Do We Want a TC?

[Brewers GM]

- Completely different suggestion - I think we need a sort of welcoming committee to new members to the league. The Rockies first two trades brought quite an ire out of several members and could have been avoided if he had someone to discuss them with - I know personally I have several friends that I can get their opinion on a trade that I am contemplating. I think that option should be there for new members until they get into the swing of things.

It is one thing for members to look out for other members and treat them with courtesy and respect, but as Howe said this is a competition...unless we all just want to do away with records.

We can assign mentors to all new owners, where our more successful and respected GMs can advise the new guys as they get a feel for the league.  They can bounce off future plans, trade offers they've received or intend to make, extensions, cuts, anything... I think this would have helped avoid the Rockies situations and would help the competitive balance in general.

It does not need to be formal, it can be as simple as Colby asking people he thinks would be a good fit to volunteer as we go and introducing them the new GMs, but having a dedicated person the new GM can trust in could go a long way.

[28]

i think this would be a good idea to have the mentors for the new people

[MOLI643]

I think the griping over the TC is similar to griping over the rules ... FGM has been around long enough now that the honeymoon period is over, people have developed a sense of entitlement and personal grudges are influencing our decisions. 

At some point, we need to put a foot down and say this is FGM, it is what it is, if you don't like it don't play.  We can make minor adjustments along the way, but the constant churning of rules is getting out of hand.  How far do we go down this path until we lose what made the league so great in the first place?

I also agree with this position.  I can add that It may be a good idea, if we setup some kind of 3 or 6 or what ever time we think is necessary to evaluate TC members performance

[Jon]

please forgive me for chiming in on this.  I know that I am not affiliated with this league in any way.  I know that this league has some outstanding owners in here. 

I have had this question asked of me in my leagues about the TC's.  I know eventually I have to address this as well as some members feel that TC members have agendas.  I have always loved the idea of TC members.  I am just very happy to see that in this league you guys are confronting this head on.

Trust me, when I say, that what you guys do in here and how you decided to handle this will have a ripple down affect in many leagues including mine.  I have thought about doing away with the TC's in my leagues just because I feel bad for a TC member that feels that they have defend there position when in many cases they are just trying to protect the league that they love. 

I just wanted to say thank you for addressign this issue publicly

[Colby]

I agree with Ben, Dan, and am glad Jon chimed in. One idea that I had last year was a professional TC endorsed by ProFSL used by multiple leagues.  Participating leagues would move trades to a special board.  Pro TC members who have a knowledge of the rules of participating leagues as well as their scoring systems would vote on the trade and provide reasons why they approve or veto.  Trades do not necessarily have to have equal value as everyone values players differently.  The TC is paid in the form of ProFSL points for that sport's Invitational.  Once a decision is made, the trade thread is moved back to the transactions board of the league.  Players involved in the pending trade may not be moved while trade is in the voting stage.  The TC board could be ten people deep with perhaps only four approvals needed so that a trade doesn't need to wait for every TC member to vote.  This speeds up the process for all leagues and adds a governing body outside the league.

[MillerTime]

I agree with Ben, Dan, and am glad Jon chimed in. One idea that I had last year was a professional TC endorsed by ProFSL used by multiple leagues.  Participating leagues would move trades to a special board.  Pro TC members who have a knowledge of the rules of participating leagues as well as their scoring systems would vote on the trade and provide reasons why they approve or veto.  Trades do not necessarily have to have equal value as everyone values players differently.  The TC is paid in the form of ProFSL points for that sport's Invitational.  Once a decision is made, the trade thread is moved back to the transactions board of the league.  Players involved in the pending trade may not be moved while trade is in the voting stage.  The TC board could be ten people deep with perhaps only four approvals needed so that a trade doesn't need to wait for every TC member to vote.  This speeds up the process for all leagues and adds a governing body outside the league.

Colby,

We discussed this before and it seems like it may be time for it.  This would allow the Trade to basically be outsourced for evaluation and take the burden and liability off of the league.

Jon brought up a great point that reinforces your idea even more.   

I believe that this would require greater detail from each GM on why the trade is being completed, but that shouldn't be hard. 

 

[MillerTime]

I think the griping over the TC is similar to griping over the rules ... FGM has been around long enough now that the honeymoon period is over, people have developed a sense of entitlement and personal grudges are influencing our decisions. 

At some point, we need to put a foot down and say this is FGM, it is what it is, if you don't like it don't play.  We can make minor adjustments along the way, but the constant churning of rules is getting out of hand.  How far do we go down this path until we lose what made the league so great in the first place?

 

This is very well said, hopefully the league will embrace this statement and end the constant questioning.  Minor improvements are good and ultimately this may make a better TC situation, but it seems like there has been one issue after another this year.   

[Dan Wood]

Colby I'm on board with your suggestion.

[Colby]

I actually reached out to Rob about this last year, so he was already on board with my idea.  The one issue with any participating league is to trust the ProFSL TC to understand the rules of the league.  This is why these members will be rewarded handsomely with ProFSL points.  Plus, just replying with is no good for these TC members... they need to explain their thoughts on the trade for all parties involved.  If we have enough people on board for this, then this is something that I want to pursue and make an executive decision upon.  Hopefully Jon would be interested, and I am sure we could start off with a ProFSL Baseball TC that oversees trades in Franchise GM, Dynasty MLB Elite, Fantasy Baseball Fanatics, Agents vs. GMs, New Era, High Heat, NL Only Dynasty, and perhaps other leagues.

The activity of this pro-TC is fairly heavy, so I would award a fairly good amount of points to the group in total (30,000 to 50,000 points).  I wouldn't mind staying out of the pro-TC as I could then manage its staff and rate the members (thus how points are awarded and people are hired/fired for the job).  Questions to consider...

How many people should be on the staff?
Should there be a minimum amount of time (24, 48, 72 hours) that a trade should sit as pending until it is sent back to the league?
How many people need to vote on a trade?
How many approvals are needed to pass a trade?
How many vetoes are required to reject a trade?

[rcankosy]

How many people should be on the staff?
Should there be a minimum amount of time (24, 48, 72 hours) that a trade should sit as pending until it is sent back to the league?
How many people need to vote on a trade?
How many approvals are needed to pass a trade?
How many vetoes are required to reject a trade?

5
48 hours
5
3
3