ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball => MLB Leagues => Armchair Fantasy Baseball: Archives => Topic started by: Fitzy1962 on October 10, 2013, 11:33:57 PM
-
In a 30 team league, how does it happen that such a small number of people control all the trades? Shouldn't it take a majority? % is not a majority in a 30 team league.
I manage leagues myself and in my opinion in 25 years of fanatasy sports, allowing a small few to veto deals is not a good thing.
And it's always the same people who are doing the vetoing. That's just not fair in any way shape or form and ruins the enjoyment of such a deep and complicated league and I feel is the real reason so many owners are quitting and have to be replaced each year. Over 20 of them since I joined in March.
This 5 team trade would never, ever be allowed in MLB and shouldn't be allowed here either. And these are the same owners who always block anyone else from trading...unless of course it's with one of them.
My trade was unfairly vetoed. A simple little deal that would not change the league power structure at all and yet 5 teams just swapped their entire rosters, all their draft picks, tons of cash both from the salary cap and the international monies, but my little deal and several others who are not members of this "inner circle" get vetoed for so many petty reasons all hidden behind the statement "equal value".
We cannot have these same 5 people controlling the trades. It's simply unfair and is the definition of collusion.
-
Thee is no inner circle here.
If you want you can take over the league. I will hand it over to you.
Everyone gets a voice. We have about 10 active owners who comment on most. If we made a TC it would include most of these members. So having a TC is exactly the same. Having the majority of a 30 team league control the veto power is ridiculous. I can't even get half of them to answer a poll. Nothing would ever get done.
Relax, chill out.....add a few picks to your deal and voila it's passed.
Please tone down the rude comments on the boards as they are not warranted. It's a free fantasy league that I have paid for on Fantrax for the new Premium League out of my on pocket. Just chill man.
-
Fitzy, really how often has Nicole, Larry or I vetoed a trade. In two + years we have maybe had a total of 5 vetoes. Please before you put out information know who you are talking about. We dont veto a trade unless it is totally one sided as in the Pujols deal last year. WE have nothing against you so please dont bash us.
-
And we did not even vote on the trade.
:doh:
Sorry about being so controlling of the league.
:toth:
Oh, I found this article about a possible 5 team trade last year...who knew????
http://www.fannation.com/truth_and_rumors/view/354203-five-team-trade-in-the-works
-
I don't know the history of the league since I'm new this year so I'll ask a similar question without the emotion of past wrongs.
What do we think the veto ratio should be? So maybe we don't ever get to the point where we have all 30 teams vote on a trade but if 13 teams vote and it's 10aye/3nay, is that enough to veto? What if those 3 happen to be veterans of the league longer? Would that matter?
It's be nice to know what the percentage is (ie, 70% of voters+traders have to approve a trade) before we start up again next season.
Thoughts?
-
Here is they way its laid out - http://www.profsl.com/smf/index.php?topic=46583.0
Basically it takes 1 veto to push the discussion to 72 hours. 3 or more vetoes for the right reasons and the trade can be overruled.
All things are taken into account including animosity because your trade wasn't put through. He said she said attitude doesn't cut it.
Most if not all trades go through. Since I have been here (only 1 year) I have seen 3 trades get vetoed.
Everyone also gets a voice. It is up to you as members of this league to make sure things are clear and fair. I am here as moderator (commish).
These rules work very well in any league I have run. Having a TC is basically the same thing but the other owners don't get a voice. It creates separation and a clique that I don't want.
As long as we defend our points they are all taken under consideration. There were good arguments on both sides of the latest vetoed trade. But in the end I felt as though the stronger arguments were for the veto. Like I said before it was close.
-
I know yahoolando is working through a 5-team trade but I'm not really looking for a response from him. PS, all 5 of you owe him a beer. I'm really looking for everyone else's thoughts. I'd like to get this ironed out before our next season starts.
We should make this more objective. Here's my thoughts:
The commissioner will be in charge of ruling on each trade. He will thoroughly and carefully look through every trade and consider every angle while reviewing a trade. There are guidelines as well.
Let it be a straight democracy based on % of nay votes per aye votes. I'd recommend 70%. It ensures that the rest of the NL East doesn't merely veto my trades to keep my crappy inherited team down.
3. If a trade is questioned for the right reasons that 48 hour clock will extend to 72 hours.
What determines "questioned for the right reasons "? Propose this just read "If a trade is vetoed, the 48 hour clock will extend to 72 hours." If it gets a veto, we extend to 72 and send the link out to everyone via message to solicit more votes either way.
4. If a decision is made by the commissioner and 3 members or more (not including the members involved in the trade) disagree with the ruling, it can be overruled.
Too subjective since it can be overruled. It allows the commissioner to be his own Trade Commission if he has a few people who agree with him. Also prevents accusation of 'cliques' if it's a straight % of voting teams.
Thoughts?
-
50% or more of responses
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)
-
70% works for me and is the basis of my trade ideology anyway. But for those of you like the numbers here its in black and white.
Total App Vote
Vote Need %
20 14 70% Like we will ever see 20 votes!
19 14 74%
18 13 72%
17 12 71%
16 12 75%
15 11 73%
14 10 71%
13 10 77% - So basically you can see here (3 vetoes and it usually won't pass just like I said)
12 9 75%
11 8 73%
10 7 70%
9 7 78%
8 6 75%
7 5 71%
6 5 83%
5 4 80%
4 3 75% - minimum votes to pass
-
70% works for me and is the basis of my trade ideology anyway. But for those of you like the numbers here its in black and white.
Total App Vote
Vote Need %
13 10 77% - So basically you can see here (3 vetoes and it usually won't pass just like I said)
I love the black and white numbers and think we should all agree to it. Also, the issue I had with the 3 vetoes was that the Trade Commission post (link above) says the commish only needs 3 people to back him up for it to be vetoed. The issue is having a one-man subjective opinion on what trades should go through. And that one man also happens to own a team in the league and might not want to have a team in the race or in his division get stronger. That's the subjectiveness why I thought we needed to come up with a black and white system.
-
I think it's clear the rules need to be tightened up and be more specific but it doesn't matter to me what the rules are as long as we follow them. I tend to side on the ability of managers to trade as they wish unless it's just so utterly lopsided as was the case with the Reds/Red Sox trade and even in that case I merely posted my objection without a veto.
The Reds manager has continued to go on an incoherent rant including statements that are flat out untrue. First, nobody in the five team trade vetoed the Reds trade. Second, the Reds are the only team currently trying to veto multiple trades. Third, charges of collusion to block his trades when the Pirates, Phillies, and Red Sox are all brand new owners who never vetoed his trade are so preposterous that I can't believe he seriously said that. Fourth, the Reds have thrown out the standard that such and such trade would never happen in real MLB when in fact Jose Fernandez, by himself, would never be traded for Aroldis Chapman, Yonder Alonso, and that bag of hammers the Reds were trying to send to the Red Sox. His claims have no merit even by the most liberal of standards.
-
We are going to role with the 70% vote for now with 4 vote minimum. I would like to see a 10 vote minimum in the future as I discussed with JR but we will get there in time.
Good discussion.
I will have to adjust the rules.
-
Adjusted Constitution to show 70% vote
:thumbsup:
-
So a trade still passes if there are no vetoes after 48 hours? If there is a veto within 48 hours then a 70% vote is needed to pass? I'd still like there to be a minimum 2 or 3 vetoes. In fact I think a majority is the best way to go, if two vetoes then three yes votes to pass. I don't think one owner should be allowed to derail a trade by himself.
-
So a trade still passes if there are no vetoes after 48 hours? If there is a veto within 48 hours then a 70% vote is needed to pass? I'd still like there to be a minimum 2 or 3 vetoes. In fact I think a majority is the best way to go, if two vetoes then three yes votes to pass. I don't think one owner should be allowed to derail a trade by himself.
3 to 2 vote there is no way that passes. It would stay on the board for more discussion. You want activity then vote.
For 2 vetoes within 48 hours I would need to see at least 5 approvals to pass, not that difficult in a 30 team league.
Granted the veto needs to come with a reason just like a trade does. No decent reason then no veto. No decent reason then no trade.
Yes there is some subjectivity but when you have certain GMs just vetoing for the sake of it that is why we have a commish.
-
Am new to the league so still to fully experience the process working. However if we are revisiting the rules, then I agree with the proposed idea of moving to the need for at least two, rather than one, initial vetoes.
Requiring just one seems to much of a hostage to fortune, and two would, hopefully, make the process more effective and consistent.
-
Am new to the league so still to fully experience the process working. However if we are revisiting the rules, then I agree with the proposed idea of moving to the need for at least two, rather than one, initial vetoes.
Requiring just one seems to much of a hostage to fortune, and two would, hopefully, make the process more effective and consistent.
You are a voice of reason and a fine gentleman. :toast:
-
Holy crap. Common sense is prevailing. You people are awesome!