|
|
Post by robinhj99 on Feb 10, 2009 9:57:51 GMT -5
I think it's past time to do this. Lopsided trades will continue to happen, and I think many on this panel (including myself) will continue to let them go through without suspicion of collusion. If we only want to prevent trades where collusion is suspected, or for new GM's or whatever that's fine, but it needs to be publicly standardized so there is less room for whining which is not productive.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Feb 10, 2009 12:53:20 GMT -5
the way we originally did the TRP was to get as many different views on vetoing as possible. For example you will only veto based off collusion.. some other will veto more regularly.. some are somewhere int he middle. Thats how we like it, we didnt really want a unified thoery on vetoes, at least when we first formed the Panel.
Now we may need to change it... I think only vetoing based off collusion is a bit too lax. which means its impossible to decide whihc trades are fair and others are not, trust me im writing my thesis on fairness (kinda) its impossible to define fairness in terms of various cases. I would hope that we do a good enough job.. this trade isnt that bad... Volstad is a very good pitcher, he got some other talent we can ask them to defend it if you want (actually i will PM both of them, its easier than researching the players by myself).
if you (not just you, Robin, but all the TRP) want to make some sort of standards i would be fine with that... i just think it would be unbearably tough.
|
|
|
|
Post by robinhj99 on Feb 10, 2009 13:04:53 GMT -5
I get what your saying, and I agree that making any objective, unifying criteria may not really be possible. But...is vetoing a trade possible. I know we vetoed the CC trade, but I think if that were up again, with what we know about restricted tags. So, but with the mix of views we have, will a trade ever be vetoed? I'm not sure what type of trade would get a veto vote from me at this point, and I think this trade is pretty lopsided.
Morneau is locked in at a reasonable rate, long term, and is pretty good. Neil Walker is a longshot, but once was highly regarded, and might be able to hit at the big league level. But debating this trade was not my intent here, but I just wonder if there is a trade that would be vetoed at this point. If the Granderson trade wasn't vetoed (which I voted to approve) what will be vetoed?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Feb 10, 2009 13:42:07 GMT -5
ok ive been wanting to complaing abou thtis for a while... Ty and I tlaked about it but w/e
the Angels were upset that we vetoed his trade because he said CC would cost so much
then in RFA he signed Crede to a 5 y AAS 8M contract, and Juan Cruz to a AAS =$6M contract... he also bid 6M for Balfour.. but Kyle mathced. so he essenitally bid 24M on two guys who dont have jobs and another who is a middle releiver... but he didnt want to spend $22M on CC (the best pitcher in fantasy on one of the best teams in baseball). please explain to me how that is logically, as far as im concerned i will continue to view him as someone who needs to be watched in all of his dealings.
But i digress... albeit we have made some mistakes. i dont count any of the trades u mention.. the biggest mistake we made was with the Nationals... The Matt Cain deal (Robin you may not have been in the league at that time, I'm not sure). We vetoed (or rather you vetoed) the trade from teh Nats to the Cards, then approved (agin u not me) the one to the Pirates even tho it was much worse (IMHO).
Honestly, I think we are doing fine... i will be making a rule soon that will allow the LO to kick people out of the league. If people are disrespectful to anyone else in the league we will reserve the right to haev them replaced... I guess Im bringin this up to gauge everyone's opinion on it
|
|
|
|
Post by robinhj99 on Feb 10, 2009 15:38:45 GMT -5
I was not around for the Cain deal so I didn't see that one unfold. I just feel like every couple weeks now, there is vocal opposition to some trade and the way it is judged. It is obnoxious and childish. I thought formalizing what we do in some way may appease the non-trp contingency. Plus, didn't the White Sox come in, make a few trades and leave? We are not protecting teams from new GM's either, though his trades weren't that bad so I don't really have a point. I just wish he would have traded me Alexei, he almost did. I am fine with a "deal with it attitude". It may lead to low popularity ratings, but that never stopped our ex-president, why it should stop people in this league? And I'm sure the ratings will still be pretty good for a fetish.
I worry about kicking people out of the league, especially people who seem like they are going to stick around. Replacement rates have been pretty slow, and I would rather have a committed Angels owner run his team to the ground, and be here, than a team run to the ground without a GM.
I think my take home point revolves around me, and not the trp as a whole. Unless I suspect collusion, which I don't know what would make me suspect it, I can't see a scenario where I will vote to veto a trade unless I am given guidelines as to what merits a veto. If guidelines are not formalized, is there any value having me on the trp if it is an automatic approval? I am not trying to resign from the trp, or imply that I don't take the responsibilities seriously, but by the criteria that I have always lived by in fantasy sports, I will not be vetoing trades. So my value to this panel has to be put into question. Again, not trying to push myself out of this role, I enjoy the secret thread that not many can read, just want to throw it out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2009 16:51:46 GMT -5
my quick thoughts (i haven't even read past the first post, jesus, words!) are that if we do set a veto standard and guidelines, the trp becomes irrelevant. i'm not saying that to save my position or anything like that, but if there's a checklist to go through, there's no need for seven guys to go through that checklist. so, a set of standards/checklist or trp, but there can't be both.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 10, 2009 16:58:50 GMT -5
I think we are doing fine... i will be making a rule soon that will allow the LO to kick people out of the league. If people are disrespectful to anyone else in the league we will reserve the right to haev them replaced... I guess Im bringin this up to gauge everyone's opinion on it making a rule to kick out the royals, approved. |
|
|
|
Post by The Ghost of Swo on Feb 10, 2009 17:20:54 GMT -5
i was gonna call it the Kevin rule.. but i figured that would be too straightforward.
|
|
