Trade Committee Discussion

[EastCoastGonzo]

After extensive discussion the Commissioners Office has decided to make a change to the trade approval process. The Office would like to propose three options to voted on by the league. We would like to vote on this and have a rule change in place following the trade deadline, since after July 31st there are only waiver wire trades. Or immediately after the world series, depending on how long the discussion lasts.

The current rule:

Trades will be reviewed by a 7 member trade committee.  They must pass the trade committee with 4 approvals if less than 2 members of the committee are involved. Trades must receive a majority approval if 2 members are involved in the trade. Trades can be vetoed with 2 votes. Two vetoes overrides 4 approvals.  If 4 approvals are not received, but the trade has fewer than two vetoes within 72 hours, the trade can be approved by the commissioner.

Proposed rule change:

1. Change members of the trade committee, keep the same number at 7, mandate all members of the committee voting yes or no within 72 hours of trade being posted.

2. Change the number of members of the trade committee from 7 to 4, mandate all members of the committee voting yes or no within 72 hours of trade being posted.

3. Eliminate the Trade Committee. All trades will be Approved or Vetoed by the Commissioners Office within 24 hours of trade being posted. In practice nearly all trades will be approved except in the case of collusion OR a trade that is so lopsided it would damage the integrity of the league. Should a trade be vetoed the Commissioners Office would provide a detailed explanation of why.


If you have other suggestions please post them below.

[Shannonlwalker2]

Being fairly new still,  I don't even know who makes up the current trade committee.   I don't know the reasoning behind why we would need to make the changes.   I DO think, in a league this size, there should be a group of people in charge.   7 seems like a good number.   I for sure will not vote on a 1 "commissioner rule all"     but I would mind a little more clarity as to why the current 7 could/should be replaced.

[EastCoastGonzo]

Being fairly new still,  I don't even know who makes up the current trade committee.   I don't know the reasoning behind why we would need to make the changes.   I DO think, in a league this size, there should be a group of people in charge.   7 seems like a good number.   I for sure will not vote on a 1 "commissioner rule all"     but I would mind a little more clarity as to why the current 7 could/should be replaced.

Our league structure is posted here:

http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=348397.0

Currently the trade committee is comprised of:

Vik
firemanx
Brian - indiansnation
Shane - Sully31
Brent - Brent
Gonzalo - EastCoastGonzo
Ryan - RyanJames5



Not every member of the committee is currently active everyday, so there are a number of members who haven't voted in a while or who don't always vote.

The reasoning comes from a change in the way fantasy leagues work. Many leagues have begun switching over to a system where pretty much all trades are approved unless collusion or league integrity are challenged. The thinking being why should your competition have a say in if you can make a trade or not.

Making the committee smaller would make it a quicker process and guarantee a smoother transaction. Getting 7 active members on the trade committee has been difficult for many years.

[tdtdtd]

My complaint is that it is possible to kill a trade without a single veto vote posted. I don't mind any of the changes proposed (or staying the same) as long as the committee actually has to at least say that they are vetoing the trade (adding at least a sentence or two of reasoning would be nice too) instead of silently killing the trade by refusing to approve it. I think it should take at least 1 veto vote to block a trade.

I am also new to the league and should have read the rules more carefully since I just assumed that non-votes were counted as approvals or not at all. Which is part of why I was annoyed when one of my trades didn't go through with 2 approvals and 0 vetoes.

[ldsjayhawk]

Wow! I did not know this rule had changed since I was in the league last.  I am sorry for the confusion that may have come from me voting on trades that I should not have been.

I know this is a hotly debated rule here.  I don't know that approvals for trades should go from 7 of your opponents to having one of your opponents holding all of the power in their hands.  Those of us who remember chrisetc know that if he had the singular power to approve or deny trades, those who were his vocal opponents would have never gotten trades through.  I believe that trade committees here need to be more defined in scope, i.e. specifically define what is an acceptable trade vs not.  Hold trade committee members accountable (if they do not vote, they are removed).  Maybe provide for some kind of appeal if a trade is vetoed. 

Also, I think the time frame should be 48 hours.  24 is too short and 72 is too long.

[RyanJames5]

I do agree with holding TC members accountable.  I make an effort to vote on every trade, but know I've missed here or then when I'm not on for a day or two consecutively. 

I think the best thing we can do with the TC is find a way to make it consistent.  Every single trade that goes thorough sets a precedent for what is acceptable and what isn't.  I know these are not black and white, but whether the decision is made by 1 person, 4 people or 7 people, if we're inconsistent in our rulings, it makes no difference. 

We can't in theory go back and figure out what that precedent is, but we can set a standard going forward.  If the TC is only going to veto trades that are egregiously bad or seem to have collusion involved, I'm ok with that, we just need to put that standard in writing and follow it.  If we're going to evaluate trades more strictly than that and attempt to make some sort of ruling on achieving fair value, I like that less, but can live with it, if we maintain that standard and don't keep someone on the TC that just rubber stamps everything. 

 

[Sully31]

Personally, I always approach these trades as I?m only going to veto in the most egregious lopsided trades that jeopardize the integrity of the league or in case of collusion. In the past the league has basically operated as non votes are like approvals. I?ve seen trades approved after having zero votes from TC because it wasn?t about the approvals, it was the number of (or absence of) vetos. Having trades not getting approved because of lack of votes is a new development in the enforcement of the rule book. Of course, changing or enforcing rules more strictly is fine, it?s just a departure from what some of the guys who have been around here for a long time May be used to in this particular case of the TC.

Like ldsjayhawk said, we used to have a guy who?s constant biased vetos sorta was the reason we had to create a TC. I?m actually ok with commish having approval power but in that case there should be some sort of mechanism that if someone within the league objects then the trade is then put up to vote with a requiring approval %and min number of votes to pass. Or maybe then a TC is called upon and PMs are sent out for all to vote on that specific questionable trade.

In any event, I think it?s more about getting everybody on the same page as far as how we want it to be done

[EastCoastGonzo]

Like ldsjayhawk said, we used to have a guy who?s constant biased vetos sorta was the reason we had to create a TC. I?m actually ok with commish having approval power but in that case there should be some sort of mechanism that if someone within the league objects then the trade is then put up to vote with a requiring approval %and min number of votes to pass. Or maybe then a TC is called upon and PMs are sent out for all to vote on that specific questionable trade.

In any event, I think it?s more about getting everybody on the same page as far as how we want it to be done

I like this idea about a hybrid. Maybe something like trades are approved by the commissioners office but ANYONE can object within 24 or 48 hours, at which point it goes to a 5 person trade committee  that must vote yes or no, and it takes 3 yes votes to pass.

[Brent]

I like this idea about a hybrid. Maybe something like trades are approved by the commissioners office but ANYONE can object within 24 or 48 hours, at which point it goes to a 5 person trade committee  that must vote yes or no, and it takes 3 yes votes to pass.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

[Vik]

I like this idea about a hybrid. Maybe something like trades are approved by the commissioners office but ANYONE can object within 24 or 48 hours, at which point it goes to a 5 person trade committee  that must vote yes or no, and it takes 3 yes votes to pass.

   Great discussion and feedback overall here. Taking things into consideration I also think this seems like it might be best way to go.