|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 28, 2014 11:30:24 GMT -5
We have had a lot of discussions about whether or not the Trade Panel is a good/bad tool for our league. I have thought a lot about it over the past few days (even losing sleep over it) and this is what I have come up with: 1. We abolish the Trade Panel 2. When a trade is posted, ALL GMs have 24 hours, from time of posting and acceptance, to express their opinion on whether or not the trade should go through. (if it is a tie vote, it goes through) (Rude comments or personal attacks NOT ACCEPTABLE in any manner - cause for expulsion) 3. We tally up the votes for and against and that decides if the trade goes through. 4. Yes/No votes, with no explanation, WILL NOT be counted. I think this is a fair and honest way to do it, and it doesn't put the onus on just 3-6 people. (and I didn't really lose sleep over this....  ) Opinions, Please |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 11:46:36 GMT -5
negatives: takes longer to pass trades, emphasis on personal opinions rather than set league standards etablished through drafts and previous trades.
postives: won't have to hear complainers anymore, encourages activity from all GMs
I am in favor of returning to the way we did it when the league started. Honestly, this is a ridiculous discussion. 99% of trades have passed. we are nit picking on 1%. seriously guys get over it. lets move on.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 28, 2014 11:56:42 GMT -5
24 hours is actually LESS than the 48 hours alloted now.....
and that can be lessened too...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 12:06:26 GMT -5
24 hours is actually LESS than the 48 hours alloted now..... and that can be lessened too... trades rarely took 48 hrs in the past. most were approved with hours. Changing this now means we need EVERY GM to weigh in and we all know some are infrequent to logging in. just look at the awards poll. I had to fight to get votes there. Don't you think this discussion is being anal? only 2 trades were vetoes in over a year! peanuts Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards |
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on May 28, 2014 12:25:48 GMT -5
The issue for me is that you have owners who feel those two trades should not have been vetoed. I personally do not want a "panel of experts" having to approve my trade and I do not want to have to tell the league what my strategy is. The concern everyone seems to have is ensuring that league integrity is maintained. Maybe we could change it so that new owners are on probation until they have made three trades showing the "panel of experts" that they have an idea of what they are doing. Trades amongst owners who have been here for a while and have made trades automatically pass. Again no system is the best but some are definitely better than others.
I will say this again, my preferred system would be one person have the ability to question a trade and then take it to a panel. If that one person does not have an issue, then it automatically passes.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 28, 2014 12:32:54 GMT -5
(in reply to Eric's last post above)
Nope...every GM does not need to weigh in, but, we have pretty good activity now, so we should be able to get quite a few opinions in within a 24 hour period....or even 12 hours.
Keep in mind it's weekly lock-in, so it really only matters Sunday/Monday.
We could make it 24 hours from Tuesday to Saturday, and by 6:00 pm eastern Monday for Sunday/Monday trades.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 28, 2014 12:39:06 GMT -5
The issue for me is that you have owners who feel those two trades should not have been vetoed. I personally do not want a "panel of experts" having to approve my trade and I do not want to have to tell the league what my strategy is. The concern everyone seems to have is ensuring that league integrity is maintained. Maybe we could change it so that new owners are on probation until they have made three trades showing the "panel of experts" that they have an idea of what they are doing. Trades amongst owners who have been here for a while and have made trades automatically pass. Again no system is the best but some are definitely better than others. I will say this again, my preferred system would be one person have the ability to question a trade and then take it to a panel. If that one person does not have an issue, then it automatically passes. I don't quite get your last statment |
|
|
|
Post by Golden Seals on May 28, 2014 12:44:27 GMT -5
my thoughts on this. Trade panel stays, when trades are posted if any TAB truly thinks its veto worthy, they add a private poll to the thread where all gms can vote. If certain % (50% for ease) of gms who vote believe the trade would hurt integrity of the league, trade gets vetoed. Poll up for 24 hours.
Also, give the 2 teams one shot to defend the deal when they accept.
Just a thought.
I'm fine with whatever though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vancouver Canucks on May 28, 2014 12:46:26 GMT -5
The issue for me is that you have owners who feel those two trades should not have been vetoed. I personally do not want a "panel of experts" having to approve my trade and I do not want to have to tell the league what my strategy is. The concern everyone seems to have is ensuring that league integrity is maintained. Maybe we could change it so that new owners are on probation until they have made three trades showing the "panel of experts" that they have an idea of what they are doing. Trades amongst owners who have been here for a while and have made trades automatically pass. Again no system is the best but some are definitely better than others. I will say this again, my preferred system would be one person have the ability to question a trade and then take it to a panel. If that one person does not have an issue, then it automatically passes. I don't quite get your last statment The commish or someone he appoints determines whether any trade is questionable. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave (PLK) on May 28, 2014 13:09:07 GMT -5
I don't quite get your last statment The commish or someone he appoints determines whether any trade is questionable. I actually really like this idea, and I know the perfect fit for the job. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 13:34:42 GMT -5
negatives: takes longer to pass trades, emphasis on personal opinions rather than set league standards etablished through drafts and previous trades. postives: won't have to hear complainers anymore, encourages activity from all GMs I am in favor of returning to the way we did it when the league started. Honestly, this is a ridiculous discussion. 99% of trades have passed. we are nit picking on 1%. seriously guys get over it. lets move on. Sent from my SGH-T999 using proboards I agree with ya Eric!! I felt the trade panel was a great thing to have. We rarely veto deals and when that happen it would have been vetoed by the mass. So I believe we as a group were very good for the longevity of this league. |
|
|
|
Post by burnsy8801(Leafs GM) on May 28, 2014 14:30:53 GMT -5
I just wanted to chime in with my two cents or ten! As the newest GM with a multitude of a variety of league experience I am fine with or without the panel. Out of 24 current GMs it isn't too often that one Gm tries to get away with shenanigans easily and if they do even non panel members get their opinions in right away anyway. I think the purpose of the panel shouldn't be to tell all of us if they think Corey perry has more value than Phil Kessel and why they don't agree with the trades. It's more about whether or not it is a complete ripoff. How many of us would trade Corey Perry for a return of Frans Nielsen and Brad Stuart and a 2016 1st round pick? Put your hands down you fools!!! But what do I care if that does happen and the guy who had perry had him on his block for a month with no offers and decided he just couldn't carry te $9 million contract any longer? I mean who cares. If you didn't bite you missed out. That 1st round pick could be the next Malkin or jagr. Having said that I know that trades are very rarely ever goin to be 50/50. Heck most of the time you're lucky if it's 60/40 but both trading partners know that risk and most of the time each one thinks their side is the strong 60% side. But again who cares? I'm a Leafs fan if I want to make a huge offer for JVR because he's my favorite player right now than so be it. Everyone has a different take on who is who and what is what. Nobody in this league will agree on every players value. That's fantasy hockey at it's finest. If we go no panel than the commish can then poll the public randomly or pull aside 5 GMs who have no involvement in that trade and inbox them their thoughts. That's it. We don't need every trade picked apart. That stuff has a way of biting you in the behind and also creates tension in something that should be fun. This is what we do away from our spouses. We shouldn't be bickering amongst each other. Like I said I'm for either or not somewhere in te middle where it's murky!
Cheers! Was that two cents or a buck? Sorry for grammar or spelling my iPhone sucks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 15:01:03 GMT -5
Hey Dave. Interesting post. Here's some food for thought. What you are proposing addresses the PROCESS for voting on a trade. But where I think there could be some interesting discussion is on the CRITERIA for voting. There seems to be two schools of thought about criteria: 1. A trade should only be veto'ed if there is suspicion of collusion, or if the trade is so bad it impacts the integrity of the league (i.e. a team-killing trade); and 2. In addition to (1), a trade should be veto'ed if it is not "close" or "equal" enough. If all trades need to be "close enough" in order to “pass”, then the system you've outlined makes perfect sense to me. [Heck, even the existing trade panel makes sense in that context too.] Take the last veto'ed trade. Eric requested that Vancouver justify that player X was worth draft pick Y. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to request under the current rules (and under scenario 2 above). But it would be inappropriate under scenario 1. In scenario 1, it would be up to Eric to articulate why the trade was bad for the league (and not why player X for draft pick Y was a bad trade for Vancouver). Once the league has spoken on criteria for judging trades, I think it would then be much easier to discuss the process. Because I think the process will be different depending upon the criteria. Respectfully, dave PS: I would support scenario 1. The probation period for new members suggested by Vancouver could also be incorporated; that's an interesting idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone (Kelowna) on May 28, 2014 15:51:42 GMT -5
My two cents, I really enjoy reading all trade feedback as find it quite interesting. Find that even negative critique on my own trades is valuable, as it can help you learn for the future. Even for new GMs, going over trade threads is a great way to get a feel of what the league is about and gauge valuation. Would find it a shame if we just left every trade go through without comment - however it is ultimately passed/rejected -trading is one of the key parts of any league and having open feedback from the community (as long as it is done in a civil manner) is key to activity and maintaining interest.
Think all GMs should feel free to voice their input on any trade, each voice is as equal and important as another, no matter how vocal one may be. We shouldn't be hesitant to give our opinions (worrying that we risk potentially offending another GM) - and likewise people should not be too offended by any comments against their trades. Like many have already said, we all have different views which is what makes a league interesting - would be awfully boring if we all agreed all the time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 18:19:57 GMT -5
Hey Dave. Interesting post. Here's some food for thought. What you are proposing addresses the PROCESS for voting on a trade. But where I think there could be some interesting discussion is on the CRITERIA for voting. There seems to be two schools of thought about criteria:
1. A trade should only be veto'ed if there is suspicion of collusion, or if the trade is so bad it impacts the integrity of the league (i.e. a team-killing trade); and
2. In addition to (1), a trade should be veto'ed if it is not "close" or "equal" enough. If all trades need to be "close enough" in order to “pass”, then the system you've outlined makes perfect sense to me. [Heck, even the existing trade panel makes sense in that context too.] Take the last veto'ed trade. Eric requested that Vancouver justify that player X was worth draft pick Y. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to request under the current rules (and under scenario 2 above). But it would be inappropriate under scenario 1. In scenario 1, it would be up to Eric to articulate why the trade was bad for the league (and not why player X for draft pick Y was a bad trade for Vancouver). Once the league has spoken on criteria for judging trades, I think it would then be much easier to discuss the process. Because I think the process will be different depending upon the criteria. Respectfully, dave PS: I would support scenario 1. The probation period for new members suggested by Vancouver could also be incorporated; that's an interesting idea.I also agree we should have a probation for the new gm of like 1 week or 2 week that they either can't trade or every deal they do we review and vote on. Also for the criteria for trades I believe we are using both of those option. We will always look at if the trade is fair or equal of value and if there's chance of collusion(integrity of the league). If I had to choose one I would go with option two. |
|
)
