[IBL] idea for a new protest process

Wed May 3 09:35:30 EDT 2017

As a now-outsider I have been watching this and realized the system
actually works pretty well.

Except for one short burst of revenge protests about a decade ago that was
quickly put down this only seems to flair up in some minor way once every
few years.  Hard feelings will fade after a few weeks.

I have seen many mostly ok systems blow up when people spend time fighting
about the process.  I would urge you guys to table this for a month and if
people feel strongly about it then, someone can start a thought process to
develop a concrete proposal.   I suspect everyone will decide the problem
isn't as big as it feels right now.

And if you guys want me to shut up, consider it done.  I'm done talking on
this having said my piece.

Kevin

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 9:10 AM Larry Selleck via Members <
members at lists.ibl.org> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Larry
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Russell Peltz via Members <members at lists.ibl.org>
> *To:* Matt Sivertson <mattsivertson at gmail.com>; Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org>
>
> *Cc:* IBL Members <members at lists.ibl.org>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 2 May 2017, 22:16
> *Subject:* Re: [IBL] idea for a new protest process
>
> I would welcome any ideas to improving the review process, and I like
> Sean's ideas.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> -Rusty
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, May 2, 2017, 1:52:55 PM PDT, Matt Sivertson <
> mattsivertson at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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/20170503/fe90833f/attachment.html>