GM Applications Discussion

I wanted the below to be a general discussion about how GM Applications are taken as part of the CBA discussion.

Based on some of the discussions I have been seeing on the AIM chat, it appears that GMs are concerned that other GMs are making short-sighted decisions without thinking of the long-term ramifications. This would be an incentive/disincentive for proper activity. My below thoughts would cause GMs to be rated and have this affect their ability to get the job of their choice.  It would also give back some of the power in these decisions to the GMs based on their own assessments. 

There should be some amount of prestige taken into consideration when applications are taken.  To do this effectively, GMs would have to have a level of prestige associated with their selves (1-5 stars).  In order to assess prestige, at the end of each season, each GM would assess their own performance as a GM with a grade (A-F) with support for big moves and reasons for certain moves during season.  This would be related to your team's performance but would not be directly correlated to making playoffs, winning World Series, etc. 

It would be based on how you have built your team and performed in your own role. 

Then, 5 pre-selected GM's from opposing divisions would provide you with their assessment based off of the original GM's assessment. (each team would have 5 assessments to do in addition to their own).  This would give the commissioners enough ammo  to be able to compile a list of Prestige.  Past results would be included in the prestige rankings.  If you don't do the required assessments (5 minutes of writing each), then it would be noted for your own prestige.

Prestige would be the most significant basis when assigning teams in offseason.  This would keep teams from being able to leave a franchise in the dumps laden with poor contracts and moving on to a better franchise with financial flexibility.  I would think that if a GM jumps to another team in one year, this would dock him 1 star because loyalty should be included.  Additionally, owners sometimes fire good GMs who should be set up for solid future jobs rather than those running teams into ground.  

This is very abstract and not an official rule proposal but thought it was something we could at least discuss.  I am new to this league and want to contribute but don't want to rock the boat.  I think the general idea of this league with firings is great but I think that this could be stepped up a bit more by including a Prestige/Power Rankings for GMs.  I certainly do not think I am able to assess performance based on my short stint here.  Putting a process in place might help the league to keep solid GM talent and provide a challenge to future GMs when others leave the league.

Mark
Oakland GM