Topics for discussion

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:45 pm

Just coming up with a list of things we could discuss changing:

2/3 majority required on votes, including trade appeals

JP's draft pick punishment

draft pick trading on a whole

process of deposing lame gms...for instance craig made one trade in the last 5 months and no other roster moves, also no posts to message board

also, the rules (link found at top of page) could really use an updating if someone wanted to take that on

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:47 pm

also, i would really like to see boxes get out on a more regular basis, no fault of bren's, but going 3-4 days sometimes without boxes sucks bigtime

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 7:53 pm

Totally agree with your list. I've said often that 2/3s is too high for trade appeals, and being a member of the TRC doesn't change that.

The other thing that I would add is the five out of six standard on our committee. Four of six seems like plenty.

And I'd be willing to work on updating the rules if that would help.

Also, just wanted to make sure on this, I get that error message when I go to the trades at committee screen. I asume that I'm just not supposed to be able to see it yet but just wanted to be sure.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:23 pm

5 out of 6 was the choce for a reason. That being that decisions by the ExCo should be near unanimous in order to change something in the league because we shouldn't be changing a lot in the league. Constantly adjusting policies and rules makes it more confusing for members, especially the ones who have been here for a while. Hell it was confusing for me as commish and I was making the rules. If something is changing, it should be a no-doubter.

JP's penalty - I told JP I would consider reviewing the penalty about a month or so ago. As one member of the ExCo, I still don't see a reason to change it. The rule was clearly in place beforehand, the penalty got reduced. That his team's situation changed was his decision, not something thrust upon him.
It also seems logical that something specifically involving one of the ExCo members such as this, that ExCo member should not have a vote on the issue but that it should take 4 out of 5 to approve.

Draft pick trading as a whole I vote Nay on changing the policy, there's as much need to allow draft pick trading as there is to further expand rosters. No new arguments or reasons have developed to change any of that. If the members of the league were allowed to, they'd trade their franchises to get players. MLB doesn't need draft pick trading, neither does the IBC.

I agree about Craig, but we still have an open spot in Pittsburgh to resolve first.

on the 2/3 majority, i still think that requiring the 2/3 majority makes it absolutely clear whether a trade is acceptable or not. 50/50 is, simply put, a wishy washy majority.

And that's my 2 cents.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:27 pm

Dodgers wrote:also, i would really like to see boxes get out on a more regular basis, no fault of bren's, but going 3-4 days sometimes without boxes sucks bigtime

Actually it usually is my fault (sometimes not, but usually). I'm looking forward to the transactions and DL stuff being set up, one or two fewer things makes the whole thing much easier.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:36 pm

RedSox wrote:on the 2/3 majority, i still think that requiring the 2/3 majority makes it absolutely clear whether a trade is acceptable or not. 50/50 is, simply put, a wishy washy majority.

And that's my 2 cents.

I guess where I differ there is that, while 50/50 is wishy/washy, and I don't really have a problem with not using a simple majority since we do go to the effort to have a TRC, there is almost a 20% difference between 50/50 and our standard, and that is a ton. Basically if two of the three of us on the TRC are a bit misguided about something, it's virtually impossible to get it right. I think there should be a more bias-proof number, something like 18 of 30. I mean if you take out the two TRC members who vote down a deal and the two guys who did the deal, you still need 16 of 26 of the rest of the league, and that's still a very steep number, but more realistic than needing almost three-quarters of the rest of the league to agree on something.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Jun 29, 2007 11:36 pm

Except we HAVE had deals overturned in the past. Both ways. 2/3 of the league voted to veto a deal Nate did which was approved by the TRC and more than one deal has also been approved after TRC veto. The system is fine, the only people who don't like it are ones who are currently dealing with a vetoed trade and they're more than slightly biased. people want to have any deal they agree to approved. The TRC makes the decisions, to overrule them should take a 2/3 majority. Congress works the same way, if you want to overrule the guy doing the vetoing, you get a 2/3 majority. Checks and balances.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:31 pm

Tigers wrote:Also, just wanted to make sure on this, I get that error message when I go to the trades at committee screen. I asume that I'm just not supposed to be able to see it yet but just wanted to be sure.

You'll get that error message until I let you know that I switched em (ASB).

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:58 pm

Draft pick trading needs to be OK'ed. It's going to happen under the table, anyway.

Pittsburgh is still in, isn't he? He acted today as if he were still in the league when I spoke to him on IM.

As re my draft pick penalty, as you said "wait till the end of June or July" and bring it back, so I'll post my defense/reasoning for the penalty reduction later or whenever anybody wants to hear the defense i had written a month ago.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:28 pm

Just because guys are going to try to do it we should allow it? I couldn't disagree more. Just because people were lazy about the DL, doesn't mean we should just ignore the DL altogether. Just because GM's are going to try to rape newbies doesn't mean we should allow it.

Ryan has never submitted a roster and I haven't had an email from him since late April. His last roster transaction was May 20th. He's not fitting any description of 'Active' that i can think of.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:35 pm

No, but there's nothing bad about pick trading. What is the real malice in it or detrement to the league? there's none that i can really see. I think it's fine after the regular season ends and you know which picks are being dealt so you can fairly assess the value of the pick.

It's of no harm to the league and if anything will increase activity among trading.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:35 pm

re: Pit

we've had other lame duck GM's before. How long did we go without hearing from Vacek? Craig? He's responded to my IM's and has played H2H with me in a usually timely fashion so before you boot him I'd just check on him etc., I think Aaron said he had zilch problems with him as well.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:28 pm

Dan and Craig send in rosters. Craig doesn't do much, but he at least does that. That's the absolute minimum requirement and if you're not updating your roster, you're not doing what you need to do to be a part of the league.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:30 pm

Didn't Dan not send one in for a period of time last year?

I guess that's all im saying. I'm not sure. I don't really care either way. You know I'm boot happy.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 5:32 pm

There's no harm in not allowing pick trading either. No one's team is suffering from it. There's nothing bad about not having pick trading.
We could also change the DL rules so no player ever gets injured, there'd be no harm in that either. It'd be a LOT easier for everyone in the league to deal with too, there'd be nothing to track or worry about.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 6:38 pm

I think we need a thread for each issue.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:07 pm

Yea, I didn't mean to start the discussion here, just meant to come up with a list of them...you want to do the honors of breaking this out into separate threads?