New Trade Requirement

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

As of July 2nd, newly agreed upon trades must also be accompanied by a minimum 100 word explanation as to why you did the trade. As the trade review policy has become tighter, it's a way for us to understand how a deal may help you when we may not see it. If the 100-word explanation is not included by both GMs, the commissioner's will not review the trade until it is done.

The commissioner's may also ask you to describe the deal in fuller detail on YIM and may request a meeting of two commissioners and both teams involved in the trade.

Again, this makes it easier for us to understand your rationale behind a deal.

[badass]

Really? I'm new (to the league not to fantasy or dynasty leagues) but this sounds crazy. For the most part trades should NEVER be vetoed. The trades that are vetoed most of the time look quite silly. Nobody here is the "Know it all" psychic that knows how a player will be in future seasons. But to require a GM to explain why they are doing a trade is silly. Here's why I'm doing the trade - because I think it makes MY team better. The 100 word minimum is the most ridiculous part of it. Is this High School? Should I double space and use paragraph form?

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Ok, I would like to ask you to be patient as I run through the rationale here.

A lot of us are wise GMs who know what they're doing. People like you and me, for example, rarely make poor trades, and thus if it "appears" like we're losing a trade, there is little chance the deal is actually vetoed.

But there are also some of us here that aren't quite as good, and haven't had the same experience in these leagues. For example, there are a few GMs in here where it's their first time ever in a 30-team league as well as with contracts and prospects. As a result, some of these individuals can misjudge their players and get what would be perceived as poor value, not necessarily for a lack of skill, but for a lack of experience.

Many of us here have seen leagues run into the ground when "the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer" and the disparity between the best and worst teams widens to a point where the worse teams have a revolving door of so-so GMs. When you have these vacant teams, new GMs are at an incredible disadvantage. Last year, for example, Mike Dellano put together a fun, and active league, but his team and several others became so good - because there were rarely vetoes - that the worse teams became inactive and there were several vacancies by the end of the year. Of course, we don't want that to happen here. Combine rookie/not as good GMs with this widening disparity, you have a recipe for disaster. As a result, we need to have some sort of tough policy if we want that gap to not widen and so that we have 30 active GMs competing.

With that said, even when there are vetoes, it isn't the end of a deal. After a veto, the teams have 48 hours to exclusively work together to make changes, which are often not too significant, as we do recognize how subjective the process is. But when a majority of commissioners (as well as other GMs) all find a deal to be suspicious, I trust our opinion. There are sometimes going to be deals that look bad at first, but after the fact, unforeseeable circumstances arise, and the deal flips in the other direction.

I think the strongest argument, though, is that when a deal is iffy, there's always room for improvement. Usually before we rule a deal as a veto, we go to the two GMs who made the trade and tell our consensus opinion, and usually they make an adjustment. Like I said, there is always room for improvement in a deal, and that can be as simple as adding a prospect or two. I understand that prospects are hard to value, but we can't just say that because they haven't proven themselves, that they can be dealt with no real value attached to it. Guys who are rated higher as prospects have a better chance to succeed as players who aren't rated as high. The experts who come up with rankings don't mindlessly do it, they have a track record that has shown that they, in general, know what they're doing. As a result, we need to place a value on prospects, and trading a guy who is likely going to be a MLB starter for an average aging veteran, just doesn't make sense, just because the guy is unproven.

In summary, there is a "strong" policy in place so that we (1) protect inexperienced GMs, (2) try to maintain a level of parity, and (3) see that there is always room for improvement in a sketchy deal.

I hope you recognize that we do this in the hope that we have a strong league for a long time.

[Nationals GM (Preston - Old)]

Also, in the future, come to the commissioners in private before blasting rulings in the forum. Things like that hurt a league, and we will not fight with anyone in public, and will just ask you (by you, I don't mean you specifically, I mean any individual) to leave if it continues to be a problem.

If you brings things private, we are generally able to work them out, but if there is still a problem (not necessarily something you disagree with) then there may be opportunities to speak here.

[badass]

Agree and I will do that in the future. Just so everyone knows I have talked to Preston and while I'm always going to lean against vetoes I understand at least his reasoning behind it.