|
Post by Toronto Blue Jays on May 18, 2019 19:21:47 GMT
Here is the first proposal.
Should we have a 6 man panel to vote on the good faith/reasoning given for trades?
Vote will take less than 24 hours. Accepting trade parties must post their thought process for a trade (already changed it to that they have to post the reason)
How lopsided a trade is will not be a factor
4/6 for approval of the trade essentially
The panel will consist of myself (ALE), Miami (NLE), then an owner from the remaining divisions
Trades involving a panel member will be replaced on the vote with somone else from the division
Trade deadline and draft this will be waived, but monitored
|
|
|
Post by Miami Marlins on May 18, 2019 19:46:25 GMT
If you vote no it would help to know what your thoughts are on it.
|
|
|
Post by Kansas City Royals on May 19, 2019 22:30:12 GMT
I am ok with this rule. I don't trade much at all (maybe 1-2 times a year)
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on May 19, 2019 22:35:23 GMT
Like Rule 2, I like this rule in theory, but have voted "no" because I worry about it's practical application. What if two people collude to prevent a competitor or someone they just didn't like from making the trade? If you can assuage that concern for me, then I'd probably be Ok with this rule.
|
|
|
Post by Toronto Blue Jays on May 19, 2019 22:46:45 GMT
Like Rule 2, I like this rule in theory, but have voted "no" because I worry about it's practical application. What if two people collude to prevent a competitor or someone they just didn't like from making the trade? If you can assuage that concern for me, then I'd probably be Ok with this rule. It would take 3 people to vote no to stop a trade and it would probably be clear they are colluding since the reason for the trade etc will be posted in the Trade Announcment thread for everyone to see anyway
|
|
|
Post by Pittsburgh Pirates on May 19, 2019 22:50:04 GMT
Like Rule 2, I like this rule in theory, but have voted "no" because I worry about it's practical application. What if two people collude to prevent a competitor or someone they just didn't like from making the trade? If you can assuage that concern for me, then I'd probably be Ok with this rule. It would take 3 people to vote no to stop a trade and it would probably be clear they are colluding since the reason for the trade etc will be posted in the Trade Announcment thread for everyone to see anyway Oh that's a bit better TBJ. I actually like this better than the other because it won't muddy up the trade waters.
|
|
|
Post by San Francisco Giants on May 20, 2019 14:35:07 GMT
i voted yes but to be fair i have no strong feelings on this one way or the other
|
|