TRADE APPROVAL/VETO THREAD

I have discussed my opinion before. I think there is too much analyzing going into these trades especially when two teams appear to know what they are doing and what they want. We need to abandon altogether the philosophy of "this trade should not go through because he should be getting a little bit more for such a good player".

Anyways, without going into too much of it myself, I'll open it up to everyone for their thoughts.

Man, back in Crispy I was HARSHER on trades =\.

Anyway, you have realize that right now we have teams in a near impossible hold to get out of and teams winning 100/110/120 games. It is hard to really balance things.

Also, you people take so long to work out trades. Trades should be things that take minutes, MAYBE an hour or two. 6 hours is crazy.

SanjiWatsuki wrote:

Man, back in Crispy I was HARSHER on trades =.

Same here. We wouldnt let much go through:o
Anyway no, we should keep the mods and admins vetoing and accepting trades. It keeps gm's(like the old Pirates and Brewers) from having 250 million salarys and screwing there team for years to come.

if you want to be involved so much in deciding trades maye you should play the game by yourself. Then you don't have to worry about owners of other teams making a move you don't want them too.

jcclemen2 wrote:

if you want to be involved so much in deciding trades maye you should play the game by yourself. Then you don't have to worry about owners of other teams making a move you don't want them too.

I had a team about to go bankrupt and over 100mil overbudget try and trade for Randy Johnson, Mariano Rivera, and all of the other huge Yankee contracts for prospects.

The original Cincinatti owner didn't even know about budget and went way overkill.

There are so many more examples on why it should be possible.

Basically, craft a trade that is only BARELY tipped in your favor. A trade where only a few people would say, "Hm. That team may have gotten a slightly better deal." and everyone elsae says, "That trade is entirely fair."

Then make about 10 of those trades.

That's how I was able to craft my Angels in the original Crispy league.

I agree something should be done in the event it puts a team in financial trouble. This should be easy to figure out by some sort of SET formula that is calculated based on your payroll/new payroll after the trade/cash/projected revenue. Other than that, I feel what I said previously is a good plan, so I'll post it here since it's up for discussion. Basically let me run my team.

1)have a 5 person trade approval group. I'm not sure how many there are now, but If more than half approve the trade it's approved, if more than half think a trade is BAD, (not just a little unbalanced), they

2)go back to each party and ask for more info on why they made the trade. The people need to have a chance to state their case without an argument erupting on the message boards. For instance in this case Minnesota could say starting in 2010 I'd save 4 million a year for 3 years (12 million total), then I could resign Bentz if he performs well for 4 million for 3 years in 2013, compared to wilhite at 10 million a year, so another 21 million there. After hearing/reading their reasoning the board would vote again. If more than half approve, it's approved, if not it should go

3) to the league for vote. Each teams argument could be posted. I still think you have to give each team room to make mistakes or get the better end of a deal. That's part of it. Each team needs to be able to make the moves they think they need to make. Because of this I think when it goes to the league vote something like 65% or 70% of those voting should have to vote veto for a trade to be vetoed. The people voting are going to be the most active owners in the league, so they will have a good understanding of how things works, and will be wiling to consider each side.

Basically I think a veto should be saved for a move that is so stupid you need to be kicked out of the league anyway, or at least sternly warned that you are about to be booted for being an idiot.

I like Baltimore's ideas. From the time I was in the Crispy League, it was a little frustrating because it felt like you had too much control over what was going on and the teams had less control Sanji. I didn't really make too many trades, but you decided for teams if free agents wanted to come back, basically I couldn't sign Maddux back with the Blue Jays because you said he was going to test the market. That was a little frustrating but I can see if you want to run your league like that, it just wasn't for me. I prefer a league in which I have almost complete control of my team. I know I am a competent owner so I will be financially aware as well.

I CAN COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND STEPPING IN IF A TEAM IS MAKING A STUPID TRADE THAT BURDENS THEM FINANCIALLY. That is a good point. If there is a trade that you feel is going to kill a team financially, talk to them about it, make sure they are aware and see what their plan is. If it is obvious they don't have a plan and will run the team into the ground, then you can stop a trade in that situation. Otherwise, trades should be stopped ONLY for collusion or a NEW owner being taken advantage of.

There is no way the Wilhite trade should have been that hard to get through. I have had a few other trades that have been hung up for awhile and then go through, but there was no basis for those either.

Also, if we keep a trade moderator group, I think we should vote on who is on that board, as long as the people want to be a part of it. I know some people do not like me because I am shrewd negotiator and stand up for my beliefs when I believe I am right, but I feel like I would be able to serve on a 5 person panel and bring a good perspective. I have played baseball at all levels and have a finance and business management degree from college. Even though someone has told me that has nothing to do with this game, I believe it gives me a very good perspective to look from having all that experience.

Sanji, i cant see how you think trades should take a few minutes, id think the more time they took, the more even they would be. Id also be more likely to argue a trade that they thre together than one that they said they took hours to form.

ty84moss wrote:

Sanji, i cant see how you think trades should take a few minutes, id think the more time they took, the more even they would be. Id also be more likely to argue a trade that they thre together than one that they said they took hours to form.

I work rather fast and sometimes I try and work several deals out at the same time. If I'm gunning for a trade, it doesn't take that long for me to get it done unless I'm REALLY gunning for someone the other team just doesn't want to trade or I'm contemplating if I'm getting the short end of the stick =\

OK, so you explained why you get trades done quick. Why SHOULD it be quick for everyone else? That just seems like a compltely ignorant statement to me that trades should just take a few minutes.

As you stated, ignorance on my part.

After looking back at the trades I made I've realized I've been targetting either A. Interesting/Unusual targets for the purpose or B. disposable talent. To top it off, I'm generally trading people I dislike and other like and/or they have a suitable stopgap/replacement for the player I inquired about.

On that note, my apologies.

It's imperative to keep trades fair or teams end up like the one I'm running - depleted of all minor league talent and huge contracts all over. You guys keep arguing that you want to just run your team like a realistic GM, but here's the problem - in real life GMs would NEVER make some of the boneheaded deals going down here. Would Terry Ryan even field a call about Joe Mauer? Or Cashman about Derek Jeter?

You have to have trades closely monitored or the idiots run the league.

well in real life you'd have to really worry about your public image. Jeter is the fan favorite in New York and Mauer is the hometown boy in Minnesota. That's why they would never trade those guys....otherwise I don't think it would be outside of the realm of possibility for them to trade those guys. I mean, there had been so much talk of a trade for A-Rod, and he is arguably the best player in baseball....but that was because he wasn't endeared to the fans. We don't have to worry about that kind of thing in this game as the fan support in the game is flawed.

We can still monitor trades, but there needs to be more freedom. I have wasted way too much time trying to defend some of my trades. Also, I'm a laid back guy in real life, but the frustration of having to defend trades I've worked on for a long time really wears away at me...

depleted of all minor league talent and huge contracts all over.
Isn't that the Yankees of a few years ago?

I agree you have to keep it fair for the good of the league. However that is a subjective thing. For example look at the recent Washington trade. To me it seemed fair if you considered why each team wanted to do it. But several other people thought it was a bad deal.

The problem is how to place a value on getting rid of a bad contract, picking up a good contract, prospects, a player that can make a difference in the playoffs this year, trading away a player you won't be able to afford next year, etc.

jcclemen2 wrote:

depleted of all minor league talent and huge contracts all over.
Isn't that the Yankees of a few years ago?

Yes - except no 80 million debt.

Mogul leagues cannot be run on the "let me do what I want with my team" strategy because what some GMs want - is completely stupid. The status of some teams in this league is a clear example of this.

Yes, we keep agreeing with you. Trades should be monitered to make sure they are sound financially. All I'm saying is that we should have a little more freedom because, perfect example, the deal I made with Minnesota and my feeling like I had to argue for several hours to defend it is annoying as crap.

This season Milwaukee is the one team this was an issue with, and I would say that was handled well. Several people spoke to him, figured out he didn't even have the game, and booted him. That's the type of situation this should be done in. Sure I'd like Dice K on my team, but I understand why it was done.

I cannot recall any other problems with this so far this season. If I'm mistaken please let me know. If there are specific examples from past seasons maybe it would help to bring them up. Otherwise I think most of what I've read is there were some teams that were trading/signing more salary they could afford and running up a large amount of debt. If that's the case maybe we can set some guidelines for adding salary that will put your team in a poor financial situation.

Yes, we've already established that studd didn't know what he was doing and didn't have the game. O's talked about Milwaukee being the only team he was aware of, guess what, studd was the owner there and the owner in Pittsburgh. He didn't have the game and he never should have been allowed to be an owner.

Now we have rules in place so teams in debt cannot add salary.

rule #1 from 2008 offseason meetings: Studd323 will not be given another team.

If you're going to look at the financial impact from a trade you need to do this for free agent signings/contract extensions/arbitration as well. I'm not sure how they'll look after the season but LA Dodgers are going to lose around 40 million this year, and I'd guess it's from all of these areas combined together.

Can we put jcclemen's idea for trades up to a vote?