The Below AA Rule

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:17 pm

My apologies for misunderstanding then. I wouldn't be opposed to that at all, and I see where you're coming from. I was under the impression you were proposing the TRC wouldn't vote either. So essentially, 2/3rds of 28. I'm not opposed to that. Makes sense.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:17 pm

Word.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:18 pm

I made this point 3 months ago and was shot down.

I suggested that the members of the TRC & the GM's involved should not be involved in the "League Wide" vote...

I think their initial informed decisions should be cast in stone & the rest of the vote should be GM' who haven't voted yet.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:21 pm

Rockies wrote:I made this point 3 months ago and was shot down.

I suggested that the members of the TRC & the GM's involved should not be involved in the "League Wide" vote...

I think their initial informed decisions should be cast in stone & the rest of the vote should be GM' who haven't voted yet.

I must not have seen the post or misread it.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:22 pm

Yeah, if it was part of the hundreds of unread posts i had after coming back around the holidays, i glossed over it as well.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:31 pm

Pirates wrote:
Rockies wrote:I made this point 3 months ago and was shot down.

I suggested that the members of the TRC & the GM's involved should not be involved in the "League Wide" vote...

I think their initial informed decisions should be cast in stone & the rest of the vote should be GM' who haven't voted yet.
I must not have seen the post or misread it.

It was part of the whole John Maine trade chaos.

http://ibc.poweralleycircuit.com/viewto ... ight=maine

Never had a chance...part of my reasoning was that people shouldn't be able to flip-flop their vote.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:15 pm

Rockies wrote:
Pirates wrote:
Rockies wrote:I made this point 3 months ago and was shot down.

I suggested that the members of the TRC & the GM's involved should not be involved in the "League Wide" vote...

I think their initial informed decisions should be cast in stone & the rest of the vote should be GM' who haven't voted yet.
I must not have seen the post or misread it.

It was part of the whole John Maine trade chaos.

http://ibc.poweralleycircuit.com/viewto ... ight=maine

Never had a chance...part of my reasoning was that people shouldn't be able to flip-flop their vote.

Personally, for me it is a change in the way of looking at the vote that is making me reconsider my position.

As for changing their mind, I still see no reason to prevent someone from changing their vote if they choose to. If a TRC member feels one way then they see something that causes them to change their mind, then I can't see holding them to an older opinion based on more limited facts and information.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:19 pm

Another benefit to doing away with the league-wide vote would be the elimination of all the surrounding drama. A 5 member TC that votes anonymously, and has an opportunity to privately discuss and then vote again on questioned decisions would likely leave us with only the complaints of the directly affected GMs, rather than this league-wide free-for-all that accomplishes nothing other than to encourage GMs to consider issues other than the players involved (like their opinions on the TC, or their history of reviewed trades, etc.) when voting on questioned trades.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:25 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.

What's that mean?? Are you giving me the boot? I made no mention of leaving, and simply offered my opinion on the matter. Does my opinion really deserve a response like that??

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:31 pm

Astros wrote:
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.
What's that mean?? Are you giving me the boot? I made no mention of leaving, and simply offered my opinion on the matter. Does my opinion really deserve a response like that??

If you're going to have a "discussion" with Bren about a league matter, you can expect to have to ignore at least one undeserved response exactly like that one. Comes with the territory.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:31 pm

Astros wrote:
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.
What's that mean?? Are you giving me the boot? I made no mention of leaving, and simply offered my opinion on the matter. Does my opinion really deserve a response like that??

Nope, I'm saying these are the rules, if you don't like them, you don't have to play.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:17 am

Why does this sound like the parent saying: "As long as you're living under my house, you live by my rules"

And the kid crying, saying: "It's not fair"