[IBL] idea for a new protest process

[Matt Sivertson]

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.

On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:

> 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?
>
> The primary area of concern I see is the means by which a protest is
> registered:
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>
> Idea for an improvement, addressing the above:
>
> 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.
>
> example:
> if 1 team protests a deal they must put up a 2nd round pick
> if 2 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 3rd round pick
> if 3 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 4rd round pick
> if 4 teams protest a deal they must each put up a 5rd round pick
> etc.
>
> 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)
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> 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.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20170502/87897b09/attachment.html>