Trade Up for Review

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 2:52 pm

The following trade:
Indians trade John Maine to Rockies for Akinori Otsuka, Fernando Rodney
Was approved by the TRC but has been challenged.
A 2/3 Majority is required to overturn the approval (20 votes) and 1/3 to uphold the TRC decision (10 votes).
Bear in mind this trade involves a new member (Cleveland) and as such is subject to stricter requirements.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:43 pm

Question...

Are TRC members who already approved the deal allowed to reverse their vote?!?

Just wondering...if not, any vote should start off with the people who already approved the deal + the Gm's involved that already approved it.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:48 pm

All GM's are allowed to vote however they choose. If a GM involved in the trade chooses to vote against the Deal then he is entitled to do so.
However, the Trade Submission and TRC votes are one time, binding decisions, which is why TRC members should not rush hastily into any decisions, which from what was said on the other thread, it does not seem that they did. I got the impression all three seriously weighed the merits of the trade, which is all that can be truly asked of them.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 7:13 am

So in other words, if someone on the TRC originally approved the deal, they are then allowed to vote against it in a league vote?

I've seen "herd mentality" make some of the brightest fellows second guess themselves in the past.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:38 am

Which is no more or less likely than someone stubbornly sticking to their guns in spite of information which they may not have considered before.
Everyone is free to vote however they choose.

Reds · Post by **Reds** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:41 am

Rockies wrote:So in other words, if someone on the TRC originally approved the deal, they are then allowed to vote against it in a league vote?

I've seen "herd mentality" make some of the brightest fellows second guess themselves in the past.

Not real sure who you are referring to here, but as I had previously stated I was poised to vote against it but it had already gone through, therefore I could not vote. What everyone else does has nothing to do with what I do on votes of this type.

Also, if a TRC member receives more information to consider between the two votes that would persuade them to reverse their original vote that seems like it would be okay to do.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:52 am

I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.

I was thinking that the league vote should only be open to people who have not already voted on the issue.

The other information to be considered, most the time, is the opinions of other GM's, which could easily sway a TRC member to reverse their initial educated vote.

And this isn't just because I'm involved in the trade at hand, it's something that I've thought about for a while.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:16 am

It's been discussed before and dismissed. A league wide vote, by definition, includes everyone in the league. Everyone gets a say. Just because someone is running for office or has a proposal for a law does not mean they don't get to vote, even though it may be obvious how they'll vote.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:25 am

But that person can't vote 2X... Or pull their vote out of the ballot box and replace it with a different one.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:34 am

Yeah but its a different vote. A veto is a seperate vote than the original, and in a veto congressman or whoever you wanna compare it to are free to jump the fence and switch sides however they see fit.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 11:45 am

Good point.

Not trying to raise a stink...I just thought it was an interesting discussion point.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:07 pm

It is, but for many of us, it's one that's been held before so it becomes less interesting and more tedious.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:35 pm

The older the league gets, the more it's going to happen.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Oct 24, 2007 1:21 pm

It's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 2:48 pm

I suppose that's a veto then.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:00 pm

Looks like it

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:06 pm

Yup, it's official.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:12 pm

We've got a revised version that might be coming through soon, so let me know when the players are back and we'll resubmit when we figure things out.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:03 pm

I'll have the players back tomorrow morning.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:05 am

Let me know when it happens, because we've agreed on a revised deal, and want to submit.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:24 am

Should be good to go.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:41 am

As an interesting following up on this deal.

The Rangers Non-tendered Otsuka. Will be interesting to see how confident other teams are in Otsuka after checking out his medical reports on that shoulder.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:51 am

The Rangers should have committed to rebuilding a long time ago. Otsuka had decent value, but they wanted top prospects for him. They were greedy and have nothing to show.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:05 am

Rockies wrote:The Rangers should have committed to rebuilding a long time ago. Otsuka had decent value, but they wanted top prospects for him. They were greedy and have nothing to show.

.....or they just didn't think his shoulder was worth risking $3+ million on this season.

If they really thought he was healthy, they could have easily tendered him a deal and then traded him during the season to a playoff team in need of a bullpen arm for solid prospects.

As I said originally, the Rangers actions when it came time to tender him would speak volumes as to their true feelings regarding his shoulder.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:30 am

No way to sugarcoat it - Ropers is 100% dead on balls accurate.