Do We Want a TC?

[MillerTime]

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

[h4cheng]

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.

[Colby]

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.

[rcankosy]

I may have interpreted the 2nd question incorrectly.  I think that voting on trades should be completed within 48 hours.

[Dan Wood]

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

[MillerTime]

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.   

[Corey]

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

[rcankosy]

I don't think # 5 is necessary unless the trade garners a veto vote. 

[Dan Wood]

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.

[Dan Wood]

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.