Trade Veto's

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:34 pm

This is a general post, and not related to any pending trade votes.

Bottom line...the league has a boner for prospects.

After receiving multiple low ball offers this offseason, many from GM's who object to league trades, I have a hard time understanding how anything is rejected. The amount of inconsistency and hypocrisy is sickening.

1. If you're a GM who makes shitty offers thinking the other GM is an idiot, you don't have a vote.
2. Spell out the standard for rejecting deals, and let all the GM's know that if they want to operate out of the court of public opinion, that this isn't the league for them.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:39 pm

I agree that the league has a boner for prospects.
As for a standard for rejecting trades, I'd love to see one (i even ried to set one up once) personally but the TRC changes membership and the league changes membership and what was acceptable at one point isn't acceptable at another. this TRC has been pretty lenient in my opinion. The trade currently beign contested passed, to overturn it would take 20 votes from the league. Considering that the TRC members who approved it are already in favor of the deal along with the 2 GM's who did the trade, it's not exactly goignt o be easy to overturn. most of the time these appeals fail but the league does need a vehicle for such objections.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:47 pm

How about a Toyota Prius?

Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all weekend. The 5:30 show is nothing like the 3:47 show. Don't forget to tip your waitress.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:01 pm

I think there's a great irony in how a lot of GM's here try to screw new members, but cry and shout when someone else beats them to it (not talking about any one trade in specific).

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:11 pm

RedSox wrote:I agree that the league has a boner for prospects.
As for a standard for rejecting trades, I'd love to see one (i even ried to set one up once) personally but the TRC changes membership and the league changes membership and what was acceptable at one point isn't acceptable at another. this TRC has been pretty lenient in my opinion. The trade currently beign contested passed, to overturn it would take 20 votes from the league. Considering that the TRC members who approved it are already in favor of the deal along with the 2 GM's who did the trade, it's not exactly goignt o be easy to overturn. most of the time these appeals fail but the league does need a vehicle for such objections.

A trade that has Passed the TRC SHOULD be VERY had to overturn. These guys were put in place, because we "elected" them, or someone trusted them enough to put them in place.

Who is the TRC comprised of these days?

And as far as I remember from my days on the TRC before losing access - the only real guidline was the discounting in value of playres below the AA level - and as far as I could tell with the lastest "protest" none of those players were below the AA level. Given that it met those requirements, the only other set I can think of was "is it fair" and obviously the TRC thought so after much thought - hence it was passed. It wasn't passed as an afterthought, as it sat on the table for the better part of a week.

Bottom line, this league has a boner for prospects - as has already been stated. And its getting borderline rediculous.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:12 pm

Rockies wrote:I think there's a great irony in how a lot of GM's here try to screw new members, but cry and shout when someone else beats them to it (not talking about any one trade in specific).

I also think its humorous how GM's bitch about other GM's not "shopping" their players before they trade em.

I went out and found the trade, you didn't.. don't bash me because you didn't inquire with said GM about a player. Lame.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:15 pm

Reds wrote:
Rockies wrote:I think there's a great irony in how a lot of GM's here try to screw new members, but cry and shout when someone else beats them to it (not talking about any one trade in specific).
I also think its humorous how GM's bitch about other GM's not "shopping" their players before they trade em.

I went out and found the trade, you didn't.. don't bash me because you didn't inquire with said GM about a player. Lame.

The point was he sold for 10 cents on the dollar without even seeing if he could make 1.50. I don't remember bashing anybody and I was the one who brought the point up so why don't we get our facts straight.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:30 pm

GM's that don't work have no right to complain..

As many of you have seen a PM from me in the past 2-3 weeks...I've been out there working at least 20 of you, trying to make something happen...even if there's no deal, I'm trying.

Point is, deals don't fall in your lap, so don't be pissed that a rival GM has improved their team and cry about parity.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:32 pm

Rockies wrote:GM's that don't work have no right to complain..

As many of you have seen a PM from me in the past 2-3 weeks...I've been out there working at least 20 of you, trying to make something happen...even if there's no deal, I'm trying.

Point is, deals don't fall in your lap, so don't be pissed that a rival GM has improved their team and cry about parity.

I believe it has nothing to do with the fact that he is a rival GM in this case. I was opposed to his trade with you and I do not consider you a rival. We play what, six times a year?

I didn't say deals fall into your lap, but if you are going to get such a minimal return on your marquee guys, I don't think it's out of the question to see what you can get elsewhere. I wouldn't take Griffey and Glavine for Lincecum if I were looking to deal him, but didn't bother to check out the rest of the league.

To say being concerned with the leagues competitive balance issue is crying is ridiculous. I never even complained. I said to those bitching every November about it, look no further than this trade right here, but somehow that's crying. OK.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:37 pm

What's with all the I's and Me's...I speak in general terms. I'm not one to ever call anyone out directly. It's both unprofessional and counter-productive.

I do see GM's that make less than a handful of deals a year jumping up and down, screaming when another GM makes a good deal.

My message is simple "don't be a hater"...and again, I'm not referencing any one deal in particular...this is an overall league philosophy thread.

Pirates wrote:
Rockies wrote:GM's that don't work have no right to complain..

As many of you have seen a PM from me in the past 2-3 weeks...I've been out there working at least 20 of you, trying to make something happen...even if there's no deal, I'm trying.

Point is, deals don't fall in your lap, so don't be pissed that a rival GM has improved their team and cry about parity.
I believe it has nothing to do with the fact that he is a rival GM in this case. I was opposed to his trade with you and I do not consider you a rival. We play what, six times a year?

I didn't say deals fall into your lap, but if you are going to get such a minimal return on your marquee guys, I don't think it's out of the question to see what you can get elsewhere. I wouldn't take Griffey and Glavine for Lincecum if I were looking to deal him, but didn't bother to check out the rest of the league.

To say being concerned with the leagues competitive balance issue is crying is ridiculous. I never even complained. I said to those bitching every November about it, look no further than this trade right here, but somehow that's crying. OK.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:40 pm

I just had figured you were referring to me since I brought up the parity issue.

Fair enough, moving right along.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:55 pm

Pirates wrote: The point was he sold for 10 cents on the dollar without even seeing if he could make 1.50. I don't remember bashing anybody and I was the one who brought the point up so why don't we get our facts straight.

So everytime I get an offer for any player, I should then shop him to see if I can get more? Not a bad strategy, but it doesn't always apply.

It also seems contradictory to how you yourself sometimes operate - case in point inquires on my players, such as Vernon Wells I believe. I told you i'm in talks with others - you give me an ultimatum that if I try to see if I can get a 1.50, then your offer worth a 1.00 is off the table. Its happened plenty, as you try to angle for the inside track on a player. Nothing wrong with that, it just contradicts your statement above.

Pirates wrote: I didn't say deals fall into your lap, but if you are going to get such a minimal return on your marquee guys, I don't think it's out of the question to see what you can get elsewhere. I wouldn't take Griffey and Glavine for Lincecum if I were looking to deal him, but didn't bother to check out the rest of the league.

To say being concerned with the leagues competitive balance issue is crying is ridiculous. I never even complained. I said to those bitching every November about it, look no further than this trade right here, but somehow that's crying. OK.

And again, your valuation of the players is your opinion only. yet you keep presenting it as a matter of fact. Perhaps Kelly feels he did get his 1.50. Value is in the eye of the beholder. I would respectfully request that folks STOP bashing the value of my and/or Kelly's players, and our abilities to make a competent deal together - and simply vote on the merits of the deal once a dissertation has been sent in for both sides. Thanks. This was supposed to be an in general discussion, but its quickly turning otherwise.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:01 pm

Nobody should be discussing the trade. period. anyone who does can lose their vote on the pending trade and the post will be deleted.
Everyone (who abides by the rules of the league) will get a vote. that's your chance to have your say. Then after the trade is voted on officially you can all say whatever you want about it.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:03 pm

How does that contradict my sentiment above? You were shopping your guy to get as much as you could. I could clearly see that, and I didn't want my offer being used as a landing pad for you to fall back on, or to raise the price up further for the other GM.

Did I say you shouldn't pull your offer off the table if Kelly did that? No. Not sure what exactly you're getting at but confusing everything with a useless example here.

I will not comment on the next portion of the post no matter how much I disagree with it and I'll leave it at that.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:03 pm

I specifically said this was supposed to be a general discussion topic, and not specific to any deals, guys.

If you have overall thoughts on the league, feel free to post, but please follow the league rules when posting.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:19 pm

Hence, the last part in bold and underlined in my statement.

I would respectfully request that folks STOP bashing the value of my and/or Kelly's players, and our abilities to make a competent deal together - and simply vote on the merits of the deal once a dissertation has been sent in for both sides. Thanks.

And yes JP, I don't feel i'm reaching here. You were trying to gain leverage saying I shouldn't shop my players for 1.50 instead of 1.00 or a deal an offer was off the table. Now, you're doing the opposite, complaining that Kelly DIDN'T do that, when you use that an ulimatum against me. Like I said, nothing wrong with that approach, I completely understand the angle. But to rail on about when another GM doesn't "shop" his players to your expectations seems like a strawman argument.

Again, I did my work. You know I did. I shopped the HELL outta not just Thome, but some of my previous players dealt as well. I worked for weeks on deals. I talked with just about every GM I could find online. Now you're railing me for getting 1.50 out of my trade instead of settling for the low ball offers I was getting from others around the league. Seem's contradictory to me, but hey..
There's 2 sides to every coin. So which is appropriate? To shop players after getting offers on them - something you gave me an ultimatum basically trying to force my hand NOT to do? Or shop my players after every offer I get to see if I can squeeze more?

I've said it before and I'll say it again - and I'm not the only one who thinks this way - You don't have to "win" a trade for that trade to be successful for you. I've overpayed plenty for guys that I wanted, sometimes you can afford to and sometimes you can't. There is almost always going to be a "winner" and a "loser" in a trade if you view it in a vaccuum. But, when viewed big picture wise it may not necessarily be the case.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:37 pm

That trade sucked.

Ha, just wanted to lose my vote on the trade cause I don't give a crap either way. Is the rejection based on percentage of the league or percentage of the GMs who are eligible to vote?

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 5:40 pm

In the past it was percentage of eligible GM's.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:54 pm

Personally, I don't think our trade review process is broken. I think it works just fine. Everyone has a chance to get what they want through the appeal system, and its not easy for GMs to lose a deal. It takes 20 of 30 and thats pretty hard to come by.

Count me as one of the GMs who sees this argument as just another example of the system working and everyone involved doing their job.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:23 pm

My only tweak would be to give the TC a chance to get it right if somehow a deal slipped through the cracks. So after a review is called for, the TC would vote again, and perhaps provide a brief explanation of the decision. If they reached the same result after reconsidering, then some increased number of objectors would be required (7? 10?) to send it to a league vote. If they changed their original decision, then the current process would apply for appealing and immediately sending to a league vote.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:23 pm

someone correct me if im wrong, but doesnt usually the purpose of a TC in a league like this to only veto trades if they believe collusion or some other violation has occurred, and its up to us to speak up if we want it vetoed? Hence what Gabe said the system is working.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:56 pm

In some league's that's the case. Not this one. In the IBC there is a certain standard of quality that must be met. I.E. JB could deal me Joe mauer for Angel Salome, there's no chance that we're colluding, we're rivals. The trade is just awful and should not be approved in spite of the fact that jsut about everyone would love to see JB's team taken down a notch. That's an extreme example of course, but it was the easiest to come up with.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:25 pm

I sincerely think the process works. Dan's suggestion is an interesting one.

However, I don't think its broke. The only thing that typically gets out of hand when someone objects to a trade being passed is the voicing of opinion, which leads to long arguments like the original thread that got locked - if we can just keep the objection comments to a simple form of "i object" without additional comments that could "sway" a vote being hashed out in page long dissertations and just go straight to presenting both sides of the coin - it would probably prevent the frustrations this type of shit causes.

A simple objection should do.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:51 pm

I agree with Nate.

Mob mentality does exist, and popular opinion can make even the best GM's second guess their gut..

From that standpoint, I think the system can be tightened.

Perhaps objections should be sent into the TRC directly, and not on a public forum. This protects the league without burning bridges with fellow GM's. And also discourages what we had on Friday.

I would propose that it take 4 or 5 people to particion the TRC to put a deal up to league vote, and leave the opinions off the forum.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 9:58 pm

Reds wrote:I sincerely think the process works. Dan's suggestion is an interesting one.

However, I don't think its broke. The only thing that typically gets out of hand when someone objects to a trade being passed is the voicing of opinion, which leads to long arguments like the original thread that got locked - if we can just keep the objection comments to a simple form of "i object" without additional comments that could "sway" a vote being hashed out in page long dissertations and just go straight to presenting both sides of the coin - it would probably prevent the frustrations this type of shit causes.

A simple objection should do.

I entirely disagree with this notion. What's wrong with discussion over players? If somebody is swayed because they see things in a different light than before, isn't that a good thing presenting more knowledge? I cannot see a situation where we actually discuss baseball on here is a poor one.