|
Post by Bill Buckner on Jun 18, 2005 13:22:01 GMT -5
this will show how much it is needed (maybe)
|
|
|
Post by Bill Buckner on Jun 18, 2005 13:36:09 GMT -5
personally i think there should be a new Trade Committee that will be used for EVERY trade that is made. Only this Committee can comment on the trade that were made, not saying whether it is smart or stupid for the team, since none of us know what would be smart or stupid for each certain trade(cough cough MIL) and trying our best to have a unbaised perception on the trade itself and now having our own views (i.e. our Leagues etc.) being affected. I think the people in the committee should be COL(YES COL because he is very smart in judging players), NYM(never critsizes people), BOS(ME! lol but people should vote on that), ANA, TEX, PIT and ATL. This gives us enough honest people from both sides (4 from AL and 3 from NL)
|
|
|
Post by Dave Stieb on Jun 18, 2005 13:39:33 GMT -5
I don't see corruption, but a committee to handle veto's is always good. A committee of 5 is a good size and no one person needs to get beat up over passing trades if they are questioned. (I went a stretch just to put in that smiley, didn't I?)
|
|
|
Post by Jose Canseco on Jun 18, 2005 21:10:05 GMT -5
This is not a fair rule to put into place....every GM should have the right to veto...I think the committee to review trades needs to be expanded...but they should not be the only one's "holding the power"...
Dan O'Brien
|
|
|
Post by Mike Rizzo on Jun 19, 2005 14:38:10 GMT -5
cincy, i have to disagree with you. in a perfect world, it would make sense for everyone to be able to vote to veto, but there are plenty of childish people in this league who will veto just so good players won't get in their division. i think that a committee of 5-7 gm's would be a great idea to mediate trades. most people forget that a trade is supposed to be vetoed only if it hurts the integrity of the league. while some trades are a bit lopsided, most (at least 90%) are perfectly good.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Cashman on Jun 19, 2005 16:56:50 GMT -5
does anybody read the rules. There is already a trade committe. Also everyone has the right to veto a trade. 3 vetos and it goes to the TC. THere are already TC memebers if any of them were one of the peopel to veto a replacement is picked by Mike to take thier place in the Committee process. The committe then decideds wether the deal is going to pass or not.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Buckner on Jun 19, 2005 18:07:10 GMT -5
this is why i am saying there should be a NEW trade committee. Learn from your own advice. Re-read what i posted about this new committee i am vouchering for
|
|
|
Post by Bill Stoneman on Jun 19, 2005 20:55:09 GMT -5
Really I don't see how having a different committee will improve things (which I don't think anything is wrong btw), unless it meant having 1 team from each division be in the committee. But them having to approve every trade is kind of ridiculous. I don't think there's any problems with the current system...I mean yours got 3 protests I believe, but it hasn't yet been sent to committee, and nobody said it won't pass. The whole point of the committee is to take a second look at trades that a decent number of teams think should be checked over. I don't think that's a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Bill Buckner on Jun 20, 2005 14:20:02 GMT -5
i know i understand that, but when people start bitching about trades, one after another, it gets to become a problem
|
|
|
Post by Edgar Martinez on Jun 20, 2005 16:28:36 GMT -5
i agree with mike a new trade committe is not really needed.........the only time i recall that there were bitching is just with the delmon young. It did get out of hand but its pretty much over now. Every trade is pretty much deemed fair unless 3 gms decide other wise and then we have a TC for the vetoed trade. This new system is not needed plus it takes away other's rights to veto trades and all.
BTW Mike my trade with boston actually got 2 vetoes, you said your statement was not a veto.
|
|
|
Post by Edgar Martinez on Jun 20, 2005 16:30:43 GMT -5
btw i think i voted wrong.....i think i voted yes when i ment to vote no lol..........my bad
|
|
|
Post by Bill Buckner on Jun 20, 2005 16:37:10 GMT -5
lol
|
|
|
Post by langevin25 on Jul 20, 2005 14:04:18 GMT -5
The trade committee is working just fine. In no way should only a select group be able to veto. We all have lives and can't always be looking at the bored because of work, school, family, etc. Having a selected group isn't fair to the league. Sorry but every GM imo should have he own say. You talk about how people veto if good players are going to their division. Well that is what the TC is for to stop the stupid trades and stupid vetos. The fact that people keep bringing this up is getting annoying. I mean there hasn't been a problem yet except with the Delmon Young trade and that was a bunch of Gm's just venting and trying to piss eachother off so who cares.
|
|
|
Post by Mohandas Gandhi on Jul 20, 2005 15:45:25 GMT -5
ya i like having my say. i never use it, but its good to know its there.
and also i dont get all the griping about trades anyways i personally think people should mind their p's n q's unless it is obviously unfair (pujols for any1). if someone makes a trade in this league they're obviously not trying to f themselves over and they have a reason for doing so (i know this because the same teams trade over and over and they seem good to me). so we dont need a tc, we just need to let things go the way the wind blows it. and also, the mets suck.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Shapiro on Feb 16, 2006 23:35:57 GMT -5
boston no offense but i dont like that idea.
first of all we need to have alternates...because say one of those teams is involved there is a conflict of interest.
i think the way we have it(although flawed) is the best.
let mike and/or i chose a 5 man team of people we feel are fair at evalutating it and are not apart of the trade in any way.
|
|
|
Post by Cal Ripken Jr. on Feb 16, 2006 23:38:59 GMT -5
this is 6 months old
|
|