I had thought a lot of this myself, but there have been multiple instances where I thought someone was a habitual shark, and when discussing it in private with GM's I trust, people disagree with me. Let's take for example the trade I discussed with you last year that I thought was ridiculous. You rather disagreed with me about it. I do agree that I think there is some bad trade valuation, but I can find examples where a buyer didn't give nearly enough back, and ones where a buyer overpaid. It's hard to say the standard is off when there are bad trades both ways. But yes, there are GMs whose offers I try to remember to politely decline, and sometimes simply forget to respond to. I think their negotiations are ridiculous. What I don't know, is whether they are truly trying to fleece me, or are our player evaluations so different that it simply seems that way. If that's the case, then I bet I've come across poorly to several GMs in negotiations myself.agrudez wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:37 amThe biggest culprit is the trading environment in the league. We all know who the sharks and minnows are in this league. When multiple teams are habitually giving up good players in trade for bad players they are going to be bad. When multiple teams are habitually giving up bad players in trade for good players they are going to be good. And the practice outlined above has been normalized because we have enough minnows to sustain the sharks which causes trade valuation league-wide to fundamentally shift (after all, why would a shark pay fair price for something NOW when they have already gotten one over on so many minnows - and know that the next big bite is just around the corner).Ted wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:23 amI'm not so sure that expansion is even the biggest cause of what i consider to be a class split among the teams into three pretty clear tiers. (Always in contention, sometimes in contention, never in contention). I think these groups stay fairly consistent over any given 10 year stretch.
The problem is then compounded because being an active member of the community increases your odds of both being a shark AND being invited onto the GB. So, without naming any names whatsoever, we almost always have a few sharks on the GB at any given time. That means that conversations on fixing the environment at that level probably won't get off the ground. So, you turn the conversation to the grass roots level (ie. trying to educate the minnows on their minnow-ness). Problem there is that being an active member of the community increases your odds of both being a shark AND being a well thought of member of the community whose opinion the minnows should respect. So now we have a subset of sharks teaching the minnows that they are actually RIGHT to be a minnow and should continue doing so.
And every time you bring the subject up, some sharks try to gaslight the topic by flipping it to you being a jerk for calling a minnow a minnow. Because active exploitation is way less of an offense than constructive criticism.
I like to think I'm a fairly fair trader, and impartial. Until recently I've made very few trades. I'm only trading now because I think the super huge prospect groups in the draft and scouting/IFA make lumping more inevitable than ever, so I'm dumping prospects, and the more realistic injury model has me scared shitless to hold on to a pitcher with an arm or shoulder problem. I think I've also been up front about that in negotiations.
I think the problem, if we do have one, is multifactorial. The trade environment could be better. I agree. I think it's a big part. But I also think expansion has played a role. I also think the shifting draft quality and insane prospect depth is hurting us, because more good prospects mean less guaranteed good things. And bad teams NEED guaranteed good things.
