TRC Role

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 3:23 pm

I've been meaning to bring this up, but starting with this post viewtopic.php?p=51340#51340 I think we need to maybe reiterate what the TRC is intended to do. Specifically there was this trade and also the JB trade with Milwaukee. If we as a league voted to allow the linked trade and the TRC allowed the Rendon/Strasburg trade, what is their role?

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 5:48 pm

I'm in favor of a hands-off TRC. Bad trades happen. Let's just prevent horrible trades.

That said, I do like the idea brought up within the thread about a short statement about why the trade was vetoed. That'd bring some transparency and open up the entire process.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Sun Feb 15, 2015 6:01 pm

If one gets vetoed I agree with Andrew's idea. I do think newbies need to be protected the first 6 months or so though

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 4:44 pm

I'm all for getting rid of the TRC. I don't know if people need to be protected anymore, and if the TRC even functions as such. Didn't Danny get taken to the house repeatedly by Pat -- the guy who brought him into the league -- within his first few months? TRC did nothing there.

Bad trades are going to happen, I agree with that, and I agree we need to prevent horrible ones. At this point, though, I think we may just be best off having everything automatically passed, and if say, 5 people have a problem with the trade, it then goes to the league-wide veto vote. With all the stats out there, this may be the most accurate in terms of what's fair and what's not, since we all have our preferences as to the stats we think are important.

We get what, one or two trades a year that go to vote? I think it may just be time to cut the TRC out of the process entirely since it doesn't really seem to do much anyway.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:09 pm

I think if we're discussing getting rid of it altogether we should probably at least request comments from the rest of the league?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:20 pm

Yeah, agreed

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 8:27 pm

Pirates wrote:I'm all for getting rid of the TRC. I don't know if people need to be protected anymore, and if the TRC even functions as such. Didn't Danny get taken to the house repeatedly by Pat -- the guy who brought him into the league -- within his first few months? TRC did nothing there.

Bad trades are going to happen, I agree with that, and I agree we need to prevent horrible ones. At this point, though, I think we may just be best off having everything automatically passed, and if say, 5 people have a problem with the trade, it then goes to the league-wide veto vote. With all the stats out there, this may be the most accurate in terms of what's fair and what's not, since we all have our preferences as to the stats we think are important.

We get what, one or two trades a year that go to vote? I think it may just be time to cut the TRC out of the process entirely since it doesn't really seem to do much anyway.

Yep ...

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Feb 16, 2015 9:17 pm

Pirates wrote:I'm all for getting rid of the TRC. I don't know if people need to be protected anymore, and if the TRC even functions as such. Didn't Danny get taken to the house repeatedly by Pat -- the guy who brought him into the league -- within his first few months? TRC did nothing there.

Bad trades are going to happen, I agree with that, and I agree we need to prevent horrible ones. At this point, though, I think we may just be best off having everything automatically passed, and if say, 5 people have a problem with the trade, it then goes to the league-wide veto vote. With all the stats out there, this may be the most accurate in terms of what's fair and what's not, since we all have our preferences as to the stats we think are important.

We get what, one or two trades a year that go to vote? I think it may just be time to cut the TRC out of the process entirely since it doesn't really seem to do much anyway.

I'm on board with this. It's extremely difficult for the TRC to protect someone who wants to make bad trades and still be consistent.

I also don't think that anyone or any version of the TRC (since Bren stopped doing it anyway) has done a bad job or anything. It's just a very difficult task and one that, I agree, I don't know that we really need since there is a mechanism to still challenge a trade.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 6:55 pm

Should we vote on this now that the league's discussion on it has ended?

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Tue Mar 24, 2015 11:15 pm

Sure. I'm in favor of dissolution.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 1:51 am

Sounds good

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 9:20 am

Yeah, I stand by my earlier comments in this thread.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Mar 25, 2015 8:40 pm

Just a reminder that the general league discussion was here viewtopic.php?t=5497

I'm in favor of removing the need for the TRC to review all deals. While I would favor the trade going to the TRC instead of a league-wide vote (mainly for speed in making a decision), I think we'd see it go all the way to the full league basically every time since one of the sides won't be happy.

Questions we still have to answer:
- What is the magic number to kick it to a vote?
- How quickly do the dissenters need to reach the magic number before it's too late? I'd say it has to be fairly quickly, probably before the next database? But what about a trade made right before a database deadline? Is that creating an unfair loophole?
- How do we handle the trade in limbo? I think the players wouldn't switch teams until it was officially approved?
- Are we opening ourselves up to allowing this to be abused in any way?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:57 pm

Dodgers wrote: Questions we still have to answer:
- What is the magic number to kick it to a vote?
- How quickly do the dissenters need to reach the magic number before it's too late? I'd say it has to be fairly quickly, probably before the next database? But what about a trade made right before a database deadline? Is that creating an unfair loophole?
- How do we handle the trade in limbo? I think the players wouldn't switch teams until it was officially approved?
- Are we opening ourselves up to allowing this to be abused in any way?

a. I'd say seven to get it to a vote. That's roughly a quarter of the league.
b. Three days?
c. Good question. I'm not sure what the answer to this one is.
d. The only way it would be abused is honestly by somebody like Bren, who I would not put past him to give away a player because he's Bren. I can't see anybody in the league throwing a stink over trusting GMs besides him.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Tue Mar 31, 2015 3:23 pm

Dodgers wrote: Questions we still have to answer:
- What is the magic number to kick it to a vote?
- How quickly do the dissenters need to reach the magic number before it's too late? I'd say it has to be fairly quickly, probably before the next database? But what about a trade made right before a database deadline? Is that creating an unfair loophole?
- How do we handle the trade in limbo? I think the players wouldn't switch teams until it was officially approved?
- Are we opening ourselves up to allowing this to be abused in any way?

Sorry, meant to give my thoughts on these sooner.

1) I think anywhere between 5-7 sounds reasonable.

2) 2 days, since, in theory, every member should be checking the site on a daily basis. If the trade is made before a database deadline and then is reversed, well, that could just be the cost of doing business.

3) Could we do a 24-hour delay on the site? Take half of the days in which we would look for __ number of objections to the trade and accordingly, cut down on the potential of having to untangle multiple deals, should a piece be dealt (i.e. we don't want to deal with a situation where I trade Michael Wacha to Aaron who the deals him to JP...but then Aaron's and my trade is recalled and veto'd; that's a mess).

4) There's always a chance. We can always set this up as a test and if things are going badly and there's a lot of shady stuff afoot, we can end the trial and revert to the old infrastructure. Hell, perhaps try this for April/May and then put it up to a league-wide vote at the end of May about whether we should keep it for the rest of the season and then another vote at the end of the season whether it should be permanent.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:12 pm

1) I think I prefer a lower barrier just so the trade reaches limbo faster (so everyone knows what's going on at least). 5 sounds good to me (and gives you 25% of the required votes in order to overturn since I'm assuming we'll still go with 20 to overturn).

2) 48-72 hours makes sense for a limit, I think 48 for 5 or 72 for 7 probably works best, most people probably check the site every other day at worst during the season, maybe we stretch that time out during the offseason since it's not as rushed?

3) Maybe all trades should just be processed/completed 48 hours after submission? We already have a built in delay now for TRC so it's not that much extra. Just changes roster "deadline" slightly for trades.

4) Agreed but I think the abuse would be more towards repeatedly taking advantage of any new GMs that come into the league versus someone trying to create a problem since the time limit should prevent that type of situation. We always retain the option as ExCo to change the rules and say this is a trade that is clearly abusive to the league so we're not going to allow it.