ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues
ProFSL Front Office => Franchise GM: Archives => Franchise GM: History Books => Franchise GM => MLB DYNASTY GM HOME => Franchise GM: FGM Commissioner News & Tid Bits => Topic started by: rcankosy on June 23, 2011, 12:12:59 PM
-
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.
-
Intersting point. I don't want to be administering the ruling on every single trade. I want to hear other opinions first.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
dan once again i agree with you
:iatp:
-
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.
-
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?
-
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:
-
- 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.
We can assign mentors to all new owners, where our more successful and respected GMs can advise the new guys as they get a feel for the league. They can bounce off future plans, trade offers they've received or intend to make, extensions, cuts, anything... I think this would have helped avoid the Rockies situations and would help the competitive balance in general.
It does not need to be formal, it can be as simple as Colby asking people he thinks would be a good fit to volunteer as we go and introducing them the new GMs, but having a dedicated person the new GM can trust in could go a long way.
-
i think this would be a good idea to have the mentors for the new people
-
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?
I also agree with this position. I can add that It may be a good idea, if we setup some kind of 3 or 6 or what ever time we think is necessary to evaluate TC members performance
-
please forgive me for chiming in on this. I know that I am not affiliated with this league in any way. I know that this league has some outstanding owners in here.
I have had this question asked of me in my leagues about the TC's. I know eventually I have to address this as well as some members feel that TC members have agendas. I have always loved the idea of TC members. I am just very happy to see that in this league you guys are confronting this head on.
Trust me, when I say, that what you guys do in here and how you decided to handle this will have a ripple down affect in many leagues including mine. I have thought about doing away with the TC's in my leagues just because I feel bad for a TC member that feels that they have defend there position when in many cases they are just trying to protect the league that they love.
I just wanted to say thank you for addressign this issue publicly
-
I agree with Ben, Dan, and am glad Jon chimed in. One idea that I had last year was a professional TC endorsed by ProFSL used by multiple leagues. Participating leagues would move trades to a special board. Pro TC members who have a knowledge of the rules of participating leagues as well as their scoring systems would vote on the trade and provide reasons why they approve or veto. Trades do not necessarily have to have equal value as everyone values players differently. The TC is paid in the form of ProFSL points for that sport's Invitational. Once a decision is made, the trade thread is moved back to the transactions board of the league. Players involved in the pending trade may not be moved while trade is in the voting stage. The TC board could be ten people deep with perhaps only four approvals needed so that a trade doesn't need to wait for every TC member to vote. This speeds up the process for all leagues and adds a governing body outside the league.
-
I agree with Ben, Dan, and am glad Jon chimed in. One idea that I had last year was a professional TC endorsed by ProFSL used by multiple leagues. Participating leagues would move trades to a special board. Pro TC members who have a knowledge of the rules of participating leagues as well as their scoring systems would vote on the trade and provide reasons why they approve or veto. Trades do not necessarily have to have equal value as everyone values players differently. The TC is paid in the form of ProFSL points for that sport's Invitational. Once a decision is made, the trade thread is moved back to the transactions board of the league. Players involved in the pending trade may not be moved while trade is in the voting stage. The TC board could be ten people deep with perhaps only four approvals needed so that a trade doesn't need to wait for every TC member to vote. This speeds up the process for all leagues and adds a governing body outside the league.
Colby,
We discussed this before and it seems like it may be time for it. This would allow the Trade to basically be outsourced for evaluation and take the burden and liability off of the league.
Jon brought up a great point that reinforces your idea even more.
I believe that this would require greater detail from each GM on why the trade is being completed, but that shouldn't be hard.
:iatp:
-
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?
:iatp:
This is very well said, hopefully the league will embrace this statement and end the constant questioning. Minor improvements are good and ultimately this may make a better TC situation, but it seems like there has been one issue after another this year.
-
Colby I'm on board with your suggestion.
-
I actually reached out to Rob about this last year, so he was already on board with my idea. The one issue with any participating league is to trust the ProFSL TC to understand the rules of the league. This is why these members will be rewarded handsomely with ProFSL points. Plus, just replying with :iatp: is no good for these TC members... they need to explain their thoughts on the trade for all parties involved. If we have enough people on board for this, then this is something that I want to pursue and make an executive decision upon. Hopefully Jon would be interested, and I am sure we could start off with a ProFSL Baseball TC that oversees trades in Franchise GM, Dynasty MLB Elite, Fantasy Baseball Fanatics, Agents vs. GMs, New Era, High Heat, NL Only Dynasty, and perhaps other leagues.
The activity of this pro-TC is fairly heavy, so I would award a fairly good amount of points to the group in total (30,000 to 50,000 points). I wouldn't mind staying out of the pro-TC as I could then manage its staff and rate the members (thus how points are awarded and people are hired/fired for the job). Questions to consider...
How many people should be on the staff?
Should there be a minimum amount of time (24, 48, 72 hours) that a trade should sit as pending until it is sent back to the league?
How many people need to vote on a trade?
How many approvals are needed to pass a trade?
How many vetoes are required to reject a trade?
-
How many people should be on the staff?
Should there be a minimum amount of time (24, 48, 72 hours) that a trade should sit as pending until it is sent back to the league?
How many people need to vote on a trade?
How many approvals are needed to pass a trade?
How many vetoes are required to reject a trade?
5
48 hours
5
3
3
-
How many people should be on the staff?
Should there be a minimum amount of time (24, 48, 72 hours) that a trade should sit as pending until it is sent back to the league?
How many people need to vote on a trade?
How many approvals are needed to pass a trade?
How many vetoes are required to reject a trade?
12
48 hours
8
5
4
-
I also like the idea of of the revamped TC.
However, this still doesnt get to the problem of the discrepancy in the GM ranks. Even with a new TC, there will still be a lot of bickering over trades that are similar to the Belt deal. Instead of having a league wide arguement, we'd end up with inter league arguments. I still think more stringent measure need to be put in place to make sure the new GMs are talented and committed.
-
How many people should be on the staff?
Should there be a minimum amount of time (24, 48, 72 hours) that a trade should sit as pending until it is sent back to the league?
How many people need to vote on a trade?
How many approvals are needed to pass a trade?
How many vetoes are required to reject a trade?
12
48 hours
8
5
4
That seems reasonable. In response to Howe, it will still be up to individual leagues to decide how/who to hire. It is our responsibility as veteran GMs to back off from commenting on other trades simply because we are offended that we weren't there first to acquire that value.
-
I may have interpreted the 2nd question incorrectly. I think that voting on trades should be completed within 48 hours.
-
I think I have had a change of heart. I think sending it out of house may cause more problems than it solves. I propose the following.
1. 6 members on the TC - one from each division
2.Any divisional rival that makes a deal cannot have his trade approved or vetoed by the mebers of the TC that are in his division.
3. 3 approval votes or two vetoes
4. Past trades should not be considered. Values fluctuate over the course of a season and team needs change. Just because so and so was trade for player X two months ago, doesn't mean he merits that return now. Plus situations vary.
Example - I couldn't give Adam Lind away last year
5. a short summary as to why you are making this trade, and what you expect it will do for your team.
6. No one but the TC and the trading partners can post within a trade posting. It turns into pure chaos.
7. Any member of the TC that was involved in trade talks with a team involving a player that was dealt to another team may not vote on a trade - it is a conflict of interest.
8. Any trade vetoed needs to have an explanation why, and both GMs should be given a chance to defend their move.
That is just my two cents. Since we are already mid season - we already a system in place. I would more than happily represent the NL Central
-
I think I have had a change of heart. I think sending it out of house may cause more problems than it solves. I propose the following.
1. 6 members on the TC - one from each division
2.Any divisional rival that makes a deal cannot have his trade approved or vetoed by the mebers of the TC that are in his division.
3. 3 approval votes or two vetoes
4. Past trades should not be considered. Values fluctuate over the course of a season and team needs change. Just because so and so was trade for player X two months ago, doesn't mean he merits that return now. Plus situations vary.
Example - I couldn't give Adam Lind away last year
5. a short summary as to why you are making this trade, and what you expect it will do for your team.
6. No one but the TC and the trading partners can post within a trade posting. It turns into pure chaos.
7. Any member of the TC that was involved in trade talks with a team involving a player that was dealt to another team may not vote on a trade - it is a conflict of interest.
8. Any trade vetoed needs to have an explanation why, and both GMs should be given a chance to defend their move.
That is just my two cents. Since we are already mid season - we already a system in place. I would more than happily represent the NL Central
Decent thought, but #7 may mean that you have no TC members that can vote on the idea. Also could mean that you do not have enough that can vote on the trade to even get it approved.
-
I think I have had a change of heart. I think sending it out of house may cause more problems than it solves. I propose the following.
1. 6 members on the TC - one from each division
2.Any divisional rival that makes a deal cannot have his trade approved or vetoed by the mebers of the TC that are in his division.
3. 3 approval votes or two vetoes
4. Past trades should not be considered. Values fluctuate over the course of a season and team needs change. Just because so and so was trade for player X two months ago, doesn't mean he merits that return now. Plus situations vary.
Example - I couldn't give Adam Lind away last year
5. a short summary as to why you are making this trade, and what you expect it will do for your team.
6. No one but the TC and the trading partners can post within a trade posting. It turns into pure chaos.
7. Any member of the TC that was involved in trade talks with a team involving a player that was dealt to another team may not vote on a trade - it is a conflict of interest.
8. Any trade vetoed needs to have an explanation why, and both GMs should be given a chance to defend their move.
I like this idea. all but #7 because I would never be able to vote :koolaid:
-
I don't think # 5 is necessary unless the trade garners a veto vote.
-
OK strike #7... but I remember more than several times a TC member making a smarmy comment - I guess offer X was better than my offer. That kind of talk is not needed because already you have devalued your opinion.
I think what we are all arguing over is opinions, and that will always be a problem and it will not be fixed even if we take it out of house. The best thing we can do is try and take emotions out of the trade evaluation process and look at it from a distance. Does X help this team in what he is trying to accomplish? Does it make sense? Is it collusion? so on and so forth.
I think for the most part all 30 guys in this league know what they are doing and aren't out to sabotage their own team. Even the much maligned HUskerfan had a plan, and tried to give his team some credibility even if he had to overpay for it. Another example of value change - Melvin Mora was supposed to be the starting 3B for the Rox. There were several people who bid on him, Huskerfan didn't just whimsically throw 18 million out there. This all needs to be considered when evaluating trades. In the span of a year we have seen prospects rise and fall (Belt, Rizzo, Vitters, Trumbo, Montgomery). Scrubs become good (Jose Bautista), stars turn to crap (Morneau, Uggla, Dunn).
At one point I did think the TC was too lenient but now it may be too harsh because we have seen what bad moves can do to a franchise. But none of us are fortune tellers. We have to take the info that we have n front of us and make an unbiased opinion. End of story.
-
I don't think # 5 is necessary unless the trade garners a veto vote.
I think it is needed because if an explanation is given, then it may not get a veto. If a GM gives their own perspective on a trade, it might give the members of the TC a different way to look at the trade, than they would have originally thought. I'm not suggesting 'War and Peace', just a brief summary. I do this because X is expensive, and I think Y will turn into a solid player. ETC.
-
OK strike #7... but I remember more than several times a TC member making a smarmy comment - I guess offer X was better than my offer. That kind of talk is not needed because already you have devalued your opinion.
You are right on this. The concept is dead on and very valuable, the problem is the logistics just don't work.
-
I think it is needed because if an explanation is given, then it may not get a veto. If a GM gives their own perspective on a trade, it might give the members of the TC a different way to look at the trade, than they would have originally thought. I'm not suggesting 'War and Peace', just a brief summary. I do this because X is expensive, and I think Y will turn into a solid player. ETC.
Agreed, the more transparency, the better off we are whether the manager truly believes in the trade or is bein taken advantage of. This is true regardless of the system.
-
I think I have had a change of heart. I think sending it out of house may cause more problems than it solves. I propose the following.
1. 6 members on the TC - one from each division
2.Any divisional rival that makes a deal cannot have his trade approved or vetoed by the mebers of the TC that are in his division.
3. 3 approval votes or two vetoes
4. Past trades should not be considered. Values fluctuate over the course of a season and team needs change. Just because so and so was trade for player X two months ago, doesn't mean he merits that return now. Plus situations vary.
Example - I couldn't give Adam Lind away last year
5. a short summary as to why you are making this trade, and what you expect it will do for your team.
6. No one but the TC and the trading partners can post within a trade posting. It turns into pure chaos.
7. Any member of the TC that was involved in trade talks with a team involving a player that was dealt to another team may not vote on a trade - it is a conflict of interest.
8. Any trade vetoed needs to have an explanation why, and both GMs should be given a chance to defend their move.
That is just my two cents. Since we are already mid season - we already a system in place. I would more than happily represent the NL Central
:iatp: I'm not a fan of TCs but this seems to be the best suggestion. We need to ensure that trade voting is as unbiased as possible. Great post Dan!
-
I am still behind the idea of a ProFSL Baseball TC. We could have some good candidates on this such as MillerTime, Paul S., Mr.TradeKing, Corey, Jon, papps, BHows, JMACisBACK, and perhaps some others. This would remove a lot of bias from the process and require more explanations from the parties involved in the trade as well as the TC.
-
I am still behind the idea of a ProFSL Baseball TC. We could have some good candidates on this such as MillerTime, Paul S., Mr.TradeKing, Corey, Jon, papps, BHows, JMACisBACK, and perhaps some others. This would remove a lot of bias from the process and require more explanations from the parties involved in the trade as well as the TC.
I still prefer Colby's idea as well. I think it is the best solution for this league and the site as a whole.
-
I still prefer Colby's idea as well. I think it is the best solution for this league and the site as a whole.
My idea, which isn't new, would also solve an issue where league members complain about their TCs and trade processing. Trades would be processed quicker with much more information and less people will needed across the board to review these trades as they will go to one central, educated hub.
-
Colby,
I have a idea. First of all I would be happy to serve.
now, Your board mods and your HOF members are supposed to be the members most above board and never allow personal feelings be involved. Those are the members that are well the very top.
Your HOF members should serve the board without question. I think that makes the HOF worth being in and brings real responsibility to the position.
If you look at your Mods and you can say that if any one of them is not capable of showing bi partial feeligns then 1. remove them from that post and 2 they obviously should not serve this. Now saying that I know at first it may sound like I have a ax to grind with MOD's which I DO NOT. I am looking at this from a different view pt, outside the box.
so again, you have a TC already in place but most importantly it brings real time value to the HOF members voted in and it brings accountability to the mod position.
I think that one thing that no matter how you look at it is real human emotions. I think another rule that I would like to see adopted by all leagues in the family is not allowing new members to trade at all for the first 2 weeks he is here. It gives the new owner a chance to digest rules and scoring for the league as well as get to know his team. It aslo will help remove the ( shark mentality ) that some owners feel other members are. Or the feeling that new owners can feel as soon as they arrive then get owners of all walks of life putting pressure on them.
I can tell you that I would adopt this rule in DME, Nl Only and FBF. To me it just makes sence and it serves greater good than bad.
thanks,
JOn
-
:iatp: I'm not a fan of TCs but this seems to be the best suggestion. We need to ensure that trade voting is as unbiased as possible. Great post Dan!
I know I am not on this league either but I would like to voice how I feel. As Paul said, I am not a fan of TC either. Some people on them are biased against certain people which them makes them feel as they need to veto a trade.
I would try to adopt these into my leagues as well, whether it is doing what you guys had stated above or abolishing the TC altogether or just putting it all to a league vote, which I have in FF. It seems to work well but I am always simple and fair.
If I do as you guys might do in FGM I would have to separate divisions a bit more. But I am glad this topic has been brought up out in the public instead of just via PM. I am not sure how I feel about everybody on the forum, or how many ever you have on the committee, voting on trades.
Just my 2 cents :beer:
-E.J.
-
Good to have you on board Jon. HOF members would be a great place to start... and they could serve for the sports of their choice. Also, HOF members and global moderators may have their own times of inactivity, so they may not always serve. I think we could be building something truly special here.
Oh yeah, BTW, we did have a two week probation in this league but disbanded as it really had no effect. We decided to put more emphasis on the TC ensuring the member is educated, but all of this could be mitigated with an uber-active, educated ProFSL TC.
Re: E.J., only leagues that want to participate in a unified TC would be a part of it. We could always set up one for the Multi-Sport leagues as well as there may be some unique cross-sport deals there.
-
Yeah some of the trades in Multi-Sport leagues can be quite complicated. But it wouldn't hurt. I just want people to be unbiased about certain trades.
Of course I don't mind helping either with it.
-
I think it needs to stay as is. If it isn't broken don't fix it. I mean, really, who's on the TC? Does anybody think there's people on the TC who are biased in their rulings? I dunno, just doesn't seem to be broken to me.
-
I don't think outsourcing the TC is the answer. I don't think having an 'uber-educated' TC would make the difference, since I think we all agree the value in vetoed trades has been unbalanced. It requires veteran league members to understand the difference between uneven and destructive as it relates to our league, and if the board members are from our league then what are we really changing?
I would think people's frustration will only go up if some stranger who has never played here is vetoing their deal...
-
Well said Ben
-
I really want to give the ProFSL TC a try. It would be a benefit to multiple leagues as it would streamline a lot of activity. For those interested, feel free to apply at the new ProFSL TC boards on the main index.
-
I really want to give the ProFSL TC a try. It would be a benefit to multiple leagues as it would streamline a lot of activity. For those interested, feel free to apply at the new ProFSL TC boards on the main index.
I think whatever changes are made should go through the RC. I also think it would be a good idea to let other leagues test out the TC if they're interested and FGM can check back in 6 months to a year to see if it would be a good improvement for us to also use it. I personally don't think so, but at least this way we'll have some real evidence to make a decision from rather than our best guesses.
-
I am not on the rules, trade, or executive committee and I am still fairly new, however how much more longer can we discuss a TC? This has been discussed for what seems like eons. I see all of these ideas thrown out to attempt to improve it when the system in place obviously has worked for some time. As Joshemoe said, if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Colby is going forward with a new TC and the current one has vetoed 3 of my deals and the Yanks/Pirates deal is currently up in the air. It comes to a point where there is so many possible ideas that it might be best to just let it be and let this stuff die down. I am sure there are other issues the rules committee can discuss besides this.
-
i agree with you Colb
-
i agree with you Colb
Me too.
-
I think whatever changes are made should go through the RC. I also think it would be a good idea to let other leagues test out the TC if they're interested and FGM can check back in 6 months to a year to see if it would be a good improvement for us to also use it. I personally don't think so, but at least this way we'll have some real evidence to make a decision from rather than our best guesses.
Well said. I think that any major changes to the league should be run through the rules commitee. Why have a rules committee if we are not going to use them when making major changes to the league. I also don't quite understand why the sudden urge to change the TC when it seemed to be working. I am all for improving the system if it really needs to but to change this just because a few trades were vetoed doesn't seem to make sense. I also don't really like the idea of taking the TC out of the league. I feel like the people in the league would have a better understanding of the league and what the teams making the trades are trying to accomplish. It would be alot of work for people outside of the league to fully understand FGM and then do the research into looking at both teams and the scoring of the league and how this impacts the trade. I would like to see the TC in FGM continue in its current form through the end of the year. I would also like to see the RC discuss the TC and decide if the process needs to be overhauled completely or just minor tweaks done to make it better. I am not in favor of outsourcing the TC at all. I also like the idea of supplying new GM's with a mentor in the league to show them the ropes and help them better understand the league.
-
Well said. I think that any major changes to the league should be run through the rules commitee. Why have a rules committee if we are not going to use them when making major changes to the league. I also don't quite understand why the sudden urge to change the TC when it seemed to be working. I am all for improving the system if it really needs to but to change this just because a few trades were vetoed doesn't seem to make sense. I also don't really like the idea of taking the TC out of the league. I feel like the people in the league would have a better understanding of the league and what the teams making the trades are trying to accomplish. It would be alot of work for people outside of the league to fully understand FGM and then do the research into looking at both teams and the scoring of the league and how this impacts the trade. I would like to see the TC in FGM continue in its current form through the end of the year. I would also like to see the RC discuss the TC and decide if the process needs to be overhauled completely or just minor tweaks done to make it better. I am not in favor of outsourcing the TC at all. I also like the idea of supplying new GM's with a mentor in the league to show them the ropes and help them better understand the league.
:iatp: well said Bob :thumbsup: