The AA Rule
Moderator: Executive Committee
The AA Rule
Based on the poll in JP's blog and all the furor and crap lately we should really discuss what's going on with the AA rule. I don't think it should be done away with, and the end result of this discussion among the ExCo almost certainly won't result in that, because at least Bren and I will be voting no on any resolution to abolish it completely, which is enough to sink it, so that option is off the table and I'm not trying to beat that dead horse. On the other hand, the intent of the rule was never to restrict trading as has seemed to be the result, and as such I think we need to give the TRC more specific instructions about how much sub-AA players should be discounted. For example, trading a fringe major leaguer with a decent projection for a long shot prospect should certainly be allowed, those sorts of deals don't damage the league. On the other hand, decent major league regular for long shot prospect is an issue, because those are the kind of deals that move the market negatively. Is it just as simple as reiterating the difference to the TRC and telling them to use their judgment?
-
Rangers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
- Location: Prosper, TX
- Name: Brett Perryman
I guess I don't know what you're referring to by the "go with the herd" mentality. I'm not intending to be argumentative, but all things equal, shouldn't a large majority opinion of our league's GMs be heeded? I have quite a bit of respect for the collection of guys that we have here in this league, and I'm pretty sure that, more often than not, when the vast majority of those guys agree on something, there is a good chance that they're right. Of course I'm not the one consistently disagreeing with with the majority, so maybe I'd have to be in that position to understand.
That's just a general statement, though. What instance of herd mentality have bothered you?
That's just a general statement, though. What instance of herd mentality have bothered you?
-
Dodgers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fort Lauderdale
- Name: Shawn Walsh
I'm in BP's boat here and would go as far as to question at what point/at what percentage an OFFICIAL vote by the league overrules one by ExCo (kind of like Congress overruling Bush). I'm just making the statement that even if we don't use it for this argument, we should at least be putting something in place as a result of this discussion.
Most of the league does not have the best interest of the league in mind in their opinions. They have their own best interest in mind and they all think that THEY won't be the one to get bent over in the deal. Not one of them thinks they'll be on the bad end of the deal, ever. Yet the proof is in the pudding and ultimately the dropping of this rule won't help most of the league, it will help the top few teams get even better as the lower teams take big gambles on ridiculous longshots to try to get to the top.
Rules are not meant to be popular, they're meant to make things fair and protect the public good. Of course the public thinks they're capable of making their own decisions. people also think they should be able to decide just how fast is driving too fast and how much alcohol is too much. I won't go so far as to say people are stupid, but they're rarely as smart as they think they are (I don't pretend to be an exception to this) and they're exceptionally selfish and self-absorbed (I do claim to be an exception to this, my first interest and concern is and always has been to the league). They don't consider the effect to the league, only the potential benefit to themselves.
As leaders of the league, we have an obligation to think differently.
Does the intent of the rule need to be re-emphasized? Certainly. Is the rule still necessary? Absolutely. This isn't something that's ever going to change, the sub AA rule was added because these players were being traded at a value level as if they were sure things, as if there wasn't a huge failure rate. The rule forces that failure rate to be considered. As long as the failure rate is there, so should the rule, regardless of popularity.
Rules are not meant to be popular, they're meant to make things fair and protect the public good. Of course the public thinks they're capable of making their own decisions. people also think they should be able to decide just how fast is driving too fast and how much alcohol is too much. I won't go so far as to say people are stupid, but they're rarely as smart as they think they are (I don't pretend to be an exception to this) and they're exceptionally selfish and self-absorbed (I do claim to be an exception to this, my first interest and concern is and always has been to the league). They don't consider the effect to the league, only the potential benefit to themselves.
As leaders of the league, we have an obligation to think differently.
Does the intent of the rule need to be re-emphasized? Certainly. Is the rule still necessary? Absolutely. This isn't something that's ever going to change, the sub AA rule was added because these players were being traded at a value level as if they were sure things, as if there wasn't a huge failure rate. The rule forces that failure rate to be considered. As long as the failure rate is there, so should the rule, regardless of popularity.
I disagree. The league members are NOT considering the best interest of the league. They are concerned principally with what they think will benefit their team. We have never allowed mob rule before and starting to do so now would be a very bad idea. If they feel that a trade that is vetoed was unfairly vetoed then they can vote their conscience in the appeals process. Democracy is a good way of choosing leaders, direct rule is NOT an effective method of governing though. people will vote down anything they don't like, it doesn't matter if it's necessary or not. When put to a public vote, the IRS would certainly be done away with. But it is unquestionably necessary. Ditto speed limits, limits on drinking, bans on illegal drugs, etc.
Not that anyone cares about the opinion of the most successful league organizer any of you know.
Not that anyone cares about the opinion of the most successful league organizer any of you know.
no, it wasn't, the intent of the ExCo was to take pressure off of me, to spread responsibility among many so that I wouldn't crack. but you guys haven't taken much responsibility, you've ust changed or thrown out what you don't like. When problems arise everyone gets up in arms about it and then nothing is done when it starts to blow over.Dodgers wrote:Brett, I totally agree.
Bren, this is not a dictatorship anymore. The intent of ExCo was to spread out decision making to more of the league, but that doesn't mean that decision making contributions should stop at the ExCo.
You guys can't even take the initiative to do the official rules rewrite we've been TALKING about for almost a year.
I always considerd the input of other GM's, the difference between you and I is that i considered it and then decided whether it was in the best interest or not.
You guys are letting youselves simply be ruled by public opinion.
groupthink
1. a process of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially one characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to a perceived majority view
Groupthink has led to all sorts of disasters in the history of decision-making, from Ford releasing the Edsel to the Challenger disaster. The way groupthink works is that one or two influential people present an idea, and the rest of the group thinks "Hey I can't think of a good reason not to agree with this," and things roll on from there. The biggest danger of groupthink is that when someone starts to disagree with the group they get shouted down. It also leads to the old "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth" thing, everyone has their own little tweaks they want to bring in, there's bullshit infighting and nothing gets done. There's a reason why vertical business/government structures exist, and its because not everything can be done by consensus. If the league can overrule the ExCo by a 2/3 vote, there's no point in even having an ExCo because the history of the league has been that those 2 or 3 popular GMs can get the ball rolling on anything they want. I really hate to bring this up because it's quite a bit douchey, but the Power Alley Circuit was supposed to be founded on the idea that we don't need commissioners and all that, and how long did it last?
Bren was the opposite extreme, he had ideas in his head and could not be convinced otherwise of anything. This group needs to strive to listen to all points of view, stay open minded and make the best possible decisions for the league based on the actual consequences of those decisions and not based on league sentiment.
1. a process of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially one characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to a perceived majority view
Groupthink has led to all sorts of disasters in the history of decision-making, from Ford releasing the Edsel to the Challenger disaster. The way groupthink works is that one or two influential people present an idea, and the rest of the group thinks "Hey I can't think of a good reason not to agree with this," and things roll on from there. The biggest danger of groupthink is that when someone starts to disagree with the group they get shouted down. It also leads to the old "Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth" thing, everyone has their own little tweaks they want to bring in, there's bullshit infighting and nothing gets done. There's a reason why vertical business/government structures exist, and its because not everything can be done by consensus. If the league can overrule the ExCo by a 2/3 vote, there's no point in even having an ExCo because the history of the league has been that those 2 or 3 popular GMs can get the ball rolling on anything they want. I really hate to bring this up because it's quite a bit douchey, but the Power Alley Circuit was supposed to be founded on the idea that we don't need commissioners and all that, and how long did it last?
Bren was the opposite extreme, he had ideas in his head and could not be convinced otherwise of anything. This group needs to strive to listen to all points of view, stay open minded and make the best possible decisions for the league based on the actual consequences of those decisions and not based on league sentiment.
-
Rangers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 4132
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:00 am
- Location: Prosper, TX
- Name: Brett Perryman
I mean yes our textbooks have defined groupthink as a bad thing, but just as a matter of opinion, I do not see that exhibited by this league as a whole. That sort of thing only occurs when there is thoughtless acceptance of a bad idea. We have way more contrarians in this league than we do sheep, imo.
At any rate, (and that I'm aware of, no discussion has taken place on what number would be required, but when Shawn and I talked on Saturday I threw out 20) think about how stacked the league would have to be against the exco consensus to overrule us. Let's say that we pass something 4-1 (or 4-2 in the future). That means that 19 of the remaining 25 members would have to disagree with our majority. That's over three-quarters of the rest of the league dissenting. That's a lot closer to correct unanimity than it is "groupthink" most likely. If almost all of the league thinks that something is good for the league, I guess I think that it's a lot more likely that it is than you do.
As far as the assertion that there would be no point in having an exco if the league could overrule us, whether or not we decide to enact a league veto right, I think that the use for the exco entity goes beyond having final say. I see the exco primarily as a procedural asset. We should be an efficient means for getting league business done beyond anything else. We definitely need to have the league's best interest at heart, and we need to be analytical about our approach, but I think that we are inherently more able to make decisions efficiently than we are to make wiser decisions than the league as a whole.
At any rate, (and that I'm aware of, no discussion has taken place on what number would be required, but when Shawn and I talked on Saturday I threw out 20) think about how stacked the league would have to be against the exco consensus to overrule us. Let's say that we pass something 4-1 (or 4-2 in the future). That means that 19 of the remaining 25 members would have to disagree with our majority. That's over three-quarters of the rest of the league dissenting. That's a lot closer to correct unanimity than it is "groupthink" most likely. If almost all of the league thinks that something is good for the league, I guess I think that it's a lot more likely that it is than you do.
As far as the assertion that there would be no point in having an exco if the league could overrule us, whether or not we decide to enact a league veto right, I think that the use for the exco entity goes beyond having final say. I see the exco primarily as a procedural asset. We should be an efficient means for getting league business done beyond anything else. We definitely need to have the league's best interest at heart, and we need to be analytical about our approach, but I think that we are inherently more able to make decisions efficiently than we are to make wiser decisions than the league as a whole.
