Trade Committee

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

I have pressed for removing this for a long time.   Other owners shouldn't have a say in how other owners manage their teams.  Yes there was a rule addition that states ANY OWNERS can send in a veto to the trade committee.  Why not just make it that, ANY OWNERS can send in a veto, to one designed tally person, if 7,8, 10 happen, its vetoed.  There is no need to list owners being on a "trade committee" or give them titles or power in say so about their own divisional or other teams.  Nothing good comes from that system long term, its a start up league necessity. 

There are too many good owners in this league that seem to have a plan for their teams and been that way for a few seasons now, just let everyone play their style within the current set of rules.

[Diamondbacks GM (Ethan)]

How often are trades vetoed for this to be an issue?

[Diamondbacks GM (Ethan)]

Plus, as we’ve seen this year, people aren’t around enough to make sure uneven trades aren’t scrutinized. The trade panel is there, comprised of dedicated owners, who are there to make sure that an uneven doesn’t sneak through. There’s no reason not to have a trade panel.

[Braves GM (Dustin)]

I think there's only been one vetoed trade this year. The committee helps protect newer owners and to make sure obvious lop sided trade are checked and balanced.

[Cardinals GM (John C)]

Also, the committee provides an independent review of the trade details to make sure contracts are correct, etc. It would be easy for incorrect contracts to fall through the cracks and either just be wrong or the new owner finds out later that the player is either more expensive or has fewer years of control than thought.

I know I am the new guy, but it seems like the trade committee's default position is to approve trades unless there is an overwhelming reason not to.

The system seems fine to me.

[Deleted]

I agree with Mike on the part of I don't want someone else running my team for me but I think I lean more to the side that something needs to be in place. Not many trades seem to get vetoed in here but the ones that do it seems like a new guy is getting taken to the cleaner (First year I was in here I got traded a retired player LOL! I won't mention by who lol!). I feel that's why there is a trade panel. Trades between vets are prob viewed differently as we can trust they will be playing for years to come. New people to the league (no matter if they play in another league with someone) I'd be more skeptical of. As for the part of panel that reviews the trades in a top secret location... If they feel they want to continue the work of approving every trade, I don't see a problem. I personally don't see a issue with this process. Unless of course one of my deals gets vetoed lol! For now, I'm keeping my trust in the process...

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Aug 9, 2021 15:16:07 GMT -8 Diamondbacks GM (Ethan) said:

How often are trades vetoed for this to be an issue?

very good point, but there have been some owners kicked out of the league over the last few seasons for "making bad trades" but the deals they made were approved by the trade committee. So not sure why have a trade committee if you just kick out the owners on the losing end of approved trades.

If the CO decides to remove someone for making bad deals, then the deals in question should be reversed.  Essentially "vetoed"