Appeal standard for overruling a TRC vote

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:01 am

In addition to those that are out there, there is one issue that I would like to look at. I think that the standard for overrule of a TRC vote is too high. First of all, the standard was set intentionally (I believe admittedly), while Bren and Nils were on the TRC, so that it was virtually impossible to get one of their vetoes overturned.

In my mind, the possibility that two TRC members are out of line in vetoing or approving a deal is higher than well greater than half of the league being out of line, especially when the extra focus is brought on the deal for the league.

For one, I believe that the standard should be based on those who vote, not placing all of the burden on the overturn. The primary reason is that we may not have a full league, as we don't right now. Additionally, guys may just not be around. This can cause the burden for overturn to be pretty absurd. For instance, even in this case with Houston/NYY, we have 29 GMs active and one of them on vacation. If he does not vote in time, the requirement would be 20 of 28 (71.4%) or if you remove the trade principles and the minimum of two TRC members who form a majority, 18 of 24 (75%) remaining GMs in the league. Two-thirds is bad enough, but you're getting into near unanimity with these numbers, especially since one or two GMs could vote selfishly based on what they perceive might be good for them and bad for GMs in their division.

And for the other, I do think that the percentage needed itself is too high. I think that the number should be 60%, rather than 67%. 60% is a clear majority, an 18-12 vote in a full league. There is little doubt that the league as a whole would favor that deal (or its veto).

So my proposal is that we change at least one of the two aspects, either lowering the standard from 20 to 18 or removing the full burden from the appeal and changing from a set number (20 or 18 or whatever) to a set percentage of votes. My preference, if it's either/or, would be to lower the standard to 18 votes.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 12:41 am

I agree with pretty much everything written here.

My preference would also be to move the set number of votes required to 18.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 6:10 am

I would agree with adopting a new standard of 18 prospectively rather then retrospectively. I believe rule revisions should be applied to future actions rather then applied to past actions - with the exception of universal acts of immunity.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 9:26 am

Agree with Jim and JP.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 10:46 am

Mets wrote:I would agree with adopting a new standard of 18 prospectively rather then retrospectively. I believe rule revisions should be applied to future actions rather then applied to past actions - with the exception of universal acts of immunity.

Yeah, I definitely think that this should only apply to future trades.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:35 pm

Sounds good by me.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:59 pm

Okay it sounds like we are all okay with the 18 vote standard, but I'm going to go ahead and post a poll so that we can put the issue in the completely resolved bucket.