<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">I wouldn't go as far as saying no protests will happen, but I do believe that the collateral system will result in close to zero protests ever happening, which potentially is worse for the league than what the system is designed to prevent. My first reaction to seeing Sean's suggestion was "well, I'm not going to risk a 2nd round pick, so I'm not going to protest anything", not "I'll talk to 4 other owners and see if they agree with me". The intent may be great, but the application of the system, I think, would produce different results in practice.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">As far as the negative comments toward the review board - there is no place for retaliatory emails and insults to board members. Let's keep in mind that the review board is a set of <i><b>volunteers</b></i> that care enough about the league to offer to sit on a board that is often maligned for its rulings. As we can see by Chris' reaction, this kind of thing has the potential to ruin the review board system if people don't want to be a part of it because of retaliation/insults.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">My opinion about protests is that no trade should be protested unless there is obvious collusion. Despite all of us thinking that we are geniuses, none of us really know what may happen with players in the future. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say, so we can look back and make judgments about trades now because we have more complete information with which to do so.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">I remember a certain Melvin Upton trade that was protested when I was on the review board, and we all know how that turned out...if I had it to do over again, I would not have voted to uphold the protest; I was probably influenced by the input of the other review board members at the time instead of basing it on my analysis of the trade and the input of the teams involved.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">We don't all think alike as far as trade value, that's for certain, so maybe for a protest to move to review there should be a certain number of owners that have to protest. That of course would require the absence of apathy and timely decisions from all owners, but it would solve the "lowest threshold" issue. As far as #2, I mentioned above that I think a collateral system would result in low/no protests ever happening; personally I don't believe teams should be potentially punished with draft pick loss for protesting. A system that requires a certain number of owners to protest would also solve #3, as each could be required as part of the protest to submit reasoning, thus preventing "tuning out".</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">I'm glad to see such a lively discussion though, and I'd encourage others to voice their opinions.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small">-Brent</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:trebuchet ms,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Thanks,</font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div dir="ltr"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Brent Cunningham</font><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Owner/Manager</font></div><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Gettysburg Generals Baseball Club</font></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 2:00 AM, Larry Selleck via Members <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank">members@lists.ibl.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="color:#000;background-color:#fff;font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:13px"><div dir="ltr">Hello,</div><div dir="ltr"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11785">Could someone please indicate how many protests there have been in the past season (checking how much of an issue this actually is)? What is proposed below would pretty much stop all protests, except in the case of the most extreme cases (i.e. Kershaw for a #5). If that is the goal, then wouldn't it be easier to simply outlaw protests? The argument that most trades happen between experienced managers is a very popular one so why not just leave it to whomever can negotiate the better deal?</div><div dir="ltr" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11787"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11789">The other consequence is that to gather enough teams to join in a protest would effectively require the protest to be a public forum, which would flood our emails with more petty personal attacks (there were no personal attacks in the instance of a recent protest, but it has happened in the past) by managers who feel slighted because someone had a different opinion ... and if that was the case, then why not put a protested trade up to league vote, requiring a minimum number of teams to participate to be a forum (half or 2/3) and then a % pass to uphold ... probably too time consuming, but an option.</div><div dir="ltr" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11789"><br></div><div dir="ltr" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11789">Larry</div><div class="m_7658475222371958227qtdSeparateBR" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11791"><br><br></div><div class="m_7658475222371958227yahoo_quoted" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11517" style="display:block"> <div style="font-family:Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,sans-serif;font-size:13px" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11516"> <div style="font-family:HelveticaNeue,Helvetica Neue,Helvetica,Arial,Lucida Grande,Sans-Serif;font-size:16px" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11515"> <div dir="ltr" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11514"> <font size="2" face="Arial" id="m_7658475222371958227yui_3_16_0_ym19_1_1493792365711_11519"> <hr size="1"> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span></b> Russell Peltz via Members <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank">members@lists.ibl.org</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span></b> Matt Sivertson <<a href="mailto:mattsivertson@gmail.com" target="_blank">mattsivertson@gmail.com</a>>; Sean Sweda <<a href="mailto:sweda@ibl.org" target="_blank">sweda@ibl.org</a>> <br><b><span style="font-weight:bold">Cc:</span></b> IBL Members <<a href="mailto:members@lists.ibl.org" target="_blank">members@lists.ibl.org</a>><br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 22:16<br> <b><span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span></b> Re: [IBL] idea for a new protest process<br> </font> </div><div><div class="h5"> <div class="m_7658475222371958227y_msg_container"><br><div id="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250"><div><div style="font-family:courier new,courier,monaco,monospace,sans-serif;font-size:medium"><div><div>I would welcome any ideas to improving the review process, and I like Sean's ideas.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>We used to have terrible arguments all the time about teams tanking games for draft position, and we implemented a good system that solved the problem. I think we could do the same thing with the trade protest system.</div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>Also, there isn't anything in the Constitution about what threshold of imbalance a deal needs to meet to be overturned. We could add some guidelines.<br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div>-Rusty</div><div><br clear="none"></div><br clear="none"></div><div><br clear="none"></div><div class="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250yqt5127342012" id="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250yqt41028"><div class="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yahoo_quoted" id="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yahoo_quoted_4496012228"><div>On Tuesday, May 2, 2017, 1:52:55 PM PDT, Matt Sivertson <<a href="mailto:mattsivertson@gmail.com" target="_blank">mattsivertson@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><div><div id="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yiv2584137517"><div><div dir="ltr">I think something like this would be useful as well, and I like the idea of the collateral going down when more owners are involved. One other thing I'd like to see is more formalized guidance to the review board about how to evaluate these trades and what should constitute a trade worthy of being overturned. I might be mistaken but I don't think we have any formal criteria for that and it's pretty much just if the board wants to overturn it they do, and if they don't then they don't.</div><div class="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yiv2584137517yqt1272672017" id="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yiv2584137517yqt18147"><div class="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yiv2584137517gmail_extra"><br clear="none"><div class="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yiv2584137517gmail_quote">On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Sean Sweda <span dir="ltr"><<a rel="nofollow" shape="rect" href="mailto:sweda@ibl.org" target="_blank">sweda@ibl.org</a>></span> wrote:<br clear="none"><blockquote class="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yiv2584137517gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Every time we have one of these I think to myself -- "we really need a better system". I'm a firm believer that a league like this must have a mechanism to overturn significantly imbalanced trades, given that the consequences of these deals are magnified enormously due to perpetual ownership of players. I understand that some will disagree, but let's table that for now and posit that if a protest mechanism is a necessary evil how could it work better?<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
The primary area of concern I see is the means by which a protest is registered:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
1) Any protest system relies on a filtering mechanism by which the owners of the league look at a deal and make a determination about the level of imbalance. Additionally, some may decide that even though a trade is imbalanced that the parts that are moving are inconsequential enough that it does not merit a protest. We only require one team to register a protest, which means whoever has the lowest threshold is making the determination.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
2) Another problem is that there's no downside to being the protesting team, so long as you don't particularly care if you're irritating the two owners who made the deal. The protesting team doesn't pay any price if their filter for imbalanced trades is lower than the consensus.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
3) Finally, once one team triggers a protest the other teams that also believed the trade to be imbalanced tend to tune out. Therefore it is never clear to either the trading teams or the Review Board whether there's a widespread consensus that the trade is imbalanced.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Idea for an improvement, addressing the above:<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Require teams to post collateral in order to protest. Lower the amount of collateral required per-team as more teams join the protest. If the protest is upheld the protesting team(s) get back their collateral, if the trade is upheld they lose the collateral.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
example:<br clear="none">
if 1 team protests a deal they must put up a 2nd round pick<br clear="none">
if 2 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 3rd round pick<br clear="none">
if 3 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 4rd round pick<br clear="none">
if 4 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 5rd round pick<br clear="none">
etc.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
If a team does not have the required round pick they can post a pick one round earlier in the following draft (e.g. if I don't have MCM#2 2018 I can substitute MCM#1 2019)<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
What does this do? It puts the burden on the owner with the lowest threshold to find other people who are in agreement. It should also establish a significance level for trade protests, as nobody is going to want to risk losing picks of higher value than the players/picks actually involved in the trade. Finally, this system encourages consensus and I believe the resolution process would be much less painful if both the trading teams and the Review Board knew that a large number of people were in agreement.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
I'm sure there are other issues with the protest system that could be improved, this just jumped out at me as a re-alignment of incentives that would be a big improvement.<span class="m_7658475222371958227yiv1256607250ydp18624d53ydp2ae58166yiv2584137517HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Sean<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
</font></span></blockquote></div><br clear="none"></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><br></div> </div></div></div> </div> </div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>