The Brewster

Choose one

Keep dismissing real problems by offering clown solutions like they are the only possibility. "See Ted! No one liked all these ridiculous ideas, so everything is fine."

No these are real questions

The passive aggression on that third option is dripping, lol. At a minimum it's a leading option, even if you didn't mean in that way.

I can change the wording but I’m also far from the following boy gm who has said as much today

Nope. Okay with commish vetoing a trade in the best interest of the league. But it should be extremely rare.

agrudez wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:41 pm

The passive aggression on that third option is dripping, lol. At a minimum it's a leading option, even if you didn't mean in that way.

To play mediator for a second, I believe Ted's proposal in the other thread wasn't to have a pass/go committee for trades, but rather to have a committee that monitors trades and looks for impropriety to document it. And a way for said committee to mete out punishment to repeat trade shark offenders.

The simple knowledge that the league takes this seriously (which has not been the case before) and is watching would act as a decent deterrent on it's own merits. Having some punituve punishment adds even more credence. Something like 5 gms needing 60% majority to document a trade rape. 3 majority documented trade rapes results in forfeiture of the team's next 1st round pick. Just spit balling.

I’d be fine with that. But as usual it’s just bitching and not specific solutions like you just posted. Why in the world does it have to escalate to a guy quitting to get an actual suggestion????

I've made a lot of bad trades. Many of them I knew were bad when I did them. I'd be mad as hell if they got vetoed.

Maybe there should be an initiation period where all trades within the first year of a GM being in the league are reviewed by governing board? That doesn't really help this specific situation much though. I just think it might help with future dealings.

I've made a lot of bad trades. Many of them I knew were bad when I did them. I'd be mad as hell if they got vetoed.

Maybe there should be an initiation period where all trades within the first year of a GM being in the league are reviewed by governing board? And then they give new GM tips and suggestions. That doesn't really help this specific situation much though. I just think it might help with future dealings.

We’re not talking about new Gms here

recte44 wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2019 4:58 pm

We’re not talking about new Gms here

I know. But Ted's main beef is the act of sharking. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this specific trade. That's not important. But sharks mainly attack the fresh meat. If we can deter that a little, then it would at least be a step in the right direction.

Just my 2 cents. I'm not upset or effected by any of this. I like Ted and I like this league and the way you run it.

I’m the one that voted yes, because I now believe the question should be. How can we stop the BAD trades. I feel after 4-6 trades gets rejected the practice could stop.

My first step is not to trade any more. Having a GM step because of my action makes me feel like a _______________. 2 strikes on the Kernels one more and your out.

Edward Murphy wrote: ↑

Fri Apr 26, 2019 5:22 pm

... because I now believe the question should be. How can we stop the BAD trades.

That's a good question, Ed. And well made and intended. But at it's heart this is about "what is a bad trade?" and "what is the board going to do to make people see the world like I do?"

This, in my opinion, is not a bad trade. It has more risk on your side, and less on Justin's. But the upside on your window is better. I'm not sure I would have made it, but I'm also not sure I wouldn't have. The point here is that some very vocal people don't agree with that assessment, and think that the mere fact that I hold this opinion is a sign of how corrupt I am. This, of course, is one of those "have you stopped beating your significant other" kind of questions. There's no argument but to say my opinion and leave it.

Regardless, if it were brought to the board as a flagged item, I will say that as a board member I wouldn't have given it second notice in my vote to approve. In fact, when it was first brought to my attention I think my first reaction was "hey, I kinda like the two pitchers Ed got." So, there's that for what it's worth.

If the reaction of a few people cause you to just stop trading, then I think that's not good for either the Kernels or the league.

But that's just me.

I'm just one voice on that matter. But my opinion is still: make a plan, execute the plan. Have fun. Whatever that is.

That’s what I feared.

I only care about new GMs. I think this league has been around long enough that everyone else can manage their teams and their trades however they see fit. We all make bad trades sometimes and if some GMs can consistently make good trades well it's up to the GM on the shit end of the stick to figure out what went wrong. I love all of the communication. I think when a bad trade happens the league should call it out and we can learn from it. I would absolutely hate a league where each and every trade is under any amount of scrutiny. If the commish can veto any trade and it's just rare, what's the difference between that and us protesting a trade to the governing board. Now, if for whatever reason the process isn't taken seriously, then that's obviously something we need to change, but I support sticking to the way things are. I don't like penalizing good GMs for making good trades. FWIW, I'm not sure I am one of those GMs that make good trades hahaha.

I think the vocal members of this day's conversation aren't so much looking to the board to veto trades as they are looking to punish people they see as being devious or acting in what they consider obvious bad faith.

That's the difference as far as I can tell.

To me, the option is already there in the Constitution. You dont like the trade -well, let me out that a different way - if you dont think the trade is fair for one reason or another, you can ask the Commish for a review. Now, if you want to make it a committee, that's fine as well. But every trade should not be reviewed automatically.

There are far too many reasons behind a trade and certainly not everyone is involved with each person's team as much as the person himself.

I'm fine with a review board so long as they aren't looking for "Bad" trades, but a pattern of clearly unfair trades between two teams.