This should not even be a league-wide vote, it should be a no-brainer...it sets a strange precedent, that is for sure.

CommishJoe · 07-06-2003, 01:10 AM

Current Jays owner should have the right of first refusal. If he still wants the Blue Jays, the old owner should have to take an open team.

Bluenoser · 07-06-2003, 05:28 AM

I agree with TC, Cooley, etc.

Tell this guy you have a new ball and don't need his anymore.

If you let him back in, exactly how long do you think it'll be before he has another snit over something he doesn't agree with?

Be thankful the league has this opportunity to get rid of the virus, you may not get the opportunity again until it's too late.

Cooleyvol · 07-06-2003, 07:35 AM

Oh, the joys of a present-day league run by (I'm guessing here) teenagers.

vtbub · 07-06-2003, 01:33 PM

The ONLY way that I would award a owner who left his team and then wanted it back is if he had asked for a leave of absence AND the new owner fully understood what he was getting himself into.

We had that situation come up and gave the new owner the choice of being an AGM until the orginial owner was able to resume his duties or moving the team.

In either case, the owner who was affected was guarenteed either an expansion/take over an abandoned team, the orginial owner was given the choice to move that team back to the orginial city.

The new owner took the team on a temporary basis and will be awarded either an expansion franchise or take over another team when the time comes. It was the new owner's choice and he was well aware of that choice when he decided.

edited for clarity

rise100 · 07-07-2003, 12:43 AM

Guys, I understand your positions on letting the old owner into the league, but in this particular case, there are extenuating cicumstances. As Shaun mentioned, the Commish went AWOL more than once in the past couple of months with no word at all. Furthermore, he went AWOL at one time for over a month, came back, then disappeared for weeks again. At that point, Glenn, the BJ owner, myself, the Red Sox owner, and Pun, the Angels owner, left the league. We were all original owners in a league that had been around for a year or so.

What I am getting at is, all three of us were founding members of this league. We were all on the Steering Comitee, and literally had put in hundreds of hours. Everyone in the leagu knows us, and, if and when the league is continued by a new commish, he has asked us to come back to the teams that we built. His position is that the teams have not changed since we left. ONly a couple of weeks, game weeks, not real life weeks, have passed. In fact, I don't even think that many have passed, but the point is, despite the way Shuan described it, none of us up in quit over small potatos. Each of us had put in lots of time, had been fed b.s. lines by the commish about working all the time (by the way, all that work was as a pizza delivery guy, something I have done myself and can tell you, its hardly as time consuming as he suggested) and being sorry about disappearing for a month straight, and then another few weeks immediatley proceeding.

I think many of you would have reacted the same way as us, and rightfully so. Before you pass judgement on whether Glenn's attitude is good for this league, take a look at the league he runs as commish now, largley made of ex-BMNers, and try to understand that Glenn's presence in BMN contributed in large part to its success in the early times. Oh yeah, I forgot to say, he was also the assistant commish, though Tim never gave him the necessary passwords. This should, I hope shed some light on some of the intracacies of this particular case.

ONe last thing, BMN and SSB, are run and largely populated by 20 and 30 something, professionals or college students.
see the following link to learn about us and see the history of the league. There is some valuable info here on how we got in this situation.
http://www.baseballmanager.net/cgi-b...6103;start=0#0

sporr · 07-07-2003, 10:49 AM

Regardless of the circumstances behind you all quitting, the fact is that the team was promised to a new owner. To now take this team away from him isn't right in my opinion. As a founding member of the league, I would think that the interest of the league would take precedent over your own interest in your team. If it were me, I would gladly take another open team rather than replacing someone who had already been managing, no matter the length of time involved.

vtbub · 07-07-2003, 10:51 AM

Agreed

07-05-2003, 09:45 PM	#1
OCBLcommish Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 193	If you were in charge, what would you do? I've been in the BMN almost since it started up (I was the 2nd owner of the Twins in this league, taking over late in the 1st season of league play). Since then, one owner (although a good guy and popular and friends with most of the other owners) has put up many a fusses. Some warranted, some not. However, more than just a couple times he's threatened to quit over crap and showcased the "Well if thats how its gonna be then I'm gonna take my ball and go home!" approach to things. In the end, he was always either appeased or relented from his comments. Our commish then went AWOL, came back and then went AWOL a second time (all in one sim season). Shortly before he went AWOL the second time the owner in question did another threat of quitting over the commish's first AWOL and followed through with it. The commish replaced him with another owner and we finished off September and went into the playoffs before the commish went AWOL again. Many of us patiently waited for the commish to come back again while others quit (and were not replaced as the league's fate was still up in the air). Since then, one of the owners decided if he could manage to pull it off, he'd take helm of the league and try to get some of the old guys back in. So guys who quit were told and said okay and got their teams back. However, the original Blue Jays owner is mulling over if he wants in or not (assumingly just waiting until he knows for sure if the league will be back or not) and apparently he has been promised the Blue Jays ownership once again. To which I flipped out about. I have nothing personal against this owner (or former owner) or anything like that. I just think its horribly unfair to the current Jays owner to say "Hey we like you and all and want you to stay in the league, but if this guy wants back in he gets the Jays and you can choose another open team to run" So let me ask you guys, what would you do if you were the ones making this decision? Would you appease the original Jays owner and let him reclaim the Jays and either kick the current owner to the curb or let the current guy take an open team....OR.....would you let the current Jays owner retain his team and tell the original Jays owner "We'd love to have you back, but you'd have to take an open team since you quit and missed actual sim time"? Let me hear your thoughts. __________________ EBM - Boston Red Sox

07-05-2003, 09:52 PM	#3
Old Man Major Leagues Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 464	So hard to answer this question without being involved in the league. The league owners should be asked this question. Since I am not a league owner I will pass. __________________ Baseball statistics are like a girl in a bikini. They show a lot, but not everything. ~Toby Harrah, 1983 "All the fat guys watch me and say to their wives, 'See, there's a fat guy doing okay. Bring me another beer.'" -Mickey Lolich

07-05-2003, 10:22 PM	#6
OCBLcommish Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 193	So far, so good...everyone agreeing with me on this one lol. Just as a side note, there is precedent on this sort of thing within the league. One owner went AWOL and was replaced by a new guy. The original Padres owner then came back demanding his team and the league came to the new owner's defense and eventually the original Pads owner relented and took the White Sox (who were open). The only difference, as I see it, is the amount of time the replacement owner spent in actual sim time and the popularity of the original owner. __________________ EBM - Boston Red Sox

07-05-2003, 11:26 PM	#10
woody5254 Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hector, NY Posts: 6,130	Offer the old owner an open team. If he refuses he isn't really what you want in the league anyway. Without a doubt you shouldn't get rid of the new owner. __________________ Check out: You Pick Tourney Version 2.0 Standings Thread You Pick The Teams Tourney: Main Thread The Colossal 20th Century Tourney:Main Thread Chicago White Sox(Original Owner:2001-) Baseball Maelstrom -2001,2011,2013 World Series Champions -2002,2010 Maelstrom Tourney Champs Arizona Diamondbacks(2003-) NAHHBL Indianapolis Racers(Expansion Team:1993-)ABC

07-05-2003, 11:34 PM	#12
OCBLcommish Minors (Double A) Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Massachusetts Posts: 193	He (the guy taking over as Commish) has offered to leave it up to a league wide vote if needed. Myself, I'm contemplating leaving the league in protest if he is given the Jays ownership again...only, I hate to deliver such an ultimatum when blasting a guy who uses the "I'll take my ball and go home" tactic. __________________ EBM - Boston Red Sox

07-05-2003, 09:50 PM	#2
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Union City, TN Posts: 6,383	There's no decision to make, as I see it. He left; he was replaced as Jays owner. He has no right to come back as the Jays owner UNTIL the current Jays owner makes it known that he is not returning.

07-05-2003, 10:18 PM	#5
asamford Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Snellville, Georgia Posts: 1,769	Looking at it from the outside, you offer the old owner an open team. If the Jays already have a new owner, you can't take that team away from the new owner, that will just cause further problems for your league. Offer the old owner a chance at any other open team, and if he doesn't want to do that, then he really doesn't want to be in the league, he just wants his team back. I agree with Cooley on this one.

07-06-2003, 12:07 AM	#13
The Professor Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: East of East Posts: 3,020	I'm with Cooley, Samford, T.C. and Co. on this one... This should not even be a league-wide vote, it should be a no-brainer...it sets a strange precedent, that is for sure. __________________ History isn't really about the past - settling old scores. It's about defining the present and who we are."

07-06-2003, 01:10 AM	#14
CommishJoe Global Moderator Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Minneapolis, MN Posts: 5,238	Current Jays owner should have the right of first refusal. If he still wants the Blue Jays, the old owner should have to take an open team. __________________ Joe Success isn’t owned. It’s leased. And rent is due every day.

07-06-2003, 05:28 AM	#15
Bluenoser Hall Of Famer Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: In The Moment Posts: 14,496	I agree with TC, Cooley, etc. Tell this guy you have a new ball and don't need his anymore. If you let him back in, exactly how long do you think it'll be before he has another snit over something he doesn't agree with? Be thankful the league has this opportunity to get rid of the virus, you may not get the opportunity again until it's too late.

07-06-2003, 07:35 AM	#16
Cooleyvol Hall Of Famer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Union City, TN Posts: 6,383	Oh, the joys of a present-day league run by (I'm guessing here) teenagers.

07-06-2003, 01:33 PM	#17
vtbub Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Burlington, VT Posts: 143	The ONLY way that I would award a owner who left his team and then wanted it back is if he had asked for a leave of absence AND the new owner fully understood what he was getting himself into. We had that situation come up and gave the new owner the choice of being an AGM until the orginial owner was able to resume his duties or moving the team. In either case, the owner who was affected was guarenteed either an expansion/take over an abandoned team, the orginial owner was given the choice to move that team back to the orginial city. The new owner took the team on a temporary basis and will be awarded either an expansion franchise or take over another team when the time comes. It was the new owner's choice and he was well aware of that choice when he decided. edited for clarity Last edited by vtbub; 07-06-2003 at 02:58 PM.

07-07-2003, 12:43 AM	#18
rise100 Bat Boy Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 7	Guys, I understand your positions on letting the old owner into the league, but in this particular case, there are extenuating cicumstances. As Shaun mentioned, the Commish went AWOL more than once in the past couple of months with no word at all. Furthermore, he went AWOL at one time for over a month, came back, then disappeared for weeks again. At that point, Glenn, the BJ owner, myself, the Red Sox owner, and Pun, the Angels owner, left the league. We were all original owners in a league that had been around for a year or so. What I am getting at is, all three of us were founding members of this league. We were all on the Steering Comitee, and literally had put in hundreds of hours. Everyone in the leagu knows us, and, if and when the league is continued by a new commish, he has asked us to come back to the teams that we built. His position is that the teams have not changed since we left. ONly a couple of weeks, game weeks, not real life weeks, have passed. In fact, I don't even think that many have passed, but the point is, despite the way Shuan described it, none of us up in quit over small potatos. Each of us had put in lots of time, had been fed b.s. lines by the commish about working all the time (by the way, all that work was as a pizza delivery guy, something I have done myself and can tell you, its hardly as time consuming as he suggested) and being sorry about disappearing for a month straight, and then another few weeks immediatley proceeding. I think many of you would have reacted the same way as us, and rightfully so. Before you pass judgement on whether Glenn's attitude is good for this league, take a look at the league he runs as commish now, largley made of ex-BMNers, and try to understand that Glenn's presence in BMN contributed in large part to its success in the early times. Oh yeah, I forgot to say, he was also the assistant commish, though Tim never gave him the necessary passwords. This should, I hope shed some light on some of the intracacies of this particular case. ONe last thing, BMN and SSB, are run and largely populated by 20 and 30 something, professionals or college students. see the following link to learn about us and see the history of the league. There is some valuable info here on how we got in this situation. http://www.baseballmanager.net/cgi-b...6103;start=0#0 Last edited by rise100; 07-07-2003 at 12:47 AM.

07-07-2003, 10:49 AM	#19
sporr Global Moderator Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Muscatine, IA Posts: 8,277	Regardless of the circumstances behind you all quitting, the fact is that the team was promised to a new owner. To now take this team away from him isn't right in my opinion. As a founding member of the league, I would think that the interest of the league would take precedent over your own interest in your team. If it were me, I would gladly take another open team rather than replacing someone who had already been managing, no matter the length of time involved.

07-07-2003, 10:51 AM	#20
vtbub Minors (Double A) Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Burlington, VT Posts: 143	Agreed