|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 4, 2017 21:44:57 GMT -5
Hey guys, I want to go ahead and throw this out there because there was a lot of chatter about this role throughout the season. There was constant vetoes throughout the season that seemed unwarranted, so many suggested possibly making people explain why they vetoed the trade. I think that is a reasonable suggestion. After me and Gray discussed this we still wonder what this will really do. I also wonder if this will just cause more problems in the long run and cause owners to argue. I am open to anything from adding an explanation if you veto, scratching the whole process and just have a commissioner review, or have a trade committee.
One thing I think that could benefit from a commissioner review would be I could push trades through immediately and not have to wait 24 hours. This will be very beneficial during the MiLB draft because if there are trades during the draft that could slow down the process.
But lets here from everyone else, what do y'all think about making people explain there vetoes?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2017 23:08:10 GMT -5
Explaining the reason for the trades and the reason for vetoing would be a good idea, but I do not like anything to slow down the process.
However, explaining the vetoes might cause some to look at the trade more carefully. I wonder if some vetoes were just "sour grapes', because they did not want their competition improved.
Many trades that look good do not always turn out as expected.
It does not matter that much to me, but if the majority want the vetoes explained, I will support it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 11, 2017 23:22:28 GMT -5
It's easy to stand behind a veto and not have to explain one's self. If you think as a league people would argue about a trade publicly then maybe take the veto power away from individual owners. I would suggest a commissioners approval for next season if people cannot control themselves on a "subjective" vote. I'm in two leagues where no voting takes place, trades are simply approved by the owners involved and processed immediately. With that being said, these two leagues have been together for over 6 seasons now so obviously criteria has been put in place. I don't believe this league is at that point just yet.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2017 20:13:54 GMT -5
Possibly have the people who veto send an explanation to the Commissioner so it's a one on one thing and no reprisal
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on Sept 14, 2017 23:58:21 GMT -5
As Josh stated, he and I spoke on this issue and I dont believe explanation would really accomplish much of anything. With our current rules in place I think that if the trade received enough veto votes to hold the trade for review then explanations could/should be warranted to help the desicion to be made on whether to pass the trade or not. I personally have no preference on how we approach this in the offseason. I would keep it the way it is, I would have no problem publically explaining my veto if I place my vote that way, or explaining myself to only the owners involved or only the commish. I also wouldn't be opposed to the commissioner approval and immediate push through, as Texas said in so many words, you never really know how a trade will work out. Let's get some other opinions out there guys!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 8:58:18 GMT -5
That's a good point Gray. Maybe if the trade reaches the 8 vetoes required then the owners should have to send a private explanation to the commissioner explaining why they voted no on the trade?
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 15, 2017 9:22:40 GMT -5
Problem with that it could slow down the trading process,
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 15, 2017 9:23:12 GMT -5
Waiting on 8 people to give explanations
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 9:48:21 GMT -5
Unless they give their explanation to whomever is in charge of it directly and privately at the time of their vote
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 15, 2017 10:05:19 GMT -5
How would everyone just feel about commissioner approval?
For this I would pass trades immediately, unless I see something wrong with the trade, like an owner being taken advantage of or collusion. At that point I would placed the trade on hold and ask the owners a deeper explanation of why they made the trade, and then I would let the league give their opinion. And if I deem the trade doesent need to pass, I will give them a reason why it didn't pass and tell them they are welcome to rework the trade.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 10:16:08 GMT -5
I have no issue with commissioner approval. I'm in another league where Josh is commish and we use commissioner approval. We've never had any issues as Josh is a stand up guy and fair with his decisions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 12:33:12 GMT -5
Of course with Commissioner approval someone else would have to make the decision on trades involving the Commissioner.
|
|
|
Post by Oakland Athletics on Sept 15, 2017 12:52:13 GMT -5
Gray would handle any trades involving me
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 14:04:30 GMT -5
Him!!! Isn't there a book about the Fifty Shades of him???
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 15, 2017 14:05:03 GMT -5
If there was a trade between him and you someone else could pass on it then
|
|