IBC

Should we allow September trading?

May I have a link to the prior vote or poll ... I can't seem to find it and I don't believe I ever voted. I remember asking a question which JP answered and then the issue went out to a league wide "guage of interest" ...

Thanks.

There is no legit reason not to allow this. Some of the more active /longer tenured GM's want this, nobody has an objection to it, it's not as if you playoff teams can't be involved in it, the only arguement is "We've never done it before." If that's the case why even have an ExCo or have any league debate over rules or roster adjustments or C-Balance etc.? The "just wait" one is equally dumb. My main point here was with the losing GM's waining activity - case in point with Ropers- and I'd like to see the newbies get their feet wet before they can trade their picks in November.

It just makes sense and there's no substantial argument against it that I've seen.

Of course you like the idea so much that there is not an argument against it that you would consider substantial.

Give me one then. All youve said is "wait six weeks" with no actual logic or reasoning behind it. And you can't even say the MLB doesn't allow it either. So please enlighten me since it was such a "dumb" idea to begin with then it should be easy to come up with a great counter arguement.

All I'm saying is that you don't change rules just for the sake of making lives easier, and that making this rule change, like any rule change, is going to have unanticipated side effects. That's just a fact of life, I don't like how we're blindly going through throwing things out there and saying "there's no good reason not to do this off the top of anyone's head, so let's just totally revamp the league structure." It already nearly bit us in the ass with the whole Bren thing (granted, I don't expect anyone to quit over this) but there's definitely potential for things getting complicated if someone has a SIM roster separate from their OOPSS roster. Imagine explaining this to a newbie, piling it on top of all the other crap about the rules in this league people have to understand.

RedSox wrote:The ExCo already voted on it once, it got shot down. I'll post another poll though.

I am still waiting to see the prior poll ...

It was an informal one JP did (i believe). He posted to the league in the hopes of generating some debate that would change the result.

I never made a poll just basically to generate discussion among the ExCos, brought it to the league, then the poll was made, so yeah Bren is pretty much correct here....except for the fact that we never voted on it, especially if we didn't count Jake's vote as being #5

I'm not sure, but is there a reason why Jim and Brett haven't voted o this yet? it would be nice to go to the league with a result and votes from all members.

RedSox wrote:I'm not sure, but is there a reason why Jim and Brett haven't voted o this yet? it would be nice to go to the league with a result and votes from all members.

I have not voted because I have been re-reading the various threads and making my mind up. Also I worked at the High School allday so I just got on a PC.

Initially I was leaning towards "No" as I just figured that there was not a problem with waiting 6 weeks ... now I am leaning towards "Yes" in part because I see absolutely no harm in allowing the trading to occur in the manner described and because it does appear to be an instrument that will maintain and possibly even increase non-playoff GMs' interest and activity in the league.

I will vote in the next few hours ...

Jim and Brett's votes are now irrelevant. A better poll would have been whether to allow it or not. Then the next poll should have been when.

Astros wrote:Jim and Brett's votes are now irrelevant. A better poll would have been whether to allow it or not. Then the next poll should have been when.

That's true ... it is very hard to get 5 votes supporting a position with three options.

Under JP's suggestion, however, the votes would likely be 5 - 1 "allow" vs. "not allow" and then 4 - 2 for "now" vs. "next year" so the results would be the same ....

If the results are 4-1-1 (whish is what I expected going in) then that seems to me to be an advocation of doing it next year. I don't think anyone who is in favor of the rule change wants it this year but not next, that would be silly.

it would be up to Jake as to when to implement it. Either way, the way this was setup was still flawed and made it nearly impossible to garner the 5 votes for this year by splitting it up this way.

I know Brett P is in favor of this immediatly so it's 4-1-1. Though Imay be mistaken but im 99.999999999% sure.

Not to be critical but posting a 3-way poll that requires five of six votes to do anything is a joke. This absolutely needs to go to league vote, those same three options, the one with the most votes wins. I'm recommending that it does. If ones of Bren's stupid oversized majorities needs to be met, vote, take the two top vote getters and vote again. This is the exact kind of thing, when the ExCo is 4-1-1, that needs to go to league vote.

I agree with the above post 200%

Oy vey... 4 votes for Yes, plus 1 for next year = Approval for next year. please tell me that doesn't seem even slightly complicated...

If you guys want to hold 2 or three votes to arrive at the same result, we can do that, this way just makes more sense IMO.