|
Post by sj on Sept 28, 2009 15:55:09 GMT -5
Now that the emotions have died down on the trade that provoked this discussion. Perhaps the league needs a different form of trade moderation - one based on determining if a trade is "fair value" or not. Yes, I think it probably does. That is why I have taken the stance that I probably will not be overturning any trades unless it is clearly blatant, which is usually the result of collusion. . I'm sorry, but this scares the shit out of me, considering some trades I've seen and many offers I've gotten since I came back. All it ever takes is two or three less than savvy owners, and a few trading sharks, to create eternal dynasties. No offense Scott, but take a look at your own signature and think about how many bad trades you benefited by in making your team that good. Trades that the former commissioners allowed, despite your implying that we went overboard in our interpretation of the rule. When looking for another league to join, I was very interested to notice that many of them don't consider a trade to be completed until the majority of a panel of three approves it. Those are the leagues that don't want to allow a few poor owners to play king maker for owners who'll be glad to offer someone ten bucks for their 1st round DP just to see if they can get away with it.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 28, 2009 18:11:10 GMT -5
That is why I have taken the stance that I probably will not be overturning any trades unless it is clearly blatant, which is usually the result of collusion. . I'm sorry, but this scares the shit out of me, considering some trades I've seen and many offers I've gotten since I came back. All it ever takes is two or three less than savvy owners, and a few trading sharks, to create eternal dynasties. No offense Scott, but take a look at your own signature and think about how many bad trades you benefited by in making your team that good. Trades that the former commissioners allowed, despite your implying that we went overboard in our interpretation of the rule. When looking for another league to join, I was very interested to notice that many of them don't consider a trade to be completed until the majority of a panel of three approves it. Those are the leagues that don't want to allow a few poor owners to play king maker for owners who'll be glad to offer someone ten bucks for their 1st round DP just to see if they can get away with it. If things are to change, the rule has to be overwritten. That I guess is my main point. In currently looking at trades, and anything in this league, I will follow the strict letter of the law (as you know Rand, I am incredibly conservative, and that is just what I believe). I do not believe in looking at a rule/law and try to figure out what it "could" imply. This is the same debate people have over the Supreme Court. Those two viewpoints have a major clash between them. Now, I am not against overwriting the rule. But it has to be done well. Right now, the rule says that "Unfair" trades ARE allowed, but not overly unfair trades, which I completely agree with. How many times do you see a fair trade in MLB? Almost 0% of the time. If someone wants to dump their old vets and start over like the A's have proclaimed to be doing this offseason, you are not going to find a fair trade whatsoever. You are going to see veterens being traded for future superstars which is exactly how the Braves were built. The trade may or may not "seem fair" in the moment, but it sure as hell is not going to be fair down the road, and that is the way it should be. That is how the any sport works. So how do you assess fair value when you probably never have fair value? That is where my assumption of "we have two longstanding owners in the league making a trade. Who am I to stop them when both have proven successful?" If a new owner was involved, it would be a different story. Do I think a 3 man committee would work? Maybe. It would sure save me a lot of stress, as I am not the one getting eaten alive by one or two owners afterwards for making a decision as if I don't care about the league whatsoever. The issue is how do you form that 3 man committee? Does the committe change depending on who is in the trade? I think you want to avoid teams that can be directly affected by the trade (as this is where almost all complaints I receive originate from). They don't want their competitor getting stronger. So do you have 1 AL manager, 1 NL manager, and the commish on the committee? Do the AL and NL managers rotate depending on the trade situation. Do we create a pool of 6-8 of the most active managers and then select 2 owners to go along with the commish after the trade is challenged so that we make sure someone in the same division is not on the committee? (3 owners if the commish is involved in the trade). How does the pool get selected? How does one get selected from the pool? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by sj on Sept 29, 2009 12:30:48 GMT -5
If things are to change, the rule has to be overwritten. That I guess is my main point. In currently looking at trades, and anything in this league, I will follow the strict letter of the law. I do not believe in looking at a rule/law and try to figure out what it "could" imply. That rule was written in much simpler times. 16 teams run by 10 owners, all of whom seemed to know what they were doing. Interpreting the intent of the rules is the biggest part of the commissioner's job. Roster changes and sim runs are a lot of work, but they can be done by a trained monkey. Keeping the league alive and healthy is what the commissioner's real job is. Nobody can anticipate every variation of conduct. We make our best guesses, then write our rules, then apply or change them as the need arises. Most rules in most leagues were written or revised after we saw what some owners would do if left unchecked. For example: Before it happened, who would ever have thought that any owner would purposely demote his best players so he could lose more games and get a better draft pick? Back to the interpretation thing. Read this rule and consider why I would put something like that in there. If someone wants to dump their old vets and start over like the A's have proclaimed to be doing this offseason, you are not going to find a fair trade whatsoever. No, but you can and will find reasonable value in them. One question to ask in this type of situation is how badly does the team need to get rid of the player(s) involved. Is the team going broke? Is the player getting paid too much? Does it benefit the team to take a lesser value deal right now more than it would to hold out for a better offer? So how do you assess fair value when you probably never have fair value? There's uneven, and then there's flat out stupid. Trades can't be, and don't have to be, exactly even, but the league doesn't need the stupid ones. Owners come and go, but the teams stay as long as the league exists. Let me stop going point by point and just sum up my thoughts. Everything you brought up can be discussed league wide, if you feel the need. For an evaluation committee, we don't want people who'll throw out all trades, and we don't want people who'll approve all trades. I don't think we need the extra step of having every trade approved or disapproved, only the ones that get complaints - the league has plenty of watchdogs. As to what's fair, I'm not talking about equal value, even taking current needs versus future needs into account. I think that a fair trade is one that helps, or could help, both teams. Not exactly equally, but to roughly the same degree either now or in the future. How "roughly" is something else that might be worth discussing, but I really doubt we'd be able to spell it out perfectly. The committee would have to make decisions similar to the way the commissioner decides whether or not a team is tanking. Most importantly, we can't have people who take the attitude that all trades are acceptable if they're done by veteran owners and it's not an obvious case of collusion. But at the same time, we should be flexible enough that most owners wouldn't even bother consulting the rules when they make an offer. Most trades would still go through just as they always have, but the worst would be canceled - just as they almost always have. Do we create a pool of 6-8 of the most active managers and then select 2 owners to go along with the commish after the trade is challenged so that we make sure someone in the same division is not on the committee? A commissioner or assistant has to be absolutely objective in his decisions. He has to put the league's needs above his own team's needs. Find and appoint three people, and have the whole league evaluate them at the end of the each season for the first few seasons. I'd suggest that you stay off the committee so you can advise them as needed.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Sept 29, 2009 14:37:11 GMT -5
In real life, the commish is the one that decides if a trade is collusion or just too horrible and would overturn it. In real life theres horrible trades like cliff lee to the phils, but that trade has not ruined the indians, and when shapiro is gone the indians will still be okay.
case point in tmbl...look at the rangers, they made some crazy moves, and now after a couple different owners they arent too bad off, and could win their division possibly.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 29, 2009 18:02:32 GMT -5
I am just going to skip over your first few points Rand, because we are never going to come to an agreement on them, and they just don't matter that much for what we are trying to accomplish in my eyes. But as far as changing the process for trade review, here is what I propose:
(This is part of an idea that was sent to me via PM today from an owner who always seems to have great ideas and feedback.)
We have 6 divisions. I can target (appoint) at least one owner in each division which I would consider to be very active and very objective when it comes to things like this. In most divisions there are more then 1 owner that I would completely trust, but we would only need 1.
Any time a trade is challenged (not every time a trade is made), the "Gang of 6" can get together or communicate via e-mail with the commish/emergency tiebreaker (see below for further explanation on this) copied on each e-mail. The "Gang of 6" would come to a conclusion via a vote on the trade once the discussion was finished. IF the vote was a 3-3 split (which I would find very unlikely, but possible), the commish would be the 7th vote. If the commish's team was involved in the trade in question, the tiebreaking vote would come from a "Emergency Tiebreaking" member who would be appointed up front when the other appointments are made. I highly doubt that person would ever have to be used, but it is good to have him around anyway.
This way every division is represented by a solid owner who would be looking out for the league in general. That way, there can be no accusations from a certain division about a trade.
The only drawback to something like this is the following: What happens if one of the board members is on vacation or too busy to handle these discussions because these could happen at any given moment. All it takes is someone challenging a trade. I guess my answer to this is that a person on the committee would need to let me know ahead of time that they were going away and a backup person would need to be appointed in their place for that time period.
Those details would still need to be ironed out, but I think the overall idea makes sense.
Let me know what you guys think. I already know the people I would appoint to a job like this, so it is just a matter of figuring out if this is the way we want to go or not.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Sept 29, 2009 18:13:02 GMT -5
Sounds like a very good plan to me
|
|
|
Post by TribeGM on Sept 29, 2009 18:18:36 GMT -5
I think that would work
|
|
|
Post by boffer on Sept 29, 2009 18:49:29 GMT -5
Sounds good to me
|
|
|
Post by drew on Sept 29, 2009 19:09:52 GMT -5
That sounds like a good plan....
|
|
|
Post by johnnyboy on Sept 29, 2009 19:13:19 GMT -5
I like the idea
I think it worth to try it
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Sept 29, 2009 19:14:33 GMT -5
yeah and i think we can pick out the owners for each division pretty cleary...i mean boston or detroit in the east, Milwaukee (or indians if not wanting a commish) in the central the west angels....nl - east terry, braves (cubs if not wanting a commish) and padres in the nl west.
i think that could work pretty fairly.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Sept 29, 2009 23:46:08 GMT -5
Here are our trade moderation rules from Outahere sports (a 17 season old league now with 36 teams after 2 rounds of expansion) Trade ModerationTrade moderation is an integral part of Outahere, both to help keep the league balanced and to ensure owners are not colluding or being taken advantage of. Two moderator approvals are required before a trade can be processed. If a moderator feels a trade is unbalanced, he will post that the trade is Under Review while the moderators discuss the trade. Teams may be contacted and asked rework the trade if the majority of moderators feel it cannot be approved as is. In the case of irreconcilable differences between the moderators, there will be a vote and over 1/2 approval will be required for the trade to be approved. Factors that the trade moderators may consider include, but are not limited to: - Player ratings
- Player salaries, a team's payroll, and other budget issues
- Age of players
- A team's standing (in a playoff race, rebuilding, etc)
- Current trade market (recent trades of similar value)
- Future predictions of a player's value
When a trade has been placed under review by a moderator, once a decision is reached one of the moderators will post that it has been approved or denied after review, and if approved, no further approvals are needed. We always try to approve or review trades as quickly as possible and the majority of them are approved in time for the next sim. In rare circumstances, a delay is necessary but a trade should never take longer than two sims to be processed. There are no "sign and trade" deals in Outahere. You are free to trade a player in the off season immediately after re-signing him, but the trade must still be at fair market value and pass trade moderation as any other trade would. Moderator decisions are final, and we ask that you show them respect at all times.Rookie GMsRookie GMs are defined as owners without a full season of experience in Outahere. Owners rejoining the league after an extended absence may or may not be asked to repeat their rookie period--this is at the discretion of the commissioners. Outahere is a tough, competitive league, and the rookie period is to ensure owners take the time to learn how we do things and do not harm their franchises only to quit shortly after joining the league. The following rules are essential to maintaining balance and ensuring that new owners learn the ropes before making deals. Rookie GMs must wait for two sims after joining the league before making trades. This restriction is waived if the GM joins with less than two sims before before the trade deadline or if joining during the off season. Trades involving a Rookie GM require three moderator approvals, and their trades are more closely scrutinized by the trade moderators. A franchise's general direction is most definitely a factor when reviewing a rookie trades--for example, a 100 loss team trying to trade prospects for aging veterans will likely not be approved unless there's very sound reasoning behind the deal. For trades under review involving Rookie GMs, a vote requires approval of 2/3rds of the moderators.
|
|
|
Post by sj on Sept 30, 2009 11:09:37 GMT -5
6 seems like a lot of people to rely on, but if you think you can make it work, I say go for it.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 30, 2009 18:26:18 GMT -5
6 seems like a lot of people to rely on, but if you think you can make it work, I say go for it. I agree, but I think I can rely on the six I am going to pick. Will start sending out PMs tonight if I get a chance. I am getting killed at work this week, so we will see.
|
|
|
Post by joshb914 on Oct 1, 2009 13:08:30 GMT -5
good plan, I like it and I think this will help with the stability of the league in the future.
|
|