Do We Want a TC?

[rcankosy]

Lately, we have been having a lot of arguments over trades that are vetoed by the TC, so I thought I would put this out for discussion.  I'm not sure whether discussion should be limited to the RC or the league in general.  I will leave that decision to Colby.  It's a tough question.  I have no doubt that the TC would prevent some really bad deals from otherwise going through, but I also see the frustration on the other side, because there does not seem to be any consistency or real objectivity being exercised.  There is no doubt that horrible deals have been approved in the past when collusion was the primary deciding factor in approving deals.  Unfortunately, even recently there have been some questionable deals as well.

We had a TC in my other favorite dynasty league, and it was disbanded when a few owners complained about unequal treatment.  With that said, I think that equal treatment takes precedent over bad deals, so I would support a measure to disband the TC.  In its place, I would ask Colby himself to over-turn deals that he believes are not in the best interests of the league.  He can reach out to the RC if he's not sure.  This is how it works in my other leagues where the commissioner is the sole arbiter.  I just don't see how the current system will work given the bad deals that have been approved in the past.  It's looking more and more like some of the teams "got theirs" in the past, and new guys like the Yanks are being prevented from making lop-sided deals in their favor.

[Colby]

Intersting point.  I don't want to be administering the ruling on every single trade.  I want to hear other opinions first.

[MillerTime]

I am fine with doing away with the TC, but will tell you that no matter what there will be someone that is against the new system and it will be picked apart and discussed. 

Another option is a league vote on each trade.  Requires 50 - 75% of the league to vote and then a majority to pass.  Clear cut. 

It would also potentially increase activity, but also could delay trades for days. 

I would like to mention that only a month ago the argument was strongly in favor of the TC making sure that teams not get ruined by new managers.  As the wind blows, someone comes up with an argument and things sway back and forth.  I truly believe that no matter what there will be someone arguing the other side of the argument.  Often this league will just discuss until it kills a subject.

It also funny that the new manager calls this league a bunch of Sharks.  Maybe we should create a thread called, "Not being a shark", we can discuss how GMs approach trades and why we make a new GM feel this way. 

[OUDAN]

colby i dont care if there is a TC in fact i think there should be one, my issue is i think some in the TC may reject deals that could help their competition. Also the other problem is they arent help accountable to anyone so there is no need to be consistent.
i am really on my soap box right now because i am potentially gonna lose a deal that i love
 :soapbox:

[h4cheng]

I still think is a need for TC to ensure that the balance of the league is not upset through trades. It's not a good idea to have one person (Colby) making all the decisions as he will simply be overwhelmed.

And this whole non-sense about who's a shark and who is not shark, WTF? This isn't kindergarden where everyone wins, it's a competition. If I see a market inefficiency, I am going to exploit it to my advantage. We shouldn't have to as Dan puts it, baby proof every GM office. As long as a move GMs understands the ramifications and it does not severely upset the balance of the league, the trade should be approved (Belt trade is an example of this).

There's always going to be good and bad teams in a league. The GMs of the bad teams eventually leave or become inactive, paving away for competent new GMs (e.g, KC and BAL).

The key in this is to find good GMs. No offense but exchanging messages isn't really indicative of how good or bad a GM is, it's just shows the guy can type. I think it's time to put stringent control on who we let into this league (how about a more formalized form where each GM would have to fill out along with some skill testing questions. E.g., Here is the Belt trade, break it down for us, why would you do it or not do it). I would rather have a team rot in inactivity rather then being taken over by an incompetent GM.

[Dan Wood]

I think we need a TC, but I think it should be 1 team from each division. Or it could also be the 3 most senior members of the league, if they want it. A league wide vote is another way to go - but I doubt it would work in such a timely fashion with such a large league.

Another stipulation to trades would be that only the members of the TC and the teams involved in the transaction are allowed to post for said transaction. I have been guilty of this, but a lot of recent trades have been victim of fan interference. I think what it comes down to is that when you evaluate a trade, not to let personal evaluations get in the way of another GMs evaluations of players. Also anyone who is involved with trade talks about a player switching teams, should not be allowed to vote due to a conflict of interest.

In two very recent trades, GMs valued players (Weeks, Belt) either differently than the TC and that did cause some problems. I personally value several players on my team differently than others in the league, and paid the cost to obtain them, it's just how it works.


 - 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.

[OUDAN]

dan once again i agree with you
 :iatp:

[rcankosy]

Owners commenting in this thread appear to want a TC, but what exactly do you want the TC to do?  I read one owner last night say that a trade should be approved because 1) the owner told us why he did the trade and 2) different owners want different things in trades.  Also, I keep reading that such and such trade should be approved because there were worse trades approved in the past.  Those are the same arguments that killed the TC in my other league.  I think the only way the TC will work is if we collectively decide on how they should make rulings in the future.

Should they ignore the precedent of prior trades?
Should they approve a trade even if they disagree with the owner's reason for making the trade?

The TC needs firm direction or we all will be arguing about trades until Doomsday.

[Brewers GM]

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?

[Dan Wood]

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?

Well said Ben
 :iatp: