Review Request by JP

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:56 pm

JP asked yesterday that I review the penalty attached to his and Nils' violation of the no trade rule on draft picks. JP's request was based on the evaluation that when the penalty was assessed both he and Nils would be competitive teams, so the penalty was even. However, he feels his team is not going to be competitive, and that he could be looking at going from a pick in the 1-7 range to Pick 29 or 30 whereas Nils is probably a top 10-12 team. I told him I would consider his request about adjusting the penalty so that his and Nils' penalty would be even.
JP's request for a review is understandable and reasonable. The issue here is not the original punishment, (a set punishment was laid out well beforehand for breaking the rule and the penalty was applied, reduced), but whether the punishment should be adjusted due to current circumstances.
It seems to me that the important issue here is that the circumstances changed, JP is now likely to suffer a more significant punishment than Nils. JP, however, chose to took his team in a different direction and rebuild it. The penalties were fair for the teams as they were currently established, when JP re-geared his team, the penalty was already in place and JP was aware of it. The change in circumstance was due entirely to JP's own decisions for his team after the penalty was applied. I see no justification for changing the penalty and it stands.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 5:29 am

I was with you all the way until you said JP "chose to took" his team to a new place. I'm curious if there were any alternate proposals besides "Let the punishment stand" and "Don't" or if anyone in the league has any ideas about the situation.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 9:20 am

Well, from the beginning I've thought the penalty was hogwash since they made the trade, realized that they couldn't trade drafted players until the draft was complete and I know that JP contacted you and contacted someone on the TRC saying to wait until the draft was over to approve it because they screwed up. This whole penalty, to me, is like giving someone a speeding ticket for going 36 in a 35 mph zone. Was the rule broken? Sure. Was it hurting anything in this case? No. Now that JP is rebuilding, I see no reason for him to have to drop 20 or so draft spots. Did he "chose to took" that route? Yes, but, the fact that JP is rebuilding when he had a solid contending team in place shows his commitment to the league and I think, if you're still going to impose a penalty, he should drop 5 or 6 spots, no more than that

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 10:13 am

I also thought this ruling was crap to begin with. The spirit of the rule was to prevent people from holding up the draft trying to trade their picks, not to stop people from trading their already drafted players. It was an accident and like Aaron said, they did attempt to make it right.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Tue Apr 17, 2007 12:33 pm

I think Shawn hit it right on the head when he said "The spirit of the rule was to prevent people from holding up the draft trying to trade their picks, not to stop people from trading their already drafted players"

I think the ruling was extremely harsh and should be looked at again. This deal did not slow up the draft process at all, and frankly didnt bear much weight on any other team in terms of gaining an advantage by submitting the deal early.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 1:30 am

The Penalty will not be removed.
The rule was enacted well in advance of the draft.
Everyone had plenty of notice of the rule.
JP and Nils broke the rule.
That they wanted to wait on the trade approval DOES NOT CHANGE that they broke that rule. The rule breaking part was discussing and agreeing to the trade in the first place. The penalty has already been reduced once.
Trades don't happen by accident.
Saying that they'll wait a couple weeks or a month to go through with their trade is not, by any means, an "attempt to make it right."
Is it so FUCKING hard to follow a simple rule or instruction like "Don't trade until the draft is over"?

Now, as to Jake's question about a middle ground. Several options occurred to me. Dropping JP to the middle of the round instead, a 5 or 10 spot penalty or justhaving his penalty match Nils', so that whatever Nils drops to the bottom of the round, JP would drop. However, the point still stands that JP knew the penalty when he decided to change his team. If he had asked earlier in the process of drastically altering his team, that would have been a different situation.

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:38 am

Did we ever get to vote on this punishment? Like every trade and every subject of controversy, We should put this up to vote. I dont think youre making the right call here.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:17 am

I'm with Dave here, I know this isn't the first time that we've asked that this be put up to a vote. Or is this another case of Bren having to go on a power trip for no real reason? Put it to a leaguewide vote

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:09 am

I'm on board for a vote here however where the fuck are the other 25 gms on this topic? This has some pretty serious consequences on the league in my opinion.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:41 am

Dodgers wrote:I'm on board for a vote here however where the fuck are the other 25 gms on this topic? This has some pretty serious consequences on the league in my opinion.

Hopefully alot are just lurking and reading the posts until there is something to add or perhaps vote on. I wouldn't mind seeing a vote on this issue to see how to handle it going forward. However I am not in support of going back in time and changing punishments that have already been agreed on and handed out.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:44 am

I was going to avoid chiming in until Bren's last post merely for the fact that it's just ridiculous on every single level.

Let me start out by saying again, what had happened.

December 21, 2006: I Draft/sign McCulloch.

January 12, 2007: Nils and I have ongoing trade talks in a trade with Vernon Wells and Barry Zito, trying to find a common ground to get a trade done. The entire conversation, not once is it brought up that we'd be "breaking a rule." It's the Co-Commish of the league.

The rule was placed so that the draft, as Shawn has said, would NOT be held up.

So first off, consider those two things, that the Co-Commish forgot about the rule, and that the spirit of the rule wasn't being violated.

Secondly, it's Nils. Do you really think he cares THAT much about acquiring a prospect, a prospect with minimal professional IP at that, that he would knowingly risk a severe sanction to grab him? No. Nils hates prospects.

Do you think a deal where McCulloch is clearly the toss in should have such a ramification and penalty? If you do, you're nuts. Why?

Because even despite all the aforementioned, Immediately after the trade was accepted on OOPSS, I IM'ed Bren and said, "oops I forgot McCulloch was an 06 and we can't trade him until the draft is over."

Right then and there, it should have been done with. Bren should have e-mailed the TRC (Who he went apeshit on) and said "Hey, just wait until Nils and JP are done drafting, then process/vote on this trade."

What did he do instead? Waited until it was passed, then exploded on Jim and the TRC, and suspending everybody from the TRC.

Over WHAT? A toss in player in a trade?

What's more disturbing than the penalty itself is the reluctance to view any of these points. Clearly, it's not just me talking as well here. Every time these points are brought up to Bren via IM, I get the reply "JP, don't get on my bad side" or, "have a good night."

"
That they wanted to wait on the trade approval DOES NOT CHANGE that they broke that rule. The rule breaking part was discussing and agreeing to the trade in the first place. The penalty has already been reduced once. "

Clearly, not. We were NOT Discussing how to break the retarded rule in the first place. Nils, the co-commish, and myself , one of the more active members in the league, forgot entirely about the rule. Was there any malice in this trade? Did Nils and I say "hehehe, Lets piss off bren and throw in McCulloch!" No. Did the TRC, yes the TRC under the guidelines of Bren, forget about the rule too? Yep, they did.

Everybody Simply Forgot. a Mental lapse. Did the trade slow down the league, or give Nils or I a clear cut advantage? No and no. When I DID remember about the rule, I immediately went to Bren and said hey I forgot about it. What more has to be done? A rule was broken,sure. But there have been PLENTY rules broken.

How about signing a guy illegally such as what Nils did a few weeks back? Sure, he doesn't get the player, but what if it slips everybody's radar and he gets the rights to that guy? Is THAT not getting an advantage? Should that not be penalized? Playing hurt guys to gain, literally, wins in the standings? Should that NOT be penalized more than a "re-sim" Where you still have a solid chance of winning? What about teams playing with more than 25 active players? It's happened before and I'm sure it's happened this year. How about the Sammy Sosa loan fiasco? Yeah, I hate to bring it up and yeah it "wasn't against the rules" because there was no rule, but that was a far more heinous act than this. That damaged the integrity of not only the league, but of the Commish.

So, point is, not only was the penalty ridiculous to begin with, but the fact that Bren didn't and isn't listening to league advice is equally ridiculous, as is the penalty severity. The penalty has NOT been reduced at all. You said to me, "you trade the pick, you lose a pick." Let's see, what have I lost thus far...

If the season ended now I'd be picking top 10. Not anymore, I'd be dropping 20+ slots to 29. so I'd lose a top 50 prospect. I'd also lose my second round and fourth round pick, and pick 29th in the 3rd and 5th and every round thereafter.

Is this not the most absurd decision by Bren in the history of the league, or am I just wrong?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 10:45 am

Marlins wrote:
Dodgers wrote:I'm on board for a vote here however where the fuck are the other 25 gms on this topic? This has some pretty serious consequences on the league in my opinion.
Hopefully alot are just lurking and reading the posts until there is something to add or perhaps vote on. I wouldn't mind seeing a vote on this issue to see how to handle it going forward. However I am not in support of going back in time and changing punishments that have already been agreed on and handed out.

I don't recall the league ever agreeing on it, or anybody besides Bren agreeing on it.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:32 pm

I have nothing against you JP, but the fact is that there was a transgression and there was a penalty assigned because of said transgression. Now to mitigate the penalty establishes a precedent that future transgressors can point to as an argument saying "Hey, I'm tanking my team so don't punish me!"

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:36 pm

obviously I disagree; an unwarranted sanction that was too severe to begin with shouldn't dictate what direction I move my team in.

But at least you let your opinion be known, so that's good.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:49 pm

I do have my doubts on the penalty in the first place, but the fact is that it was applied and it should be adhered to.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:53 pm

Right. I can see that mindset.

But I think most everybody can agree the penalty is ridiculous.

But I'll give you a quarter for those two cents anyway.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:10 pm

Part of the problem here is that the league never voted on what the penalty should be. The rule was broken, Bren came up with a penalty, laid it down without asking anyone and said that his word was law. Well, that's bullshit, we decide every other major matter as a league, we should've decided the penalty for this as a league

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 4:24 pm

I didn't see where comments were asked for. Only that a review was requested and a change to the original decision was denied and the denial was explained.

If comments are being asked for, as well as positions on the issued being asked for.

Count me in the group that I don't see why it should be changed, regardless of who the GM is. It was a rule that was extensively talked about prior to the draft. It was in place during the draft, it was violated and a punishment was handed out.

Penalty seems more severe due to recent decision by JP to rebuild his team, however that should have been a consideration in his changing strategy, IMO. I just dont' see how one can justify going back and changing a penalty that was already dished out, due to a GM changing the strategy of their team several months after the fact.

Anyways, that's all.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 5:43 pm

Months after the fact?

I dealt Manny for three young players (Niemann, Hansen, Hawpe) the same day the McCulloch deal passed. Bren told me to cork and and revisit it months later, so lets not act as if I started picking up prospects yesterday.
Both trades passed at the same time on the 20th of January.

Clearly, I had intended to have my youth movement during January.

And what about other rules broken going unpunished that DIRECTLY correlates to W's? That's ok?

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 6:54 pm

Astros wrote: Clearly, I had intended to have my youth movement during January.

I'm not going to get into a debate on when you decided to throw the 2007 season out the window and completely rebuild for 2008. Heck, you typically turn over your complete roster every quarter.

I jsut don't see a logical reason why the punishment should be changed at this date. But that's just me and I'm only one member of the league.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:23 pm

There is not going to be a voe on whether or not Nils and JP get punished on this.
There was a SPECIFIC rule in place with a SPECIFIC penalty attached to it that predated the start of the draft. Not one single person complained that a penalty was attached to the rule... until someone actually made the monumentally stupid act of breaking the rule.
The rule was established to prevent GM's from trading draft picks. The rule covers the entire span of the draft in order to discourage any discussions whatsoever.
What was the rule? Don't trade draft picks until the draft is over.
Was it broken? Unquestionably.
If you trade draft picks illegally, you LOSE draft picks. That's about as reasonable and relevant a penalty as you can get.
The penalty stands. Any further attempt on either penalized GM's part to have the penalty reduced or removed will result in the original penalty being reinstated.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:07 pm

Well, I think a penalty should be imposed on you for killing my pen for starting Freddy Garcia back to back games. I have my rotation set up in my MP i sent to you. The last game I played head to head had Garcia starting and now, he starts again, in turn, murdering my pen as well as screwing up my rotation the rest of the week. Thanks Bren, thanks a lot

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:13 pm

I'm going to have to agree with Aaron. And a re-sim shouldn't be an option. why should there be a re-sim when Aaron won? How would that be fair to the rest of the league for your mistake? IMO, You need to be penalized for fucking up a bullpen.

Brewers · Post by **Brewers** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 9:24 pm

I've kept quiet on this but I just have to ask - Why did you even bring this up for discussion if you had no intentions to change/reduce/remove the penalty....just to show that someone is trying to skirt a penalty? Seems like it opened an unnecessary can of worms (since we can all discuss this until we're blue in the face and it won't affect a damn thing)....

"This is an IBC-tatorship not an IBC-ocracy. Bren makes the IBC-esions and he'll deal with the IBC-onsequences"

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Wed Apr 18, 2007 11:02 pm

WhiteSox wrote:"This is an IBC-tatorship not an IBC-ocracy. Bren makes the IBC-esions and he'll deal with the IBC-onsequences"

Hahahaha. Funny.

In all seriousness, I think you may have jumped off the deep end a little here Bren. I dont think that this is fair at all. I know in the past that if something was presented to you by the league, if you didnt think it was a good idea, it was never put to vote and never discussed further. I think this needs to stop. We need you to be open to letting other gm's express their thoughts and ideas and make a rational decision together as a group. There can no longer be a dictatorship.

IBC Rules wrote:"All GM's will be notified of any and all changes and the topic will be open for discussion and debate, however by joining the IBC all GM's agree to accept the final decisions of the co-commissioners. "

You arent even following your own rules that you set forth for the league. You arent leaving the topic open for discussion or debate. Youre deciding on punishments without even listening to any of us. More than 2/3rds of the GM's who arent up your ass would have thought that this deal was a no harm, no foul trade. Did they break it? Hell yea they did. Should this have been the punishment? No. Not even close. A slap on the wrist (i.e. 5th rd pick lost, 4th rd pick lost, hell even a 3rd round pick lost) would have did just fine. But to prevent a team in this league from improving in the offseason draft is unquestionably wrong. You just dont act before opening the topic for discussion. Its not right.

IBC Rules wrote: III. The Commissioner

5. Resolving assorted disputes.

Have you resolved anything other than this is the word of Bren, we shall have no other discussion? Or caused more controversy?

Your job is also to maintain and enforce the rules of the IBC, dont get me wrong. But the way youre going about doing this is just wrong.

Dead wrong.