Trades

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Is it possible to set a "date" that all trades have to be accepted or vetoed? 4 days, 5 days, 6 days, 7 days, 10 days, etc, whatever...just noticing by trade history that some trades are passed in 4 days, some 5, some 6...etc...then everyone will not have to wonder...but all be on the same page...

Just an idea and it will be absolute and fair to everyone that way.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

The official league rules say

Once the trade has been posted and accepted by both GMs, the Commissioner's Office will review the trade. If after 24 hours there are no objections in the Commissioner's Office, the trade will be approved, but sometimes it could last longer as the commissioners could be in debate.

Read more: pbfantasybaseball.proboards.com/thread/5/trading#ixzz2cdwXMGyS

Now that we have roles sorted out, we will be sticking to the 24 hour turnaround, barring discussion of a trade.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

so, then the Max amount of days would be, what 5, 6 or 7...even with a "debate"?...I understand the goal is 24 hrs but what is the max time?

Just an idea...since 24 hr after both parties accepted...then 4 days MAX that the Veto committee has to make a decision...if they don't agree on a decision then...what, it automaticaly goes through...this puts the pressure on the committee to either vote or get off the pot so to speak...trading teams are already at the mercy of a "veto" committee but the time allowed to make that decision shouldn't also be at the mercy of the veto committee...

there should always be a definitive rule, before it becomes an issue (and it will at some point, every area that has different outcomes always create issues)...Veto committee should be decided in 24 hrs, as stated, if it goes 96 hours without a decision...the trade will actually be processed and the veto committee can't complain since they had more than enough time.....that gives both sides some type of power and not all in the veto committees hands...

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

could there be a definative "days" in effect....this could alter a scoring week if there is not a set amount of time and consistancy.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Aug 21, 2013 13:57:22 GMT -8 Pirates GM (Hollar) said:

The official league rules say

Once the trade has been posted and accepted by both GMs, the Commissioner's Office will review the trade. If after 24 hours there are no objections in the Commissioner's Office, the trade will be approved, but sometimes it could last longer as the commissioners could be in debate.

Read more: pbfantasybaseball.proboards.com/thread/5/trading#ixzz2cdwXMGyS

Now that we have roles sorted out, we will be sticking to the 24 hour turnaround, barring discussion of a trade.

So, a "discussion" of a trade that was made fri or Sat could be delayed over one that wasn't discussed and also made on Friday or saturday? and miss the following week...

You might want to approve on the same time frame... at the end of 48 hrs, 72 hrs, etc.....whatever days/hours you want to set...Don't you think your opening the door for a very distastfull situation....be proactive not reactive.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

I fail to see how this is a problem as long as you believe the trade panel is acting in good faith. Trades will only be held up if substantial debate is happening over them. As to missing the following week, that would entail weekly locking rosters, which is a whole different can of worms.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Dec 13, 2013 21:56:55 GMT -8 Pirates GM (Hollar) said:

I fail to see how this is a problem as long as you believe the trade panel is acting in good faith. Trades will only be held up if substantial debate is happening over them. As to missing the following week, that would entail weekly locking rosters, which is a whole different can of worms.

I really don't understand why a rule of "all trades decisions approved or vetoed will be made in 72 hours" to eliminate any "open doors"...I have seen it happen too many times but hey, you will understand my point soon enough, this year or next year...it will happen to someone when it matters..when that 1 game makes a difference, then you will decide to change the rule after its happened.

I wasn't close enough to the playoffs last year to matter or fight for it but when one of my trades went 6 or 7 days before it was approved, it cost me a start from Santana...and a loss that week since he dominated that start. I didn't finish 1 game out of the playoffs but it could have happened. All 5 trades prior to that were completed in 4 or 5 days and the reason I noticed this rule missing from the "Rules" that I read.

This rule is really pretty straight forward and common place and not sure why it isn't already in place. Ask yourself the question, does the rule not seem consistant, logical and fair for everyone? Why wouldn't the rule make sense to put in, honestly? what because I suggested it instead of XYZ? "in good faith" hasn't worked the many times I have commished as well as others "acting in the best interest of the league" consistantly for 20 years of fantasy baseball but I am sure it will work this time. Feel free to reinvent the wheel, I want to be the first to apologize to the team that it will happen to and will understand your frustration of why that rule wasn't in place before it happens.

I should have had 1 more win with Santana's start and maybe 2 to 3 wins with Carpenter still on my team, do I think anyone was biased, I have no freakin idea, nor could prove anything if I wanted to, I know you werent privy to the information that showed that their could have been but I do know that the incomplete and non consistancy of the rules at the time allowed both situations to happen..both are technically facts that at min lost me 2 games on the season for sure. Since you seemed to have your mind made up, then best of luck to you when it happens, just don't say you were "acting in good faith" when actually fixing the forseable problem could have been "fixed for best interest of the league" instead of "hoping it doesn't happen".

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

Mike, fixing this foreseeable problem to the standard you wish literally is REQUIRING 5 Trade Panel owners to login daily (multiple times). Now why we are all a bunch of nerds, do that anyways:), and login once a day is suggested, fantasy baseball is not a job. The new template has a better PM messaging feature. We have been getting notices to vote via that feature, so I think we will see a better turnaround time. In RL, traded players show up and random times and every once in awhile a day late.

I personally think that 24-hour auto-approve rule barring a debate is too strict. If we really want to enforce that to the letter, you know how many trades sit at 1 approve and 1 veto that would get squashed just because someone, someday might miss a start.

And Mike, it isn't because you suggested it compared to another owner. You are damn fine part of the league and don't let anyone tell you otherwise (insert bro-hug here). It looks like we are doing open-bidding which was your thing. Just let this one ride. This one is too much work and I maintain in the league that I commish, the Number One Rule is it has to have fun! You'd hate that league, the fun prerogative has actually been the deciding factor on a ruling or two!

Edit: Also if you standardized to say 72 hours, then there are trades that are voted on in a day that would be required to sit there for 2 more days for no reason which could cost someone a start.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

Once we got through with the administrative transition, the goal for all trades became turning them around in 24 hours. Not all trade panel members are required to vote for a trade to go through. Trades are only held up if there is an actual debate happening over them. Simply typing 'veto' and not offering any reasoning does not count. If a trade takes longer than others to go through so that we can have a more rapid turnaround on almost all other trades (Which I believe we have achieved), I can live with that.

I do think this 'wheel' would be better if we flattened out one side, though.

[Former Twins GM (Robin)]

Having watched this thing play out for a while now, I can say pretty definitively that the main issue with a quick turnaround is not debate, it's lag time. 24 hours is very ambitious to say least. Unrealistic and impractical are more like it. I'm continuing to try to speed things up, including sending out PM's to all trade panel members when I post a deal. That said, I think we should outright scrap the 24 hour thing. Certainly, close to 24 hours may go by before I see the trade, post it, and the contracts are audited. That is often before any votes come in. I'd like to see a 72 hour general guideline instead of 24. However, I don't see a problem with leaving the door open so to speak. There was considerable debate about a few trades last year and cutting that off by rule is unwise in my opinion.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

I don't say keep the 24 hr rule...I am saying approve or veto it on the same time...72 hours for BOTH...or whatever nominal time you want it to be...if 7 days then veto "discussions" should be completed within 5 to 7 days...and if a trade is accepted, then wait also the same 5 to 7 days to announce it...you can't have one way in 24 hours and 1 way 5 to 7 days...its not fair, ethical or remotely understandable.....someone could fight for a veto on a trade IF they are playing that person and don't want that person to get that player that week...consistancy, fair and unbiased to close all possibilities.

[Reds GM (Pat H.)]

Since we already do free agency on a weekly basis, every Saturday we find out who wins free agents. Maybe we can do trades the same way. We have a deadline each week on Wednesday night. Any trade posted before Wed night 11:59pm, will be reviewed and a decision will be announced on Sunday before 11:59pm. All approved trades would then be executed on fantrax after the start of the Sunday night game. If the trade is posted after the deadline, then it will be reviewed and announced on the following Sunday night.

[Cubs GM (Beau)]

I continue to not see a problem. And I do not want to restrict myself from trading Thurs through Sunday. Trading is a strike while the iron is hot type of situation. Nobody is arguing for vetoes in order to spite division rivals. Being on the Trade panel, I can attest there is often pretty high-level theoretical and practical discussions taking place. And even if one trade takes a little longer than the next ,the law of large numbers inevitably evens it out. It definitely is not an ethical issue. IMO, this is a definitional non-issue. And in being so, I urge everyone to put their efforts into the myriad of changes already taking place and agreed upon this offseason. That way, the league can be ready to go come FA; a mere 20 days away.

[Pirates GM (Hollar)]

I'm with Beau here, strongly. If we have to take the trade turnaround time back to 48, or even 72, hours, that is still a far better system than once a week trading to me. If we go over the deadline on a deal or two, I can live with that.

[Former Angels GM (Mike C.)]

Dec 16, 2013 12:15:53 GMT -8 Cubs GM (Beau) said:

I continue to not see a problem. And I do not want to restrict myself from trading Thurs through Sunday. Trading is a strike while the iron is hot type of situation. Nobody is arguing for vetoes in order to spite division rivals. Being on the Trade panel, I can attest there is often pretty high-level theoretical and practical discussions taking place. And even if one trade takes a little longer than the next ,the law of large numbers inevitably evens it out. It definitely is not an ethical issue. IMO, this is a definitional non-issue. And in being so, I urge everyone to put their efforts into the myriad of changes already taking place and agreed upon this offseason. That way, the league can be ready to go come FA; a mere 20 days away.

You can still trade all 7 days.. there isn't only "certain days" to trade....your completely missing the point and even may not reading it correctly or I didn't state it correctly...

If a trade is approved - it is in "effect" in 24 hours

If it is in these "discussions" on wheither it will vetoed or approved...this could be 24 hours to 2 weeks...

So if someone on the "trade panel" is playing against a team and there is a blockbuster deal, they could "delay" the approval UNTIL after the week has started to allow them selves a few extra days to play the team WITHOUT the impact of the new players...

If the veto committee wants to delay a deal with more "discussion", then approvals should be delayed also then both would be done on the same time line, every time, the "discussions" should be on a set time frame, if the committee can't decide in 72 hrs, get new committee members or make it a rule it gets vetoed no matter what is discussed...72 hours should be when approved or veto announcement should be done..either way.

or just get rid of the veto committee all together and just bring up to vote very questionable trades to a poll for everyone to vote on when needed..