 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Baseball Beta Testing » Beta News » Trade Vote (discussion)
Admin
A trade has been completed between the Los Angeles Angels and the St. Louis Cardinals. The St. Louis Cardinals receive [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=68338]Dave Lorraine[/url] from the Los Angeles Angels in exchange for [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=68548]Steve Manto[/url].
Please take a moment to vote on this trade if you haven't already at http://beta.simdynasty.com/tradevote.jsp?tradeid=240266&newsid=1061208753 or click the Trade Vote link found in the news item for the trade.
We have also posted this trade to a special area of the message board where a few experienced owners can comment on the trade. <a href='http://forum.simdynasty.com/viewthread.php?tid=319215'>You can view that thread here.</a>
If 66% of the owners who vote, vote to overturn, we will reverse the trade; thus, if you do not think the trade should be overturned, it is not enough to simply not vote to overturn it; please vote to let the trade stand. Owners involved in the trade are not eligible to vote. We will allow all owners at least 3 days to vote. In the event that there are draft picks involved, the draft runs before voting concludes, and the trade is reversed, we will clone players to make things right for the two owners involved. [b] We ask that you refrain from discussing trades. Nothing positive ever comes from this. Anyone discussing any trades publicly may have their posting privileges revoked.[/b]
If there are aspects of the trade that need to be brought to light, such as CPs involved in the trade, please post a note in Support for Admin.
[b]IMPORTANT:[/b] Please remember that not all trades are equal, and not all inequal trades should be overturned. A trade should only be overturned if there is bad faith on the part of one or both of the teams involved. If both teams get something they need out of the trade and neither party is taking advantage of an unaware trading partner, the trade should stand. Overturning a trade may [b]not[/b] be used as a strategic option.
If either of the two owners involved in this deal would like to comment on the deal, please post a private note in Support and I will attach your comments to this thread.
See this thread for info on this process:
http://forum.simdynasty.com/viewthread.php?tid=311476
Thanks,
Admin
[Edited on 12-2-2011 by Admin]
[Edited on 12-2-2011 by Admin]
Trade Vote (discussion)
December 01, 2011 at 04:17PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
There have been 3 votes to overturn recent trade:
A trade has been completed between the Los Angeles Angels and the St. Louis Cardinals. The St. Louis Cardinals receive [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=68338]Dave Lorraine[/url] from the Los Angeles Angels in exchange for [url=http://beta.simdynasty.com/player.jsp?id=68548]Steve Manto[/url].
Please take a moment to vote on this trade if you haven't already at http://beta.simdynasty.com/tradevote.jsp?tradeid=240266&newsid=1061208753 or click the Trade Vote link found in the news item for the trade.
We have also posted this trade to a special area of the message board where a few experienced owners can comment on the trade. <a href='http://forum.simdynasty.com/viewthread.php?tid=319215'>You can view that thread here.</a>
If 66% of the owners who vote, vote to overturn, we will reverse the trade; thus, if you do not think the trade should be overturned, it is not enough to simply not vote to overturn it; please vote to let the trade stand. Owners involved in the trade are not eligible to vote. We will allow all owners at least 3 days to vote. In the event that there are draft picks involved, the draft runs before voting concludes, and the trade is reversed, we will clone players to make things right for the two owners involved. [b] We ask that you refrain from discussing trades. Nothing positive ever comes from this. Anyone discussing any trades publicly may have their posting privileges revoked.[/b]
If there are aspects of the trade that need to be brought to light, such as CPs involved in the trade, please post a note in Support for Admin.
[b]IMPORTANT:[/b] Please remember that not all trades are equal, and not all inequal trades should be overturned. A trade should only be overturned if there is bad faith on the part of one or both of the teams involved. If both teams get something they need out of the trade and neither party is taking advantage of an unaware trading partner, the trade should stand. Overturning a trade may [b]not[/b] be used as a strategic option.
If either of the two owners involved in this deal would like to comment on the deal, please post a private note in Support and I will attach your comments to this thread.
See this thread for info on this process:
http://forum.simdynasty.com/viewthread.php?tid=311476
Thanks,
Admin
[Edited on 12-2-2011 by Admin]
[Edited on 12-2-2011 by Admin]
Admin
Normally this thread would be locked but leaving it unlocked for Beta purposes.
--Chris
December 02, 2011 at 02:14AM View BBCode
Note: Edited the links in this message to point to Beta.Normally this thread would be locked but leaving it unlocked for Beta purposes.
--Chris
tworoosters
I have a problem with the wording on the trade protest. It states that "A trade should only be overturned if there is bad faith on the part of one or both of the teams involved", which leads to a purely subjective reasoning.
Who can tell what is bad faith ?
This wording has been used by owners to state essentially that any horrendously unbalanced trade is fine as long as there is no collusion, and since collusion is almost impossible to prove it renders the whole trade protest function moot.
I realize the whole trade protest issue is a hot button but the wording here doesn't help in my opinion.
December 02, 2011 at 05:03PM View BBCode
I'm glad you opened this up Chris.I have a problem with the wording on the trade protest. It states that "A trade should only be overturned if there is bad faith on the part of one or both of the teams involved", which leads to a purely subjective reasoning.
Who can tell what is bad faith ?
This wording has been used by owners to state essentially that any horrendously unbalanced trade is fine as long as there is no collusion, and since collusion is almost impossible to prove it renders the whole trade protest function moot.
I realize the whole trade protest issue is a hot button but the wording here doesn't help in my opinion.
Admin
The issue comes down to "Why do we allow trade protests at all?" And the reason is that some people cheat. We also know that sometimes an owner has to severely overpay to get another owner to make a trade at all.
Collusive trades are hard to define but we all know them when we see them. A player trading all his red letter pitchers for a couple of scrubs is obviously collusive, but a player trading two or three red-letter hitters and a couple of choice draft picks for a red letter pitcher looks more like a player desperate for pitching severely overpaying for a player. I don't feel like that second trade should be protested under most circumstances.
But a subjective assessment is going to be necessary, because a trade protest (to me) is pretty much an accusation of cheating. It is not part of baseball, it is us suspending the game, going outside the game, to repair a wrong.
--Chris
December 02, 2011 at 05:57PM View BBCode
I am open to any changes.The issue comes down to "Why do we allow trade protests at all?" And the reason is that some people cheat. We also know that sometimes an owner has to severely overpay to get another owner to make a trade at all.
Collusive trades are hard to define but we all know them when we see them. A player trading all his red letter pitchers for a couple of scrubs is obviously collusive, but a player trading two or three red-letter hitters and a couple of choice draft picks for a red letter pitcher looks more like a player desperate for pitching severely overpaying for a player. I don't feel like that second trade should be protested under most circumstances.
But a subjective assessment is going to be necessary, because a trade protest (to me) is pretty much an accusation of cheating. It is not part of baseball, it is us suspending the game, going outside the game, to repair a wrong.
--Chris
blumer5
Then why are the one's that are overpayments, but not collusion, allowed to continue through the trade protest process.
December 02, 2011 at 06:17PM View BBCode
I am open to any changes. The issue comes down to "Why do we allow trade protests at all?" And the reason is that some people cheat. We also know that sometimes an owner has to severely overpay to get another owner to make a trade at all. Collusive trades are hard to define but we all know them when we see them. A player trading all his red letter pitchers for a couple of scrubs is obviously collusive, but a player trading two or three red-letter hitters and a couple of choice draft picks for a red letter pitcher looks more like a player desperate for pitching severely overpaying for a player. I don't feel like that second trade should be protested under most circumstances. But a subjective assessment is going to be necessary, because a trade protest (to me) is pretty much an accusation of cheating. It is not part of baseball, it is us suspending the game, going outside the game, to repair a wrong. --Chris
Then why are the one's that are overpayments, but not collusion, allowed to continue through the trade protest process.
barterer2002
New owner comes into CC and has no idea of player values. However, there are owners out there who for lack of a better term, swindle these players out of high draft picks or top prospects for aging players. Now to an extent I'm in favor of letting owners learn from this type of mistake (and know that some never will) but there have been times where entire leagues have been killed by this type of actions (think rnznsmn)
We like to think of baseball leagues as a free market but they aren't. In a free market, if you're competitors all go out of business you pick up their business and have a larger market share and more profitable company. In a league like a baseball league, if you drive the competition out of business you end up with no product because there isn't anyone to play.
When I evaluate a trade there are some that are just horrendously bad and the verbage I usually use is something along the lines of "This trade looks to be a veteran owner taking advantage of a newbie. As a league you'll want to look at this and if this is the case I would overturn. If its a matter of two veteran owners I'd probably look to see if there is any sort of collusion and if you don't think either of these are here I'd leave it but its bad enough that I would probably overturn."
THe verbage changes because I do these free style but that tends to be the gist. Sometimes I'll look at the owners involved but usually I leave that to the leagues themselves.
December 02, 2011 at 06:39PM View BBCode
There is another type of trade that should be overturned that isn't addressed in your verbage. Its the shark trade-particularly prevalent in dynasty leagues but also in some speed leagues.New owner comes into CC and has no idea of player values. However, there are owners out there who for lack of a better term, swindle these players out of high draft picks or top prospects for aging players. Now to an extent I'm in favor of letting owners learn from this type of mistake (and know that some never will) but there have been times where entire leagues have been killed by this type of actions (think rnznsmn)
We like to think of baseball leagues as a free market but they aren't. In a free market, if you're competitors all go out of business you pick up their business and have a larger market share and more profitable company. In a league like a baseball league, if you drive the competition out of business you end up with no product because there isn't anyone to play.
When I evaluate a trade there are some that are just horrendously bad and the verbage I usually use is something along the lines of "This trade looks to be a veteran owner taking advantage of a newbie. As a league you'll want to look at this and if this is the case I would overturn. If its a matter of two veteran owners I'd probably look to see if there is any sort of collusion and if you don't think either of these are here I'd leave it but its bad enough that I would probably overturn."
THe verbage changes because I do these free style but that tends to be the gist. Sometimes I'll look at the owners involved but usually I leave that to the leagues themselves.
tm4559
giggle. brian, in conquer club they call it noob farming. keep your websites straight.
December 02, 2011 at 08:40PM View BBCode
Originally posted by barterer2002
New owner comes into CC and has no idea of player values.
giggle. brian, in conquer club they call it noob farming. keep your websites straight.
tm4559
December 02, 2011 at 09:32PM View BBCode
you're in such high demand because you are so unbelievably awesomes.
lvnwrth
Not true at all, Chris. It is absolutely part of the game.
When Charlie Finley tried to sell Vida Blue to the Yankees and Rollie Fingers and Joe Rudi to the A's, Bowie Kuhn vetoed those deals, not because they were illegal or cheating, but because they were deemed NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BASEBALL because they destroyed competitive balance.
Kuhn did the same thing again, the next off season, when Finley tried to trade Blue to the Reds for less than market value. Finley was just trying to get SOMETHING for the guy before he left for free agency, but Kuhn deemed it bad for baseball, because he believed the Reds would be unbeatable. (This was the time of the Big Red Machine)
Finley sued MLB and lost.
So, back to your comment. Stopping a bad trade, for whatever reason, is no suspending the rules and going outside baseball. It is following an established baseball tradition of ensuring that the actions taken are in the best interests of the league, and do not destroy competitive balance.
December 03, 2011 at 02:02PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
But a subjective assessment is going to be necessary, because a trade protest (to me) is pretty much an accusation of cheating. It is not part of baseball, it is us suspending the game, going outside the game, to repair a wrong.
--Chris
Not true at all, Chris. It is absolutely part of the game.
When Charlie Finley tried to sell Vida Blue to the Yankees and Rollie Fingers and Joe Rudi to the A's, Bowie Kuhn vetoed those deals, not because they were illegal or cheating, but because they were deemed NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BASEBALL because they destroyed competitive balance.
Kuhn did the same thing again, the next off season, when Finley tried to trade Blue to the Reds for less than market value. Finley was just trying to get SOMETHING for the guy before he left for free agency, but Kuhn deemed it bad for baseball, because he believed the Reds would be unbeatable. (This was the time of the Big Red Machine)
Finley sued MLB and lost.
So, back to your comment. Stopping a bad trade, for whatever reason, is no suspending the rules and going outside baseball. It is following an established baseball tradition of ensuring that the actions taken are in the best interests of the league, and do not destroy competitive balance.
tm4559
December 03, 2011 at 06:47PM View BBCode
man. when lvnwrth posts, he makes the most of it. bravo.
tworoosters
Beautiful, just beautiful.
I've been struggling to come up with something along these lines but was unable to.
Thank you for making the point .
December 03, 2011 at 09:18PM View BBCode
Originally posted by lvnwrth
Originally posted by Admin
But a subjective assessment is going to be necessary, because a trade protest (to me) is pretty much an accusation of cheating. It is not part of baseball, it is us suspending the game, going outside the game, to repair a wrong.
--Chris
Not true at all, Chris. It is absolutely part of the game.
When Charlie Finley tried to sell Vida Blue to the Yankees and Rollie Fingers and Joe Rudi to the A's, Bowie Kuhn vetoed those deals, not because they were illegal or cheating, but because they were deemed NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF BASEBALL because they destroyed competitive balance.
Kuhn did the same thing again, the next off season, when Finley tried to trade Blue to the Reds for less than market value. Finley was just trying to get SOMETHING for the guy before he left for free agency, but Kuhn deemed it bad for baseball, because he believed the Reds would be unbeatable. (This was the time of the Big Red Machine)
Finley sued MLB and lost.
So, back to your comment. Stopping a bad trade, for whatever reason, is no suspending the rules and going outside baseball. It is following an established baseball tradition of ensuring that the actions taken are in the best interests of the league, and do not destroy competitive balance.
Beautiful, just beautiful.
I've been struggling to come up with something along these lines but was unable to.
Thank you for making the point .
Pages: 1