Trade Committee

[Deleted]

We had this brought up as a suggestion to make this league even better.  99% of the time, trades are good in this league.  There have probably been about 5 trades total in 8 years that were questioned by some members.  We never had enough to veto a trade or reject the trade.  But we think this might be another tool to make this league better. 

The suggestion is we have a 3-5 member Trade Committee.  They would have their own private message board on here.  They would be the only ones to see their posts.  

The committee will NOT have to vote or pass every trade.  At most times, the TC will not have anything to discuss.  If any manager brings up a question on the balance of a trade, the issue will be sent to the TC for further discussion.  I think a reasonable time frame will be 48 hours for them to make a decision to approve or veto the trade.  If they decide that the trade is warranted a veto, the teams will be welcomed to rework the deal.  

The members of this committee should be fair and impartial to any trade.  Should have a little knowledge of values to determine if the trade is fair. 

I do not want this to cause animosity among the members if a trade happens to be vetoed.  Again, I do not think they will have many issues.  

Please let us know your thoughts and please vote.  We will need 75% to make this happen so we would like to get everybody to vote.  If you would like to be a member if this does pass, please let me know as well.

[Atlanta Braves]

Another great idea. I suck at trading so I wouldn’t be a good Trade committee member, but we got plenty of great traders and managers with vast knowledge of the game. Plus this area would assist in trading and help the leadership out.

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

Don’t think a committee should decide for the league , as is now all members can voice there side , a committee would take that away

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

Also one members version of fair may not be the same as another , for instance, some trades are not fair for both teams now , but one persons trade may be focused on the future and not the present making it seem unfair now

[Deleted]

I agree with this.  I feel it's been working just fine the way it is.  We all view players differently.  Also, there's only been a view instances of public opinion against trades that I've seen in the threads since I've been in the league.  Has there been so much behind the scenes that changes have to be made?

Mar 3, 2022 15:27:30 GMT Arizona Diamondbacks said:

Also one members version of fair may not be the same as another , for instance, some trades are not fair for both teams now , but one persons trade may be focused on the future and not the present making it seem unfair now

[Deleted]

No. And like I said, we probably only had about 5 trades that were ever questioned publicly in 8 years. This was just a suggestion from a manager that thought this might improve our league.

[San Diego Padres]

Basically, we are always open to hearing out any well thought out proposals and putting them up for a league vote. We always want to be open to change if it makes sense and the league wants to go that way. Each of your ideas, votes, and engagement is why this league has performed so well and continues to be such a wonderful experience. Incredible group of owners.

[Deleted]

Suggestions are always good.  Change at times can be good.  One reason I like being a part of this league is having the freedom to run my team as I see fit.  I like that the league closely mirrors MLB.  That's what makes it interesting for me.

Mar 3, 2022 15:53:15 GMT @bryanm1982 said:

No. And like I said, we probably only had about 5 trades that were ever questioned publicly in 8 years. This was just a suggestion from a manager that thought this might improve our league.

[Kansas City Royals]

I'm not voting, but I'm fine either way.

That said, one of the first steps I'd consider for a controversial trade is asking the owner to show their sources. There are so many different sites now, it's entirely possible they read an article no one else did and think they've found great sleepers that everyone else is undervaluing. Basically the fantasy equivalent of high school math - show your work. Not saying we should do even this, just that there are a lot of ways around trade problems.

[Oakland Athletics]

I voted no but it also doesn't really hurt anything. I feel like if two people agree and it's lopsided but not suspicious or cheating it should be fine

I remember ALOT of questionable trades. I remember I traded mitch Moreland or something for an expiring altuve and people lost their mind. I was offered altuve, I didn't propose it but at the time I was thinking I had seen plenty of trades like this and didn't understand why all of a sudden people became all vocal about it.

I was in another trade where the royals offered me scherzer for Ryan Braun. Scherzer was alot of money but his reasoning was bad luck as he lost every week scherzer was healthy and lost when he was hurt. Nobody questioned that trade.

I don't remember everyone else's trades but in my own personal history in this league i remember both of those.

I also gave Corbin burnes to the Padres for like 500k or something because he had a down year and I needed a roster spot then he turns into a perennial Cy young guy.... So it seems like things even out.

[New York Mets]

I voted yes, just because I’ve seen a couple trades this off-season that I thought were very lopsided (won’t name any names).

However, I don’t think it changes things too much one way or another, and as long as each person has a solid reason for doing it I don’t see a problem. I think it only becomes a problem if there’s owners that are consistently getting the wrong end of a deal.

[Colorado Rockies]

I tried that in another league and it didn't work.
However, I think we have some excellent people in the league that could really create a committee and help out.
I remember when I started in Fantasy Baseball I got screwed over quite often, a committee could prevent that.
So I voted yes.

[San Francisco Giants]

I don't really care either way, but I voted no as I feel I don't think there is gross collusion happening. Most trades are a coin flip or filling holes immediately and/or downline. If it's a gross trade we all could or should speak up and say no via a majority if it gets there...