Role of the trade council discussion

[HafDawg2003]

Too busy to respond right now.

You just did.

[Kingdom]

Ooooh, Haf.

[cjkalt]

Alright so this was a little harsh but OM if u wanna attack my GM style make another thread, it's not related to this other than your vendetta against me.

Seriously though this isn't about GM styles (u call it tanking, I call it proper rebuild) it's about what a TC should be looking for... Like how is a 4.0 spec for a 1st rounder okay but if we add a weak 4.0 spec it's not... How is that the gap...

Like Impossibles said, in the rules the emphasis was on collusion not fairness so we are addressing that question

1) No need to attack how I run my team, you run yours I'll run mine.
2) I already stated that my trades would need to follow the current rules no matter what due to my history. This isn't about me being able to get good deals its about whats right for the OOTP game in general
3) You know I asked you for the league file back in 04 and have been playing my own game year by year with your settings up til the changes, so don't tell me I haven't been doing research when you knew that already (Go back and look at how I draft (I made it easy) that kinda success doesn't just happen)
4) Outside of S3SL when I simply missed the 1st 2 sims after the long break (after I bought players in FA) I haven't tanked anywhere. You know better as the commish in HSL, I signed Peavy to a 7 yr 20 mil deal, and signed some vets for the gap year.

5) Since you have attacked my style, you aren't noticing the difference between this buying and the last one. I'm targeting younger players. Most of the players I've been going after hitting wise are in their 20's so that this won't be a flash in the pan, sure it cost me Portillo and other great specs but this is a long haul move. SP wise I went and got Lorenzo because he's a stud and Peavy/Lorenzo 1-2 will be tough for any team to beat. and when they age I have Cote/Brady/Lobo as 3 of the 4 best SP specs in the game to fill their spots. Also my system in HSL is that deep that I will have players to come and fill in as players age this time around with my picks. (I'd take a cheap shot here about my top specs dying off board but I don't actually think you do this, I just wish that was the answer sometimes)

This plan was inspired by Prov's Cardinals in TSSL and Porter's Mariners in HSL (before he messed it up by spending big to prove a point) and should work in the long haul...

Now I've gotten away from the meat of this too, but to say I don't know what the TC does is laughable, I know the game, I've done the research. The TC uses strict scrutiny when it comes to my deals and thats fine, but telling me that offering a good 5.0 spec, 1st round pick, and developmental 5.0 spec for a 31 yr old pitcher with a career 3.6 era is winning a deal vs a new GM then so be it... but its not collusion/destroying the league

[HollywoodLeo]

You can't have a rational debate or conversation if you view anything that's contrary to your belief as an "attack".

[Kingdom]

Just a warning, if this is going to swerve away from whatever point this thread wanted to make to argue, attack, insult, etc. then I will close and move this thread. Kingdom speaks this to everyone, even Kingdom's self.


This Rickey Henderson moment has been brought to you by the letter "K". Thank you, carry on.

[Impossibles]

Here is my $.02 to CJ, Impossibles, and other GMs who are advocating a change in TC philosophy... Study the game, buy or download for free, OOTP 6.5, learn what stat category contact translates to, learn what eye translates to, learn what all the categories mean, and how they affect the performance of the player in the stat engines. Impossibles has been given a great opportunity in HSL. I hate to sound like Yoda, but learn the f'n game before you bitch about what the TC should or shouldn't do. CJ, you are still trying to game the system by tanking at times and then a mass trade off of prospects for MLB contending players. Slow down, strike a balance in your strategy, give the players time to develop and peak, hopefully together. PM the GMs who have successful dynasties and ask them what they are doing. I really enjoyed the IM conversations over the years with various GMs about what they look for in a player and what is a largely irrelavent player category.

See this is the arbitrary confusion in why trades are rejected and GMs are confused. A thorough knowledge of the intricacies of OOTP shouldn't be required to play in the leagues, its just for fun for baseball fans. But if you are using that logic to pass/fail trades, you are expecting everybody to fully understand the game and the logic. I feel the criteria for judging trades needs to be a little more straight forward and plainly explained to all. You guys do a great job of informing us why trades fail and trying to get them through, but its still rather arbitrary.

All this said, please please please don't take this discussion as a personal attack to any of the commissioners. You guys do a great job and put in so many hours into these leagues just so (hopefully) 29 other people enjoy the game, and that is awesome. If I was really pissed off I would just quit, instead I want to hopefully help improve things. Thank you guys for all you do.

[Impossibles]

Just a warning, if this is going to swerve away from whatever point this thread wanted to make to argue, attack, insult, etc. then I will close and move this thread. Kingdom speaks this to everyone, even Kingdom's self.


This Rickey Henderson moment has been brought to you by the letter "K". Thank you, carry on.

I think everything that needs to be said has been said. The commissioners can do what they wish, I just hope for a little more clarification on the TC's judgement process or perhaps a little more trust in GMs to make their own decisions on how to run their teams.

[zodious]

I've gotten one thing outa this mess.

It seems like the people that have issues with the trade counsil want a change to the way things are being judged and the TC thinks things are judged fine. The only way to solve this is if in the TC there is a close vote, but it fails, there should be a PM to the person getting "less" in the deal and say:

"The trade counsil feels that you are not getting enough in the deal that has been proposed, if you feel you are then we'll pass it because it was a close vote, if you want us to deny it we will and you can rework it."

If it's not a close vote, then deny it and make it reworked.

It seems as if imossibles was ok with his deals even though he wasn't getting "fair value" in the eyes of the TC. If it was a close vote then the losing GM should have a say.


Im fine if there is a change, or stays the same, but right now i'd like to see who wants a great 1B! There's my 2 cents, I'll go back to goofing around!

[Saber]

I think the main question being asked here is should the TC be looking at A) Fairness or B) Whether its robbery, and is unfair for the league... I think all the TC members above are saying its A which is the point Impossibles is bringing here

While some may think we look just at A, it's more typically B. Over 90% of the trades I see, the TC looks at, and says "Yeah, this is fine." There's little or no debate, because there's nothing blatantly unfair going on. I can think of a recent deal trading a 5 star prospect for something like a 2 or 2.5 star player. The TC was initially not going to pass it, until we realized the prospect was underdeveloped enough that we thought no one was getting screwed over.

I've also seen many deals involving and between TC members pass and fail. Many times they get changed and passed. Veteran GMs dealing with each other get more leeway, because they know what they're doing. A veteran GM making a deal with someone new gets more scrutiny.

I play a lot of fantasy baseball, and the only reason a trade should ever be vetoed is if collusion is suspected. Leagues often get ruined when trades get vetoed for other reasons.

Screwing other GMs and running them out of the league is not good for the league. Fun for you, maybe, not good for the league.

I will tell you what kind of deals will not pass the TC. Piling the Trash High will not pass. Deals that get re-worked 3 or 4 times to pass don't pass specifically because one GM is trying to get around giving anything of value. The other side of Piling the Trash High is Protecting the New Guy. That's what we're here for. Damn near everything else passes.

ill be honest... me and saber hate you all and fail everything. suck it.

This.

The Supreme Court does this, it assumes the state is right except in cases of script scrutiny...

*sighs, and dies a little inside...

[cjkalt]

You can't have a rational debate or conversation if you view anything that's contrary to your belief as an "attack".

He's attacking my GM style, not the issue on hand, which is why I asked him to put it in another thread

[cjkalt]

This should get more love IMO and might be a good idea to adopt

I've gotten one thing outa this mess.

It seems like the people that have issues with the trade counsil want a change to the way things are being judged and the TC thinks things are judged fine. The only way to solve this is if in the TC there is a close vote, but it fails, there should be a PM to the person getting "less" in the deal and say:

"The trade counsil feels that you are not getting enough in the deal that has been proposed, if you feel you are then we'll pass it because it was a close vote, if you want us to deny it we will and you can rework it."

If it's not a close vote, then deny it and make it reworked.

It seems as if imossibles was ok with his deals even though he wasn't getting "fair value" in the eyes of the TC. If it was a close vote then the losing GM should have a say.


Im fine if there is a change, or stays the same, but right now i'd like to see who wants a great 1B! There's my 2 cents, I'll go back to goofing around!

[HollywoodLeo]

He's attacking my GM style, not the issue on hand, which is why I asked him to put it in another thread

Being off topic doesn't make it an "attack". Nobody is under fire here.

[albbla2000mu]