The Below AA Rule

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:36 am

Agree with Vacek about how its a guideline. It's function is force TC members to consider the empty mystery box, which wasn't happening before.

Brewers · Post by **Brewers** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:53 am

Athletics wrote:The AA rule was enacted because trades had become the equivalent of the Mystery Box on a game show, most prospects below High A are essentially a Mystery Box, they could be superstars or they could be absolutely nothing like on the Wheel of Fish in UHF.

A boat's a boat, but the mystery box could be anything. It could even be a boat! You know how much we wanted one of those!

Sorry, couldn't resist....for what it's worth I agree with the statements that it's more of a guideline than a set in stone rule.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:53 am

I've never been a fan of the trade review process. In my opinion, one person (commish) should have the ability to veto a trade, and that is only done in the most extreme of circumstances. Trades should not be vetoed because they are uneven.....you couldn't even put two so-called experts together to agree on the value of a group of players, especially when evaluating the value of a prospect. The most successful leagues I've been involved with have had only one trade re-worked in the last 5 years. If you have a league of dedicated owners, as this league definitely seems to have, then simply trust the recruiting process and let the owners make their own decisions, as everyone has much different opinions on players. I know this probably isn't the most popular opinion, but I figured I would add my 2 cents.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:32 pm

I don't think "uneven" is enough to veto a trade in this league. As great as "trusting the recruiting" sounds in theory, it just doesn't work in practice. In a league with no FA, and no forced roster turnover, extremely lopsided trades have a much greater potential to damage competitive balance over the long haul. Personally, I don't think the league should even vote on these trades. I'd say we should trust a 5-member TRC to make the right decision, and allow an appeal which calls for a re-vote by the TRC (not by the league).

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:05 pm

Astros wrote:I've never been a fan of the trade review process. In my opinion, one person (commish) should have the ability to veto a trade, and that is only done in the most extreme of circumstances. Trades should not be vetoed because they are uneven.....you couldn't even put two so-called experts together to agree on the value of a group of players, especially when evaluating the value of a prospect. The most successful leagues I've been involved with have had only one trade re-worked in the last 5 years. If you have a league of dedicated owners, as this league definitely seems to have, then simply trust the recruiting process and let the owners make their own decisions, as everyone has much different opinions on players. I know this probably isn't the most popular opinion, but I figured I would add my 2 cents.

Too bad. Them's the rules. If you don't like them, there are other leagues out there.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:06 pm

Marlins wrote:I don't think "uneven" is enough to veto a trade in this league. As great as "trusting the recruiting" sounds in theory, it just doesn't work in practice. In a league with no FA, and no forced roster turnover, extremely lopsided trades have a much greater potential to damage competitive balance over the long haul. Personally, I don't think the league should even vote on these trades. I'd say we should trust a 5-member TRC to make the right decision, and allow an appeal which calls for a re-vote by the TRC (not by the league).

I don't see any harm in the revote concept before resorting to a leaguewide vote, but I don't know that it would do much good either.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:13 pm

RedSox wrote:
Marlins wrote:I don't think "uneven" is enough to veto a trade in this league. As great as "trusting the recruiting" sounds in theory, it just doesn't work in practice. In a league with no FA, and no forced roster turnover, extremely lopsided trades have a much greater potential to damage competitive balance over the long haul. Personally, I don't think the league should even vote on these trades. I'd say we should trust a 5-member TRC to make the right decision, and allow an appeal which calls for a re-vote by the TRC (not by the league).
I don't see any harm in the revote concept before resorting to a leaguewide vote, but I don't know that it would do much good either.

The problem with the appeals is you want 20 votes in order to overturn the trade. 20 out of 30. However there are at 26 GMs uninvolved in the trade already. So you're really asking for 20/26 which is such a huge margin to overturn any votes. You have the two that did the deal and 2 TRC members likely to vote with the trade. I think at the very least we should look at knocking the number down for vetoing or the appeals or whatever down to 18/30 which in realty is more like 18/26 or 18/28.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 1:14 pm

RedSox wrote:
Astros wrote:I've never been a fan of the trade review process. In my opinion, one person (commish) should have the ability to veto a trade, and that is only done in the most extreme of circumstances. Trades should not be vetoed because they are uneven.....you couldn't even put two so-called experts together to agree on the value of a group of players, especially when evaluating the value of a prospect. The most successful leagues I've been involved with have had only one trade re-worked in the last 5 years. If you have a league of dedicated owners, as this league definitely seems to have, then simply trust the recruiting process and let the owners make their own decisions, as everyone has much different opinions on players. I know this probably isn't the most popular opinion, but I figured I would add my 2 cents.
Too bad. Them's the rules. If you don't like them, there are other leagues out there.

there is nothing wrong with discussing rules.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:31 pm

There are soem things that I consider outside of the realm of discussion. such as doing away with the TRC or slimming it down to a one person decision only to be used in cases where a god-awful crime-against-humanity type trade is being proposed.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:47 pm

How about expanding it to 5? Only one additional vote would be needed for a trade to pass (3 instead of 2), so I don't see it slowing down the process too much. Two more voices in there would help immeasurably, imo. My ideal TC system would involve 5 GMs (a good number also b/c it would allow us to discount the votes of TC members party to a trade and still have enough for a reasonable decision) an opportunity for appeal that sends a deal back for a TC re-vote, and a private forum in which TC members could discuss an appealed trade decision before voting a second time. I think that type of system would cause the least league-wide debate by giving the TC the best opportunity to get it right. Enough voices to ensure a variety of viewpoints on player values are represented, but not so many as to make it unwieldy.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 2:57 pm

Why should a TRC vote count any less than a non TRC member's, especially when put to a "league wide" vote? league wide, would encompass every GM. 2/3 is 20.

It should be hard to overturn a TRC decision. I've had some of my trades vetoed over the years, as has bren, with this exact process in place. This stuff only comes up maybe once or twice a year on average I'd say. The revote concept is solid, though. And do away with the sub AA rule. Perhaps we revise that to "rookie ball" players? Count A levels? Is that a compromise?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:05 pm

Reds wrote:Why should a TRC vote count any less than a non TRC member's, especially when put to a "league wide" vote? league wide, would encompass every GM. 2/3 is 20.

Right. The "league wide vote" premise should be gone. People involved in the trade obviously aren't voting against it.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:12 pm

Pirates wrote:
Reds wrote:Why should a TRC vote count any less than a non TRC member's, especially when put to a "league wide" vote? league wide, would encompass every GM. 2/3 is 20.
Right. The "league wide vote" premise should be gone. People involved in the trade obviously aren't voting against it.

lol.. so because they disagree with your view on the trade, their votes shouldn't be counted? Because then it makes it harder for you to win?

Absolute nonsense. If taken to a league wide vote, every GM's vote MUST count. It was your idea to take it there, and now you want to discount the votes of those in favor, becuase it opposes your view?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:13 pm

Reds wrote:
Pirates wrote:
Reds wrote:Why should a TRC vote count any less than a non TRC member's, especially when put to a "league wide" vote? league wide, would encompass every GM. 2/3 is 20.
Right. The "league wide vote" premise should be gone. People involved in the trade obviously aren't voting against it.
lol.. so because they disagree with your view on the trade, their votes shouldn't be counted? Because then it makes it harder for you to win?

Absolute nonsense. If taken to a league wide vote, every GM's vote MUST count. It was your idea to take it there, and now you want to discount the votes of those in favor, becuase it opposes your view?

Who said because they disagree with me on a trade? This is a neutral standpoint. I could be the one getting voted on. I don't know exactly what you're talking about but being defensive about your own trade here, but believe it or not it's got nothing to do with that. Amazing I know.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:16 pm

Additionally, you're polling the rest of the league on the trade. You're asking for 20 votes out of 26 rest of the league members. That's a bit extreme.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:19 pm

My Trade, Your Trade, Any Trade. Doesn't matter. Why would a GM's vote not count simply because they are involved with

A) the trade
or
B) the trade review?

Yes, obviously they are in favor of it. But under your proposal, we discount these votes. Thereby making it easier to "topple" a trade.

I am asking why its okay, if a trade goes to LEAGUE WIDE vote, to have some members not elgible? Why does their vote, under your scenario, now not count?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:23 pm

Do we have alternates set up for the TRC in case their trades get voted on? Yes. So they cannot judge their own trades because they are involved. The same theory should be applied here. If you want to argue TRC members bneing able to revote, that's fine, I have no qualms there. But if TRC members cannot vote on their own deals, why should anybody get to vote on theirs under any circumstance?

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:29 pm

If its put to a LEAGUE WIDE vote, and they're part of the league, their vote counts. I'm not talkin about during the review process, but during the process where a trade has been objected to and put to a league wide vote.

Why don't their votes count then?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:35 pm

Everybody is reviewing the trade so the process is not over. This is still a step in the process, albeit the final step. The same rules should apply to GMs in the TRC as they should here. It's a hypocritical rule to have in place saying one set of GM's cannot vote on their trade but one set can. "LEAGUE WIDE" IS asking the rest of the league, those not on the TRC, their input on the deal. So regardless, "LEAGUE WIDE" is still being used.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:51 pm

I think JP's comparison to the TRC is a valid one. TRC members don't get to vote on their own trades, should GM's who have a trade up for review be allowed to vote on their own trade? I have in the past always favored keeping it to all 30 GM's and I'm not sure if this will change my mind on it, but I, personally, will at least consider the idea.
That would essentially make it 2/3's of 28, which would be 19 votes to overturn the decision of the TRC.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:58 pm

The TRC doesn't get to vote on their own trade, when its at the TRC. When its put up to objection, its a completely different thing. It goes from the trusted 3 to a league wide. League wide has to encompass everyone, in my mind. When its at the TRC, it is not a league wide vote, and thereby if you were to vote on your own trade, it would heavily influence the outcome - possible collusion. Not so much the case at a leauge wide vote, especially when you're not a part of the TRC.

They are two entirely different scenarios in my mind at least. Its comparing apples to oranges.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:59 pm

I guess that's an apple off of an orange tree you are comparing. It's the same premise. They do not vote on their own trades. What difference does it make which phase it's at? When it's put to objection, it's an expanded TRC. That's it. Plain and simple.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:05 pm

I don't think JP is advocating excluding the TRC from the appeal and I would disagree with that suggestion if he did. However, when being judged by a jury of your peers so to speak, you don't get to vote as part of the jury. I think traditionally I've looked at this from a Parliamentary perspective in which case a member can vote on any rules, laws etc. that they propose. But perhaps with trade reviews a more Judicial perspective is more appropriate in which case the trading teams would not have a vote on the jury.

Bear in mind, a rule change like this would grandfather any pre-existing decisions and conditions so Nate, your trade would not be subject to a review under any changed rules but, rather the ones under which it was passed.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:11 pm

So are you suggesting that only the two GM's involved in the deal, not be allowed to vote?

or the two GM's plus the TRC?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:14 pm

Reds wrote:So are you suggesting that only the two GM's involved in the deal, not be allowed to vote?

This one.