I propose...

[rockies (Steve, COL)]

We reduce the requirement for trade approval to 2 votes.  Mainly to reduce the burden on the TC. ( And expedite the process) If a tie-breaker vote was needed...a third TC member could vote.

Personally..I would even agree to 1 vote approval. Maybe allowing for more votes if any TC member issued a protest of an approved trade. We could allow maybe an extra day for  protest votes. 

The one thing that I am concerned about in this league set-up is the burden on the TC.
When I was a TC member last year...it was a major downer. I dreded looking at the trade page. Just waaay too muck work IMO.  And 
I myself feel the draw to get back involved in the future to give the current guys a break. 

I am in a league (Fantrax) where a trade is automatically approved unless there are 3 protests. It's not a salary cap league though. But...I would even vote for that...maybe adding in perodic roster checks-with penalties for infractions.

[bill (Bill, SD)]

I also think some sort of change is needed. Despite there being 6 or 7 of us it appears to be a struggle. Many of the reasons are valid. Reviewing rosters, cap calculations, etc is a major challenge from mobile devices.

Lets not mention those who come out of the woodwork to chastize the committee if there is oversight in the review process.

Oops, just did mention it

[Pirates GM (TJ)]

I think unfortunately in any league that has a committee responsible for administrative duties, you get two kinds of people raising their hand. Those who see it as an opportunity to help the league survive, and see their participation as a community service. And those who see it as an opportunity to grab power and feel important.

Unfortunately the people in the second group are rarely as dedicated once they find out there is actual work involved. And the people in the first group are unfairly burdened with carrying the load.

I was on the committee last year, and had more free time than I do now (especially from the start of the league until June 2016 when I was unemployed). 80% of the trade approval votes were from the same half of the committee. With the other half only chiming in occasionally.

It's no secret that one of the TC members this year was so not-committed to the league that he didn't just get removed from the committee, he got removed from the entire league. It's unfortunate when folks like that raise their hands and transfer the burden onto the rest of the group.

The parent league this one spawned from did fine for a decade requiring 3 approvals. And my other 28-teamer actually requires 4 approvals, and has also been around for a decade. I don't think we need to drop it to 2.

What's so bad about dropping it to 2? It greatly increases the chances that a trade clears customs that shouldn't. Minor salary cap issues are easily chased down. But as many trades as we make here the possibility of a player getting traded twice before someone notices grows quickly. Unwinding trades after the fact is a nightmare. And in this league missing one guy in one trade could affect four trades after it involving other pieces. GMs leave leagues when things like that happen. "Babe Ruth was actually my property." "Well then I wouldn't have sent Ted Williams away, I should get him back." "Well he was part of my deal for Sandy Koufax and I already flipped him to Montreal."

Nightmare.

Personally I'm grateful for the work done by the committee this year. Just as I was grateful to my fellow committee members last year who shared being on the inaugural TC with me. It's a thankless job. And people who haven't done it have no idea how much work it involves. It's just a shame when some folks raise their hands and then abdicate the responsibility.

[Admin]

This is a great topic for discussion. Thank you for proposing this idea Steve.

There have been multiple occasions where GMs are sitting idle wondering how long their trade will take to get processed. On the other hand, as TJ points out, there have been multiple occasions where a decisive error was spotted by the third voter.

TJ is also right in saying that the system is in place simply because that's the way it's always been done. It is entirely possible that there's a better way. If there seems to be popular support for some innovative way to review trades, I wouldn't object to including it in the off-season ballot. Stephen also holds veto power, and his judgement and experience exceeds my own in this regard.

Personally, it doesn't bother me that on occasion a trade has to be nudged in order to get it processed. While some have played a larger role than others, our group as a whole has done quite well. Thanks to everyone for your time and effort.

[Toronto Blue Jays GM]

Compared to another league I'm in with a similar committee I feel that this committee is extremely FAST. Yeah it may take a few days once in awhile, but overall it's pretty good.

[rockies (Steve, COL)]

Ok...if we want to keep the 3 required approvals..i'd like to propose that we expand and modify the trade committee to be something like this...

Each division has 2 TC members-mandatory. Plus..there are 3 extra TC members. Let's call the extras "floaters." When there is a trade..lets say
Adam and my trade recently. The two TC members from each division, the NL West and AL West would be activated to vote on the trade. There would be 4 TC members with only 3 votes needed.
All other TC members wouldn't be concerned.
If the trade involved more than 1 TC member....then the "floaters" would be required to take their place. In the case where both trade participants were the two TC guys from the same division...all three "floaters" would have to vote. Notices could be posted in the trade..."floater/floaters" required.
I realize that's 15 TC members. But..it may not be as difficult as it appears. If we knew that we didn't have the responsibility of trade approval for 30 teams...we might be more inclined to get involved. And the main objective to me is taking away the tremendous burden of going through multiple trades for just a few people. The approval time isn't a serious problem-agreed.
I would like to see the TC guys share phone numbers so we could text one-another with pertinent information.

Maybe we could test to see who might volunteer in this scenario..

I'll start by being the 3rd volunteer from thr NL West. That
means either Bill-James or myself would be a floater. And we have our two TC members. If Bob or Stuart wanted to join...that'd be fine. Extra floaters! Or..more TC's for that division.

[rockies (Steve, COL)]

One issue that might be raised would be..

Would a TC member be inclined to vote against a trade in his own division that
would help a division rival? Hopefully he would resist any urge to do that. But TC guys in the other division of the trade would have a similar temptation in the other direction. They might be inclined to vote for it because it would help them. What we would expect is they would vote on the merits of the trade without personal consideration.

We could add...if a trade was vetoed...the participants could appeal to the floaters for a second vote by the floaters.

[Admin]

I may need a little time for this last idea to sink in. Expanding the TC to include half the league, yet dividing up the responsibility is something I've just never given much thought to.

To take the second comment first, my feeling is that we're all a bit biased whether we recognize that or not. While we also strive to be professional, I would wonder if it's a wise idea to have trades judged primarily by their closest competitors. Not that we couldn't handle it well, but it may be unnecessary to divide the chores that way.

Back to the proposal, if we didn't delegate by divisions, would a simple expansion of the number of TC members accomplish the same purpose? That of spreading out the responsibility? If we expand the group too large would it draw in players who have more time constraints resulting in longer processing times? I just don't know, and would need time to try and visualize it. In the meantime, the system is working pretty well. If anyone feels overburdened, I hope they would not hesitate to request a change. We want the game to be fun for all.

Thanks for giving us something to think about. Perhaps with time, letting it sink in, we can reach some reasonable conclusions about how we think it might work.

[rockies (Steve, COL)]

I know it's a big change. But it's basically getting more people involved in the most demanding chore of the league. I think 2 conscientious members can be found out of 5 in each division to handle trade voting. They would be responsible for trades involving their group only. While we're on the subject...we could remove the concern of approving trades within your own division by assigning responsibility for the same division of the OTHER league. I...being in the NL West...would be responsible for the AL West.
Anytime I saw a trade involving the AL West...I would get involved.


And....you're welcome.

[St. Louis GM (Bert)]

We can make (3) work, people on the TTC (including myself) just need to do better at checking the trades.

Getting (3) of (7) shouldn't be an issue.

[Deleted]

I'm part of that other league and can confirm. People on the approval board or whatever you call them here can vary drastically in how they evaluate things, but as long as there is a reasonable amount of commitment. We have had no problem approving trades with 4 approval needed (out of 7 approval board members) within a few days. If we are having problem getting to 3 votes here quickly, maybe the inactive member of the approval board needs to be removed, or owners needs to be patient. Generally I think 1 week or less turn around is acceptable and 2-4 days is ideal. Expecting shorter turn around than that seems unreasonable.

Jun 10, 2017 20:31:04 GMT -5 Pirates GM (TJ) said:

I think unfortunately in any league that has a committee responsible for administrative duties, you get two kinds of people raising their hand. Those who see it as an opportunity to help the league survive, and see their participation as a community service. And those who see it as an opportunity to grab power and feel important.

Unfortunately the people in the second group are rarely as dedicated once they find out there is actual work involved. And the people in the first group are unfairly burdened with carrying the load.

I was on the committee last year, and had more free time than I do now (especially from the start of the league until June 2016 when I was unemployed). 80% of the trade approval votes were from the same half of the committee. With the other half only chiming in occasionally.

It's no secret that one of the TC members this year was so not-committed to the league that he didn't just get removed from the committee, he got removed from the entire league. It's unfortunate when folks like that raise their hands and transfer the burden onto the rest of the group.

The parent league this one spawned from did fine for a decade requiring 3 approvals. And my other 28-teamer actually requires 4 approvals, and has also been around for a decade. I don't think we need to drop it to 2.

What's so bad about dropping it to 2? It greatly increases the chances that a trade clears customs that shouldn't. Minor salary cap issues are easily chased down. But as many trades as we make here the possibility of a player getting traded twice before someone notices grows quickly. Unwinding trades after the fact is a nightmare. And in this league missing one guy in one trade could affect four trades after it involving other pieces. GMs leave leagues when things like that happen. "Babe Ruth was actually my property." "Well then I wouldn't have sent Ted Williams away, I should get him back." "Well he was part of my deal for Sandy Koufax and I already flipped him to Montreal."

Nightmare.

Personally I'm grateful for the work done by the committee this year. Just as I was grateful to my fellow committee members last year who shared being on the inaugural TC with me. It's a thankless job. And people who haven't done it have no idea how much work it involves. It's just a shame when some folks raise their hands and then abdicate the responsibility.

[Mariners GM (Travis)]

Incidentally, have we replaced the TC member that just left the league?