ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Rules Changes => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: RB Revision-2015 => Topic started by: BHows on September 20, 2015, 11:39:12 AM
-
Phase 2 of the Rule Book Revision is open for discussion.
The topics are:
Salary Cap Structure (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=234290.0)
MLB Effects (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=234295.0)
Committees (http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=234681.0)
The first two are mainly structural but "Committees" contains a lot of new information. Again, the original rules are in black with any proposed changes in red.
Please feel free to discuss on this thread. Discussion will be open for a minimum of 1 week.
-
First I'd like to say is great job on the rewriting of the rules Rick! I think we can all agree that updating the rules is needed and I do appreciate the time you are putting in.
I do have a couple questions pertaining to the rules for trade approval and the trade committee. My first question is in the new rules under Item VI C-1.0 point 5 it says that a TC member may be replaced if there is a continued measure of inactivity. Do you think we need to define what constitutes inactivity? Is it simply commissioner's discretion or should we put a threshold in place? Maybe something like failure to vote on 3-4 trades in a row comes an activity warning and after that replacement?
My second question has to do with the trade approval/veto process. As we all know there was a well documented dispute over one of my trades late in the season. Do you think we need to have a minimum amount of votes built in on a trade? I don't think one vote should be the deciding factor on somebody's trade. I do recognize the rule stating simple majority but I do believe there should be a minimum amount of votes in any trade. Maybe if after 48 hours if the minimum amount of votes are not met the trade stays on the board for another 24 hours and the TC members are contacted to vote?
Again, great job to you and Flash for taking on the thankless job of keeping this league going. I appreciate all your efforts.
-
As far as I know, the only mention of inactivity is in Item AI B-1.0 "Failure to do so may result in your dismissal if you don't respond to PMs within 2 weeks." I remember a long discussion on the issue and, at one point, Jake actually monitored activity.
I'm not sure activity is the issue though. I'm not so sure that no vote at all isn't a TC member's way of vetoing a trade without the involvement.
As far as the single vote- Item VI C-2.0 Line 6 does say "If the 48 hour time period passes, the trade will be ruled valid if it receives at least two approvals." As I'm sure you know, that was part of an amendment that was passed recently. It is part of the rules as currently written and would need to be amended at a later date. What I am trying to do now is basically reorganizing.
-
Since we are discussing the matter, I would chime in that I believe our Trade Approval Process works as it is written and there is no need for any further amendments.
Going back through league archives, the trade approval process has been a long-standing issue. In December 2013 to January 2014, a controversy emerged over a trade between the Reds and the White Sox. There were two things at issue: length of time on the FGM board without approval and approval of a trade that had three vetoes (two of the vetoes posted had no explanation).
In October of 2014, in a trade between the Phillies and the Rockies, the issue of approval surfaced again. This time it concerned minimum approvals--the trade received 4 approvals and two vetoes. The Trade Committee had 7 members and a TC member was involved in the trade, so the trade was disapproved by the Commissioner because it did not receive a minimum of 5 approvals (and not because it received 2 vetoes). The reasons for a veto were also questioned, with the main objection being that GMs should be able to manage their teams the way they want.
The current Trade Approval Process was adopted in February 2015 by consensus of the Trade Committee. It has effectively dealt with the issue of timely approval with the use of the 48 hour window. While setting a five vote approval as goal for the Trade Committee, it has been established that a two vote minimum can be used as a viable approval standard if there is only one veto. It has also been established that two vetoes constitute an automatic disapproval and required a posting of a rationale for a given veto. Of course, what constitutes a fair trade, and why a veto is rendered, will continue to be at issue because the perspective of a TC member is a variable that cannot be standardized.
The disputed trade referenced is one between the Reds and the Phillies. That misunderstanding
centered on the difference between a disapproval and an invalidation. Even though a second veto was posted 24 hours after the 48 hour window expired (along with an approval), the trade was not vetoed. It simply did not get the necessary votes, for or against, in the established time frame and was moved to the Invalid Transactions section. The trade was left on the board for 60 hours before any action was taken, and it could have been reposted if either GM had so desired. Although my explanation at the time was dismissed as spin at the time, it nonetheless, points to the implementation and whether the process works. Without seeking to stir up any old arguments, I would offer that we have established a working model for other leagues to follow, and after using it this past season, we have demonstrated that it works.
In regards to activity, there are a variety of times when I send PM's to the Trade Committee members when there is a trade on the board. There have been other times when participating GMs send a similar PM to all Trade Committee members to garner the necessary votes.
-
I have tried to make trades as visible as I can and have also contacted TC members regarding trades on the board.
As far as I'm concerned I feel that it's totally legitimate for GMs to contact TC members personally about trades they have pending.