Candidates for Trade Panel Vote

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Hello League!

A major and crucial part of the administration of this league is the Trade Panel. The TP is one of the main tools utilized for the goal of league parity and longterm sustainability. Throughout the years, the TP has simply been appointed from the more senior and active members of the league. After a long discussion by the League Office, we would like to have a league wide vote for this year's TP. This is being done for many reasons: First, the league is strong and with 26! returning members - alot of people are becoming long-term members. Therefore, we want to ensure that the TP reflects the multiple strategies/philosophies of all of the owners here. The transparency in this league is very high with upwards of 10-12 owners cycling through leadership positions. This vote will ensure even more openness and give everyone the opportunity to be heard.

We will be having two votes. The first will be for election to the Trade Panel. The second will be to establish hard deadline rules for the TP, at which if a trade review hits a certain time limit - debate is over and current majority rules.

So, please put your name into the hat if you are interested in sitting on the Trade Panel. All current members are definitely encouraged to sign up again. When you volunteer, feel free to write a couple sentences on how you would operate on the TP.

VERY IMPORTANT- keep this discussion in this thread and unnecessarily negative comments about the league, league officers, trade panel, and every single owner is ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED on open forums. Such discussions must be regulated to PM. The number one goal of fantasy baseball is to have fun!

Hope everyone is excited about this change! It should be fun. Get your names in, as we'd like to try to get a Trade Panel set real soon - somewhere around the beginning of RFA.

[Deleted]

I've already spoken to PB about taking on a leadership role in the league. I think I would be a good fit because I am active in trades and quick in responding to messages. I believe the trades that I have already made speak to my ability to negotiate and compromise. While I would consider myself veto adverse, especially in a salary cap/prospect league, I would follow league guidelines to evaluate all deals and rule fairly and expeditiously. While, I am new to this league, I am a long time fantasy baseball player and only play fantasy football to get through the dead period. This league has no dead period!

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

How I would operate on trade panel-

1) any trade between owners with over 2 full calendar years of time- will never be vetoed (unless its OBVIOUS collusion-like OBVIOUS to all other 28 teams), sink or swim on your own like real MLB. ps...you can yell at them not the trade panel, lol.

2) 2 year owners - still eyeballed

3) 1st year owners - Vetoes WILL be more often on deals from owners who couldn't deal those same players to veteran teams for a reason. (Large Contracts not wanted or RSA's that can just be bid back by the former owner)

I almost suggested any 6 teams who did NOT make the playoffs the year before have control of the trade panel and still like the idea. It could even be the two teams that make the WS, 2 teams that almost made the playoffs and the 2 worst teams in the league. The panel has to be at least diversified, like a jury. If you look at past history of vetoes in the league, I think any 6 owners can get less than 50 percent correct.

I have traded a lot and only had 2 trades vetoed, both after the reworks ended up considerably favorable for the opposing team, if left in orginal state, both would have been fair for both sides. I may be just unlucky to be 0-2 but looking through the history of vetos, there are considerable amount of them that were reworked that completely did more damage than good to one team and made favorable for the other team. Thats why I still believe in NO trade panel but if going to have one, use it right by protecting the new teams from old teams. If Old teams want to beat each other up in trades, go ahead.

[Rays GM (Donavan)]

I am happy to continue to serve the trade panel.

I am always prompt in placing my vote, and what's more I am unbiased as I don't know any of the other GM's personally ( other than through this site).

I don't believe that trades should be vetoed unless there is collusion, or suspected tanking by a given team. In my team in this league, I don't think this has happened yet.

The reason for my non-veto approach is that often the results of trades are not known for a number of years, and often they turn out differently to what you would expect initially.

[Padres GM (Amy)]

I'm not too concerned with whether I'm on the panel or not as I'm going to be busy handling waivers and helping in our sister league, moneyball. However i don't mean to be arrogant but rather honest when I say I know as much if not more about baseball players' values, especially prospects, than anyone in this league. As a social worker at a subsidized housing building for the elderly, I have a lit of time I'm just at my desk without much work to do. I spend most of this time reading about baseball. I have suscriptions to baseball america and baseball prospectus and read other sites. I like to have as much knowledge as possible to have the best team possible. This can also help in my evaluating of trades.
I might be more liberal in vetoing than the posters ahead of me. This is because I've seen leagues where teams become really, really weak. I want leagues to have 30 strong teams, whether they are contenders or stacked with minors. I believe we all have different levels of knowledge and involvement but don't want this to be reflected in trades being one sided. My incentive is what is best for the league, even if that may piss individual GMs off.
These are my thoughts. Do what them what you will. If ppl feel I will benefit the league I will happily vote.

[Rockies GM (Dan)]

I have served on the trade panel for almost two seasons now, and would like to continue on in that capacity.

I have been with this league from the very beginning, and so I know just how this league has evolved in the five or so years we've been together. Through trading, I have completely rebuilt the Rockies into an organization which has started to become a serious contender in the NL West. I have been subject to the veto of the trade panel myself, and it turned out to be for the ultimate betterment of the team when I traded CarGo three or four seasons ago now.

I do my best to make my votes as prompt and unbiased as I can. I cannot claim, as Donovan does, to be completely anti-veto. I do believe it is thrown out too much at times, but I believe there is a time and a place. I especially advocate its use in protecting new GMs, whose lack of knowledge and experience in the league may serve as a handicap in trade negotiations with more experienced teams.

I agree with the Mike and the Angels that the TP should be diversified. However, an idea that I strongly champion is having one team per division, with perhaps an at-large member from each league in addition. This ensures that one league or division does not control the voting and should alleviate possibly not voting on a trade as a stalling tactic for in-season trades.

[Deleted]

I will put my name in the hat to continue on the trade panel as I have now for the better part of 3years.
I have been in this league since the inception. To keep it short and sweet I have tried to only veto in cases of new owners
Who have not yet learned the player values in these leagues or in obvious collusion cases (can't remember when this has been an issue). Long story short I won't vote on wether or not I would do a particular deal, just on the two points listed above.

[Rangers GM (Victor)]

Been on TP for over 3yrs now. I dont hold an Anti-Veto card like the Rays, but I try hard to see both sides of all trades and give a detailed explanation if a veto vote is casted by myself. I usually vote right away when a trade is posted, but lately RL has taken a toll so have been slower lately.

[Deleted]

I respectfully remove my name from consideration and a hearty thank you to those with the intelligence and ability to fill these thankless positions.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Jan 1, 2015 19:04:45 GMT -8 @joaldia said:

I respectfully remove my name from consideration and a hearty thank you to those with the intelligence and ability to fill these thankless positions.

Lol. I sense some sarcasm Josh, but the sentiments are true. Not an easy job for sure.

I'd like to roll this out as a vote sometime near the start of RFA. As you can see above, basically it's the current TP who have signed up for further duty. If you'd like to be considered, please put name in real soon, otherwise we'll roll with what we got. Thanks!

[Former Mets GM (Bob D.)]

I will add my name for consideration; Took over Mets midway thru 2012 and I feel I contribute and add a fresh opinion to trades

[Guardians GM (Matt)]

I will but my candidacy in for the Trade Panel.

I have been around for 2 years now and feel like I have a good grasp on the workings of the league. I think the Trade Panel is an important part of the health of the league by being the front line of defense.

I am not anti-veto, I do think at times we get caught up in "fair value" with it in terms of our beliefs. I think the veto serves to prevent collusion and predatory trading. When I say predatory trading, I mean taking advantage of new members who are still getting a feel for value and to prevent the blatant exploitation of teams in a way that creates empty shells of teams. As for the second I think the CO should be looking at teams that are constantly at the end of these exploitations to see if the owner has a plan they are executing in a way that they think is productive, or if the owner simply is not invested in the league. In the latter case the CO should take charge. Overall the goal being to not create teams that are impossible to fill with new owners and merely serve as feeder teams to the other teams in the league.

As far as the workings of the trade panel, I am in favor of discussion, and especially discussion in the case of vetoes as to why the veto was handed down and what could be done to change minds on the trade panel. I would like to see a mechanism for both members of a vetoed trade to appeal a veto if both present an argument as to why they believe the trade is fair (whether this is reposting it or sending it to CO)

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Good points, Matt.

Briefly touching on your last point re: appeals, that's why we made it a requirement to give an explanation/ rationale for doing a deal. We've had cases with a "questionable" trade where the teams had well reasoned paragraphs for why they did the deal that ultimately led to the TP approving it and "giving the benefit of the doubt." I strongly encourage every GM to articulate to a reasonable degree their motives for doing the deal and it makes it less questionable from the TP's point of view. Help them help you.

[Deleted]

I completely understand the concept of the trade panel but if any trades are close then they should go through with a good explanation..We all run our teams differently. Some people are trying to be the Yankees or Dodgers of the real mlb and adding payroll to win now and some people are shedding salary to make a run in free agency. So there are many different aspects to these trades for each team that need to be looked at.

[Deleted]

So what your saying is, it should be up to individual owners to evaluate the return for their own players and the reasons as to why they are dealing them? Revolutionary!

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Of course, but in the past there have been people who clearly don't have a plan and have made questionable deal after questionable deal and screwed over the teams for years. Bad deals compound on themselves. Thus, deals with new owners who we can't know for sure know what they're doing since this is a different kind of league get scrutinized more so the same thing doesn't happen again. We've talked about countless other leagues that have fallen apart because of that. Reasonable explanations therefore help the TP, who are experienced, know that it won't happen again. This isn't difficult to understand.

Again, let's leave this thread for volunteers, but the only point I was trying to make was just to give explanations of your trades, especially if you're new, so the TP knows you have an idea of what you're doing (the general "you," not anyone in particular).

[Deleted]

Is there an amendment outlining the implementation of the TP and the requirements that a detailed explanation be given for every trade? I'm cool with your rules, maybe it works out better for me in the long run, but it's truly subjective, and that isn't right.