RedSox wrote:
If you deal a player for less than you think he's worth, either 1. you need to be getting back value in some other way (i.e. you believe it will give you a shot at the playoffs; mortgaging the future to play for the present) or you're a trigger happy fool.
Nobody will ever force you to make a trade or force you to take less than you think a player is worth.
If you took less for Joba than you thought he was worth it was because you chose to, not because a rule made you. If a player is worth more in your opinion than the market or a rule allows, then keep the player. Joba was an 06 draftee, it's not as though he was taking up space on his active/inactive roster.
The point was, I was going for the playoffs.
I decided to trade Joba...because of league rules, I got Nate Robertson, where if the rule was absent, I could have netted a more talented pitcher....perhaps....we'll never know....I never tried, because I knew even if I did strike a better deal, it would be rejected under league rules....kinda up against a wall on that one.
You never know until you try. Ever. You might have done better and got it passed, but you didn't try so you don't know. If you think I don't know how that feels, ask me about the time I traded Joe Mauer to make a playoff run.
I've made trades that I expected to be vetoed on more than one occasion, but I tried on the hope that they wouldn't be. Usually they don't make it, but sometimes they do.
You're also talking about Joba now and everyone is thinking of the guy who pitched SO well down the stretch (even though no other pitcher has probably ever been as babied over 24 IP as he was) except that's not who you dealt. You dealt a kid in A ball with lots of talent and HUGE questions about his weight, durability and age ( say age because of the so-called injury nexus).
Guys, lets just call a spade a spade here. This is Bren's monthly power trip. If you want something done about this, go to the other Exco members and talk to them and get it put up for official vote. That's why we put the Exco in place, so it wasn't a league where whatever Bren thinks is what goes, despite the fact that's what he still believes sometimes. Yay democracy!
Cardinals wrote:Guys, lets just call a spade a spade here. This is Bren's monthly power trip. If you want something done about this, go to the other Exco members and talk to them and get it put up for official vote. That's why we put the Exco in place, so it wasn't a league where whatever Bren thinks is what goes, despite the fact that's what he still believes sometimes. Yay democracy!
Sorry to tell ya this, but it has been voted on, it's not changing.
Cardinals wrote:Guys, lets just call a spade a spade here. This is Bren's monthly power trip. If you want something done about this, go to the other Exco members and talk to them and get it put up for official vote. That's why we put the Exco in place, so it wasn't a league where whatever Bren thinks is what goes, despite the fact that's what he still believes sometimes. Yay democracy!
Sorry to tell ya this, but it has been voted on, it's not changing.
This is incorrect. We have not had an official ExCo poll recently on this as far as I know.
My personal opinions aside, I think it is the commish (or in this league, the OOPPS, or whoever mandates league rules) job is to work in the best interest of all the owners. To cling onto the past years rules because that's the way it's been and everything is fine sounds like Ban Johnson a century ago. Or to a more extreme extent, Judge Landis 70 years ago.
My experience in business is that all decision makers are resistant to change. To translate that into a baseball context, there is still many scouts and media that dismiss stat-hounds. Right or wrong, those who have an open mind and accept and consider all options will ultimately prove to form the best opinion.
If those who are in charge of mandating and enforcing the rules as they are, then fine, and we all should be on board. But to accept any rules without everyone's input and voicing our opinion, and having those opinions dismissed because those in charge demand status quo is not acceptable.
i agree, to a large extent. However, there is nothing innovative being suggested here. It's essentially two options, go back to the old way, which we know was causing problems or continue with the current method, which helped resolve those problems though with the reminder to the decision makers (TRC) about the intent and scope of the rule.
if someoen has a third suggestion I think we would all be thrilled to hear it, but beating the same two issues over the head over and over is not going to be productive. The ExCo won't change the rule back to the old way. You can keep ramming your head against the wall on this, but it won't change that. Try thinking outside the box for a change.
With all due respect Bren, you are assuming the same problem of the past will raise it's head again. I'm new to the IBC, but the posts have let me know that the issues which led to the AA rule were in the league's infancy, and you have said that there was a lot of GM turnover five years ago. I'm in 4 SIM leagues and I must say that this league has BY FAR the most intelligent and passionate GMs, you should really at this point give everyone more credit. We all appreciate your work and know we all couldn't put what you have into this league, but the voices should be heard.
We have had votes in the past and the opinions expressed recently by the ExCo members show no sign of anything changing, as JP very well knows. We rarely call for 'official' votes when we know beforehand that the end result is 'no change'.
RedSox wrote:We have had votes in the past and the opinions expressed recently by the ExCo members show no sign of anything changing, as JP very well knows. We rarely call for 'official' votes when we know beforehand that the end result is 'no change'.
And if Jake changes his mind, then what? Sorry, but we have not "voted" on this. When was the last actual vote or discussion we had on this rule within ExCo?
RedSox wrote:We have had votes in the past and the opinions expressed recently by the ExCo members show no sign of anything changing, as JP very well knows. We rarely call for 'official' votes when we know beforehand that the end result is 'no change'.
And if Jake changes his mind, then what? Sorry, but we have not "voted" on this. When was the last actual vote or discussion we had on this rule within ExCo?
You mean aside from the one you started yesterday?
