|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Sept 22, 2018 4:40:17 GMT -5
Im not going to pretend to have the perfect answer to the current trading system we have here at Legacy, because ultimately it becomes the responsibility of each member, particularly DOT members that vote to have the foresight and willingness to take a critical look at all trades that come across this league. That being said, I believe we can at the very least come up with small measures to try and improve the system we have. The first idea that crossed my mind over he past 24 hours is to create a non-binding review board of every trade, where trades would be subject to honest opinions by ALL LEAGUE MEMBERS as a preliminary process for these members to give a review opinion of the trade itself as an advisory role before a trade is officially posted for an official league vote.
So the way its working in my mind is that we will have two threads where votes would be posted, the first would be a 24 hour thread where the trade is not binding on either member that has agreed to the trade, where league members could first look at the trade and give their thoughts and opinions on the trade itself so that both sides of the trade could ponder the implications of the trade before its officially posted. What I am attempting to do here is to create a scenario where both parties would get an opinion about the trade they have made before any commitment to the trade has been publicly posted and committed too. I believe often that times most of the unbalanced trades that are made are done so in moments of emotions in the midst of getting the deal done. I believe that for many the art of getting the deal done, to put their stamp of approval on their own team is a powerful cause for many trades that become distorted in value. By creating an advisory board, and an opportunity for both GM's to opt out after careful and respectful opinions by league members, each GM gets a better implication of the trade that he or she is about to agree too.
The review process would last 24 hours, after which the trade if still agreed to by both parties could be posted for official trade vote. The second part of my proposition would be to expand the size of the DOT from 11 up to 16 members, and require either a total of 5 approve votes, or if the DOT is slow in bringing about the necessary votes within a 48 hour period, a simple majority vote to pass. With the expansion from 11 to 16, in a league this active, Im sure getting 5 votes in should not be that big of a problem, but we cant draw these things out too long. I believe by expanding the vote count from 3 where it is now, up to 5 will give greater legitimacy to a trade when it is indeed passed. Often times a simple 3 vote majority can be passed by more passive members of the DOT before more critical members have time to weigh in. And while all members should be critical of all trades moving forward, simply having a couple extra pairs of eyes to bring to light problems with any particular trade can only help. If after a 24 hour review window and a 5 vote DOT member vote, that bad trades are being passed, then we have bigger problems with the system itself, and we may have to accept the inevitable that bad trades are part of this game we play.
The review thread would be subject of opinion of all league members, while the official league vote would be conducted by the 16 member DOT.
I understand that this will slow down the trade process a little, but maybe slowing down the trade process is the antidote here. This should give more pause in trades that are agreed to by league members and give those that have a concerns of distorted trades an outlet to give greater foresight.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Sept 22, 2018 7:53:52 GMT -5
I am a big fan of a 5 man Dot system when voting on trades, I know you mentioned frank, that our current system allows for more passive DOT to get a trade through, prior to the more critical DOT members log on, that could also be easily reversed and I’ve seen that happen many times as well. So it does work both ways.
I think that the 5man system, will also make one single vote a bit less critical, and in turn hopefully will make DOT less concerned or hesitant in voting for a trade and willing to jump in on the voting, this will also make it easier to recruit the new DOT members that will be needed.
I also think that by getting more votes in a deal, will make that first vote not as critical. I believe that the first vote of a trade often decides a trade, 95% of the time, because there isn’t much wiggle room after that first critical vote and this is why deals will sit for hours and hours. The sitting of trades for hours and hours, affects voting. It may sway a DOT member one way or three other, again human and nothing we can do about it. Making it 5 votes, a...doesn’t put so much pressure on starting the voting and b....will allow DOT to always think critically and not feel like they have to fall in line, which is just human nature.
The final reason why switching to the 5 man system works is because I believe it will allow us to find the middle ground more likely, between the passive and more critical voters. It is perfectly fine to have more passive those who are more critical and a tougher vote, on DOT...its good to have these wide ranging beliefs...but getting more people voting, more often then none will allow us to find a happy, consistent medium.
Finally, in our voting system we will always a run into problems. 32 people have different values on players, different values on future draft picks, different values on saving 5M in a deal for the next three seasons. But while we all have different ideas and opinions on trades, it’s the consistency that shouldn’t change from vote to vote for any DOT member and that’s where the root of the issues are imo.
Frank, in destiny I started putting the main players name in the Thread. Do you think this will work? Reason why I see some good things coming out of it is two fold...the first being trading partners can quickly reference past trades involving similar types of players and reference what the compensation was, which in turn will help with their current talks....and secondly, for DOT...dot if they wish could easily reference passed trades that they, or other DOT members voted on to assist in voting for current trades. This gives dot a tool to make their jobs easier. We pass sooooo many trades as DOT, maybe using that information will help all of us,
Talking with some GMs it does seem that DOT members aren’t on the same page unfortunately...do we need to maybe outline criteria for DOT members to consider when voting. I don’t know if it’s a series of questions that can reference and based on a yes or no answer to those guiding questions .helps them with a vote. Or if we outline specific factors (production, potential, contract) that we want DOT to consider when casting a vote??
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Sept 22, 2018 10:56:12 GMT -5
I like the proposition, I think the 5 vote increase will be better, but I also think these same issues will come up. They may not be as often, but it will come up. One thing I think could be helpful is to have some sort of grading scale for the trades that the DOT can use. Anthony kind of referenced his also, I don’t know exactly what it would be but I’m thinking of doing it in NFLGM. Here is what I’m thinking - There would be a series of basic questions regarding a posted trade maybe like 5 questions. Simple yes or no answers. In the DOT’s posted vote on the trade they will have to include the questions and their own answers and then at the end they explain their answers and put their vote. I don’t know what the questions will be yet something like can you see the value of the trade for both teams? Is the compensation fair for the players involved? Does this trade hurt the future for either team? Does this trade hurt the league as a whole? I need to think it through more, but something like this could put the DOT on the same page. My hope is that it kind of takes out the personal feelings or values out of the voting system. Just a thought I had
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Sept 22, 2018 11:26:51 GMT -5
Frank, first things first just want to mention the fact that I, as well as the rest of the league as a whole (apparent from the overwhelming response to the vote of confidence) appreciate your strong leadership ability. Spearheading this conversation isn't easy, although it is necessary. There was never a doubt in my mind that we could not address and overcome any situation this league faces.
Second,in addressing this thread, I strongly believe Ricky's (Titans GM) post under the "Emergency Vote:..." Thread belongs as part of this discussion. There he succinctly outlines what I believe to be some of the critical analysis needed to successfully address the issue of "value".
Finally, and this is strictly based upon my own experience, the underlying issue of such trades must consider the experience of the GM, the teams in question, and also the league as a whole. In this manner the word "value" is extended beyond players/picks. We have a tendency to look at the mismanagement of GM's in regard to teams that have been destroyed, without looking at the GM's/teams that have contributed to depleting that team of resources to become competitive. When a team is destroyed, the league suffers as a whole.
Of course this is just an outline. I'll have to fully address what was presented thus far later this evening.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Sept 22, 2018 11:32:17 GMT -5
Colts...when we talk about experience of a GM and factoring that into it, that’s when things get very grey and not consistent for all 32 teams. We should be dealing with just facts plain and simple.
If a GM is unable to make moves without harming their team or destroying their organization for years to come.. Maybe we need to be somehow assisting those GMs in getting better as traders or potentially have to replace them
But dot needing to police an organization I don’t think is fair...and is what causes inconsistencies
as I do think a RB1 or QB should cost the same amount for all 32 members regardless of wins, losses or year’s in league
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Sept 22, 2018 11:38:48 GMT -5
I have to agree with Anthony, It is the job of the DOT to make sure a trade is fair and accomplished the goals of both organizations. I don’t think the experience of a GM should be factored at all. We have these issues because people are looking at the GM’s incolved as opposed to the value of the trade. We need to focus strictly on the trade itself and take the emotions out of it. If anything I believe this would be the responsibility of the Commissioner to teach and coach the new GMs.
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Sept 22, 2018 13:39:00 GMT -5
I have to agree with Anthony, It is the job of the DOT to make sure a trade is fair and accomplished the goals of both organizations. I don’t think the experience of a GM should be factored at all. We have these issues because people are looking at the GM’s incolved as opposed to the value of the trade. We need to focus strictly on the trade itself and take the emotions out of it. If anything I believe this would be the responsibility of the Commissioner to teach and coach the new GMs. I'll say this. The good thing is we are becoming a league where most GM's are gaining experience and sticking and staying. However, I am unsure, as to the weight of evidence, that it is OFTEN the inexperienced GM who often gets stripped and raped of their assets in these leagues. Naturally there has to be a time when that GM has to get their cherry popped, but with no indication that they are willing to stick and stay- it creates a burden on the league should they choose to abandon the team. So in this respect I disagree. 1) We cannot expect a new GM, without experience to know any type of league trade values and I defer to the Rules in making this assessment. Disagree with the rules, then seek to change or modify them.
Trade Probation for New GM's All new GM's will be required to be on a 3 week probation, where all trades need to be submitted to league mangers for approval before posting on the league page threads. League managers will have oversight of trades and will be in an advisory capacity to assist new GM's in regards to trades for their organizations. The primary role for league managers will be to advise and not to discourage trading as we want all league members to have fun, and also have the ability to put their own personal stamp on whatever organization they are in charge of. However, because often times many new members have very little experience in 32 team salary cap league, league mangers will have a final veto right before a trade is voted on by the DOT. Read more: legacynfl.boards.net/thread/1/rules#ixzz5Rr9tDtEb
That said, most GM's are fully aware that I take the time to assess a much more vast area than most - each trade presenting in effect values that bare specifically on that trade. Thus this is a very minute area of assessment as we are slowly but surely moving away from this aspect. If a DOT member chooses to ignore this aspect, that's fine, but don't blame me for looking at it when it's part of the rules. Apparently other experienced GM's have noticed the problem of new GM's getting raped and implemented a rule to address it.
2) I also cannot agree as to this being the reason we begin to run into issues. The "issues" itself in this case have yet to be decided. To begin, we have the DOT, basically without any requirements...no trading guidelines and needing no experience, making decisions based upon their individual value of players/picks. Vast overpays go unchallenged while underpays are largely disfavored. Why? for the aforementioned reasons. These are the issues imo. No on the job training.
3) This issue is also a large one, needing the league as a whole to get involved. There is already enough work placed at the commissioners feet, thus implementation of a DOT. There is enough work at the feet of the DOT, therefore we have league wide discussions to help assist in measuring the best methods for determining a course of action.
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Sept 22, 2018 13:45:08 GMT -5
Can I suggest the first veto triggers the second thread? I'm not sure we need a 24 hour review period during a draft to not argue about a 20 3rd for a 19 4th. I'm also not sure we need to argue about a straight up positional trade. IE a 5ppg corner for a 5ppg Safety. I can see a lot of un-commented on trade discussion threads in our future
So we have the trade thread - we get a veto, we pause for a 24 hour discussion.
How does that sound
By the way I know some leagues fast track draft pick trades as they maybe on the clock or close and they're often not to be considered as important as RoS trades but I think every trade should be subject to the same rules.
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Sept 22, 2018 13:51:20 GMT -5
Colts...I am not talking about GMs who are just entering the league when I talk about the DOT needing to police teams. Of course we should be looking out for the very new owners in our league and ensure they are not being taken advantage of.
I am talking about deals involving GMs who have been in this league for many months or years...when you make a comment such as "I will accept because we have two experienced GMs", a statement you have made in numerous voting opportunities, I believe this makes things cloudy. Right now DOT, has a difficult task, and what makes it even more challenging is that we are not speaking the same language per say. I think we should agree on 4-5 guiding principals and those are the only things we consider when deciding on a deal. We need a concrete as possible voting system, where we all are speaking the same language and looking at the same things.
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Sept 22, 2018 13:52:24 GMT -5
Can I suggest the first veto triggers the second thread? I'm not sure we need a 24 hour review period during a draft to not argue about a 20 3rd for a 19 4th. I'm also not sure we need to argue about a straight up positional trade. IE a 5ppg corner for a 5ppg Safety. I can see a lot of un-commented on trade discussion threads in our future So we have the trade thread - we get a veto, we pause for a 24 hour discussion. How does that sound By the way I know some leagues fast track draft pick trades as they maybe on the clock or close and they're often not to be considered as important as RoS trades but I think every trade should be subject to the same rules. All issues that we have to look at, without a doubt.
|
|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Sept 22, 2018 13:54:51 GMT -5
By the way if we want to replicate real life then bad trades are a part of that...just look at Oakland since Gruden took over. Traded down 4 places in the first for a 3rd that allowed Arizona to get their franchise QB dirt cheap, we paid PIT a third for a drug addled WR who could be about to get a years suspension again plus we've waived him once. That should have been a conditional 5th or 6th. And finally the best defensive player of his generation for probably a mid to late first and a 20 first plus we sent a 20 second back...The 20 picks may not be that far apart at the end of the day
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Sept 22, 2018 14:11:28 GMT -5
My only concern with a 24 hour discussion...is will DOT members be able to make an independent decision after seeing many posts commenting on a trade? I am wondering if It makes sense to just leave a trade posted for 24 hours before voting. I just worry of DOT being persuaded into voting one way or another after seeing a league discussion. Does anyone else potentially see this as a concern? I love idea of drawing out the process. I just worry about having DOT seeing others ideas/thoughts prior to casting a vote. I worry about DOT just falling in line one way or another, and being afraid to cast their true feelings.
One thought that I had, and I do not even know this is possible. But DOT PM their vote into Frank and maybe one other person. Having no visible votes on the proboard page would would allow for DOT to cast votes how they see fit, without any fear of being called out or worry about needing to fall inline, or worry about casting the first or last vote which is always tough. DOT members would PM their vote and reasoning. After 5 votes have been tallied one way or another, Frank (someone else) could post the results and what ever statements DOT sends to Commish (someone else) in one post under the trade.
This would give Commish more work to do. But if we could figure out a proper system, it could work. Again I do not know if this is possible, but it does make sense imo This won't fix the issue of DOT not voting and using the same criteria...we need this too.
**We could also just put a Poll up...and make it invisible until we get to 5 votes, then unlock Poll and make it visible. Only thing with this way, is we don't get a reason why a DOT is voting one way or another.**
I will say though that we can come up with new ideas...but if DOT thinks that the Redskins/Giants trade is a vetoable trade...then IMO we have to go back and look at that first. Where one team is shedding a UFA contract and is rebuilding, and gains a rookie who only has 13 less points, then we need to work on that too.
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Sept 22, 2018 15:27:55 GMT -5
My only concern with a 24 hour discussion...is will DOT members be able to make an independent decision after seeing many posts commenting on a trade? I am wondering if It makes sense to just leave a trade posted for 24 hours before voting. I just worry of DOT being persuaded into voting one way or another after seeing a league discussion. Does anyone else potentially see this as a concern? I love idea of drawing out the process. I just worry about having DOT seeing others ideas/thoughts prior to casting a vote. I worry about DOT just falling in line one way or another, and being afraid to cast their true feelings. One thought that I had, and I do not even know this is possible. But DOT PM their vote into Frank and maybe one other person. Having no visible votes on the proboard page would would allow for DOT to cast votes how they see fit, without any fear of being called out or worry about needing to fall inline, or worry about casting the first or last vote which is always tough. DOT members would PM their vote and reasoning. After 5 votes have been tallied one way or another, Frank (someone else) could post the results and what ever statements DOT sends to Commish (someone else) in one post under the trade. This would give Commish more work to do. But if we could figure out a proper system, it could work. Again I do not know if this is possible, but it does make sense imo This won't fix the issue of DOT not voting and using the same criteria...we need this too. **We could also just put a Poll up...and make it invisible until we get to 5 votes, then unlock Poll and make it visible. Only thing with this way, is we don't get a reason why a DOT is voting one way or another.** I will say though that we can come up with new ideas...but if DOT thinks that the Redskins/Giants trade is a vetoable trade...then IMO we have to go back and look at that first. Where one team is shedding a UFA contract and is rebuilding, and gains a rookie who only has 13 less points, then we need to work on that too. I do worry about the review period swaying votes. I think we need to make sure the DOT is not swayed in their vote. I think it is important to make sure the DOT does have time to review the trade but not to be influenced by the review period. I’m not sure what the answer is here but I do like Darryl’s mention of training of some sort for the DOT. I’m not sure what is best this seems to be a complicated issue that has a lot of layers to it.
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Sept 22, 2018 15:49:09 GMT -5
I'm for the proposition. I do not believe it will solve the issue, but it could help deter certain bad trades from hitting the board. When GM's realise their trades will be up for discussion, they'll think more about making in one of fair value. Years ago I proposed a trade to a GM who loved the proposition, which was over-valued, but was afraid it would not pass. So he took the time to make it more equitable before we presented it to the Trade Approval Board. Those days appear long gone where one GM was just as interested in making sure the other team received a fair benefit that would enhance his/her chances of becoming competitive just as much as their own.
I also believe it will not apply to most trades as most are pretty much straight forward. This is normally the case even when GM's fail to state their position/aims/direction. In this respect, being singled out to the exclusion of others where "experienced GM's" are making trades, I often lend an element of trust to those GM's where the direction is not stated. After all, some have for the most part demonstrated that they will stick and stay the course and remain competitive.
In specifically responding to Anthony's concern above, I respectively disagree - I'm not sure that members of DOT are that easily swayed by another's vote/objection. To believe otherwise suggests members do not have the ability to think independently and form their own thoughts on the matter. I've made many points in vetoing a trade - which many may have considered, but none-the-less have still passed with flying colors 3-1. I've also approved trades where other's have vetoed over my stated reasons for approval. The DOT is capable of weighing information.
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Sept 22, 2018 15:52:23 GMT -5
Right now DOT, has a difficult task, and what makes it even more challenging is that we are not speaking the same language per say. I think we should agree on 4-5 guiding principals and those are the only things we consider when deciding on a deal. We need a concrete as possible voting system, where we all are speaking the same language and looking at the same things. Agreed! Laying out those principles should be, imo, the major focus. We are/should be one unit!!! great point.
|
|