[IBL] idea for a new protest process

[Sean Sweda]

It is true that the protest system is rarely invoked.  By a quick search of  
my mail I've found three instances in the last 4 seasons (2014-2017):

Stephenson/Souza
a trade of 2 un-usable 6th round picks for an 8th (right before picks  
disappear in Feb)
a trade of a middle-reliever to move up in the draft from 1-6 to 1-4

The protest system is virtually guaranteed to generate a bunch of ill-will,  
so what you would hope is that it would be invoked rarely AND only for  
deals of a certain magnitude.  I think a lot of people looked at these  
deals and decided they weren't important enough to protest regardless of  
the level of imbalance in value, and herein lies the problem.

My proposal is designed specifically to encourage building a consensus that  
a trade is both imbalanced enough AND important enough for the League to  
have to suffer through the pain that will inevitably follow.  The exercise  
of building the consensus helps inform a single protestor as to whether  
their own standards need to be raised.  Furthermore, a consensus  
successfully being formed sends a strong signal to both the Review Board  
and the trade participants about the necessity of overturning the trade.   
Consensus is a win all around.

Sean


On May 3, 2017, at 9:35 AM, Kevin Greenberg <greenbergk at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>