ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
Fantasy Leagues => Franchise GM: Archives => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB Leagues => Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits => Topic started by: Colby on October 19, 2009, 05:31:49 PM
-
Should we establish a trade committee? We haven't had one as of yet and all trades have been fair at time of dealing. However, it may be worthwhile to have a 3-person TC of the most active people just to make sure there is no collusion. Now, I, myself, do this, so if the RC is content with the way things are then they will stay that way. I just through it was worthwhile to bring it up.
-
I'll agree to this. All trades have been extremely fair so far, but we must do everything we can to avoid any collusion or uneven advantages. One trade is all it takes for some members to cause an uproar. I'll also agree that a three member committee is sufficient, although we should also include 2 substitute members, should TC members wish to trade with themselves.
-
I'll agree to this. All trades have been extremely fair so far, but we must do everything we can to avoid any collusion or uneven advantages. One trade is all it takes for some members to cause an uproar. I'll also agree that a three member committee is sufficient, although we should also include 2 substitute members, should TC members wish to trade with themselves.
I like that... let 2 of 3 qualifying members on the TC approve a trade before the commissioner signs off on it. Should I be on the TC or not? Who would want to be on the TC?
Based on activity, I would nominate Jake (LAA), Chad (CLE), Ben (MIL), and two of the newer GMs such as Jon (ATL) and Dan (CIN).
-
Since you will be overviewing trades, as well as TC votes, you really do have the final say, Colby. I would like to have you as the TC's failsafe. It's a pretty big power to have, but you are not one to abuse such a power. My request would like to have 5 members on TC, 3 of which are designated official with 2 substitutes, with Colby as commissioned overseer of TC, with the power to override TC approvals or denials based on his final judgment. This will prevent any collusion between TC members, should there ever be a case of "you do this trade, then we can do this."
-
Since you will be overviewing trades, as well as TC votes, you really do have the final say, Colby. I would like to have you as the TC's failsafe. It's a pretty big power to have, but you are not one to abuse such a power. My request would like to have 5 members on TC, 3 of which are designated official with 2 substitutes, with Colby as commissioned overseer of TC, with the power to override TC approvals or denials based on his final judgment. This will prevent any collusion between TC members, should there ever be a case of "you do this trade, then we can do this."
Sounds like a plan... who wants in?
-
As a side note, we should definitely explain this in our league rules to the very best of our ability. The jist of it:
A trade between two teams is submitted to the Trade Committee, consisting of three respected members. If one party of the trade is a member of the TC, he will be substituted with a designated replacement. If both parties of a trade are members of the TC, they will be substituted with designated replacements.
The trade will either be approved (minimum 2 votes needed) and sent to the Commissioner (Colby, Pirates GM) for final review, or will be denied. Any TC member who votes "deny" must provide a legitimate reason for the denial, no questions asked.
The Commissioner will review the trade and it's approval by the TC, and either push it through as approved, or will declare it denied. The Commissioner must provide a legitimate reason for a denial, no questions asked.
REVISION: Should the TC approve a trade, but the Commissioner deny it, the trade will be passed to the remaining 27 (or 26, if all three TC members voted) for a democratic vote. If the final vote reaches a 2/3 majority (Eighteen votes if 27 members involved, seventeen if 26 members involved), the trade will be subjected to the majority vote.
This will ensure that the TC and Commissioner have failsafes. Granted, this will rarely, if ever happen. But this will ensure that the league is at it's fairest, and that all trades are thoroughly analyzed.
-
that is the way to go.
-
I would not mind helping out at all. However; I think most of you know how many dynasty leagues I'm in and I've seen every kind of trade committee you could imagine. I propose this. On a simple player A for player B trade there should not need to be a committe to say yea or nay. If it's one that seems off kilter in any kind of way then Colby would select three (active) random GM's to vote on the trade. The random GM's are NEVER to be released and will only be known by themselves and Colby. Then if a trade is shot down the two trading GM's have no one to "point the finger" at per se. Thoughts???
-
I agree that this is a good idea... If our TC consists of trusted members, I think only 1 deny vote should be sufficient to raise a red-flag. I'm ok with the proposed rule, but to offer up a slightly different option:
I agree with the proposals for a 3 member committee with 2 alternates for when a TC member is involved in the trade.
1. If all 3 votes are approve, the trade goes to the Commish for final approval.
a) if Commish approves, trade is processed
b) if Commish rejects, trade is canceled
2. If any votes are deny
a) TC must provide detailed justification as to why the trade constitutes collusion***
b) Owners involved are required to justify their motives behind the trade
c) Commish reviews the responses and decides if the trade should be approved or denied
in the rare case of 1. b) or 2. c), where the TC does not accept the Commissioner's decision by a 2/3 TC vote, a league-wide vote is enacted, also requiring 2/3 vote for the Commissioner's decision to be overturned. At this point, the league-wide vote is final. However, such a situation would be a clear exhibition of a lack of continuity and leadership among the rule-setting members of the league and should be avoided unless absolutely necessary.
Like I said, just another spin on what we could implement.
*** To be overturned, the trade must appear to be collusion; a single bad trade between teams is not necessarily collusion and should be considered for approval. With 30 managers, opinions on players and strategy may vary widely and this should not be discouraged.
-
I would not mind helping out at all. However; I think most of you know how many dynasty leagues I'm in and I've seen every kind of trade committee you could imagine. I propose this. On a simple player A for player B trade there should not need to be a committe to say yea or nay. If it's one that seems off kilter in any kind of way then Colby would select three (active) random GM's to vote on the trade. The random GM's are NEVER to be released and will only be known by themselves and Colby. Then if a trade is shot down the two trading GM's have no one to "point the finger" at per se. Thoughts???
Interesting approach...
Personally, I would prefer any veto's be transparent - if the TC members are not okay with owners possibly taking offense to a vetoed trade they should not be a member of the TC. Remember that in the case of a trade actually being vetoed, the trading partners will have displayed clear signs of collusion and should probably be considered for dismissal from the league.
-
The main reason that I suggested that is because although nothing may be stated, you may have some owners who got vetoed that would not trade with the GM who vetoed it and so forth and so on. I'm the new guy of course and you guys know each other best. Just trying to assist.
-
Good idea Jon, but as Ben mentioned, thus far, we generally prefer transparency in the game.
-
I would certainly be willing to serve on the TC, but already serving on the RC (which I prefer) perhaps someone else should have the opportunity (separation of powers between Legislative and Judicial :USA: ).
-
Speaking of which. Please let me know if I can help as well.
-
I would certainly be willing to serve on the TC, but already serving on the RC (which I prefer) perhaps someone else should have the opportunity (separation of powers between Legislative and Judicial :USA: ).
I'll agree to this also. I would enjoy being on the TC, but we should keep the two branches separate. However, it is my belief that we have yet to establish 5 trusted members to the TC, if we are to look for members outside the RC. Some are active and on the right track though. So I propose that the RC vote on TC members. A majority vote (4) will be required to allow a member to be a part of the TC. Failure to uphold proper judgement while being on the TC may result in the RC calling for a vote of termination from the TC, or, if bad enough, the league.
And I'll agree with you, Ben, on the fact of using a league wide vote only as a last resort. But it is best to include it, we do not want anyone that is not a member of the RC or TC to feel cheated by not having a say in such matters at any point during the process.
-
I'll agree to this also. I would enjoy being on the TC, but we should keep the two branches separate. However, it is my belief that we have yet to establish 5 trusted members to the TC, if we are to look for members outside the RC. Some are active and on the right track though. So I propose that the RC vote on TC members. A majority vote (4) will be required to allow a member to be a part of the TC. Failure to uphold proper judgement while being on the TC may result in the RC calling for a vote of termination from the TC, or, if bad enough, the league.
Maybe a good option would be to have the owners nominated by Colby serve during this off-season, and then before next season starts we'll elect the TC (which must consist of non RC owners). Then we'll have a much better sample to work from when electing owners.
-
Maybe a good option would be to have the owners nominated by Colby serve during this off-season, and then before next season starts we'll elect the TC (which must consist of non RC owners). Then we'll have a much better sample to work from when electing owners.
My man Ben, meeting halfway. :koolaid: I'll agree with this proposal.
-
As noted in the transactions forum, the RC will serve as the TC for the remainder of the off-season. We will nominate (per their acceptance) other GMs to be on the TC in January.
-
Okay, so who will be on the TC for 2010?
-
Okay, so who will be on the TC for 2010?
Maybe we should create a topic for each member to submit their name to be nominated? I don't if a member would like being nominated for a job he might not want to do. :koolaid:
-
Maybe we should create a topic for each member to submit their name to be nominated? I don't if a member would like being nominated for a job he might not want to do. :koolaid:
I can do it.