[IBL] idea for a new protest process

[Matt Sivertson]

I was under the impression this was the established precedent until now.
This is why I think we need to formalize criteria for the review board. It
seems pretty whimsical right now.

On Wed, May 3, 2017 at 8:33 PM <dmenard13 at comcast.net> wrote:

>
> "My opinion about protests is that no trade should be protested unless
> there is obvious collusion." (Brent)
>
> This.  Maybe with a dash of new-owner protection.  Otherwise let the boys
> play.
>
> If I want to torpedo my organization by trading budding superstar Steven
> Souza, that's on me.  It's not even my worst trade since I returned, I
> think my trade for Hill was more lopsided.  One thing in common with these
> deals...
>
> I wanted the player.  I could accept 85 cents on the dollar returns to get
> them.  I'm happy that other owners know I don't have to nickel and dime
> them to get a deal done.
>
> Back on topic -- I'd support a plan which keeps the current process with
> strict limits to collusion/newbie protection.
>
> Dave
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From: *"Noel Steere" <noel.steere at rcn.com>
> *To: *"Sean Sweda" <sweda at ibl.org>
> *Cc: *"IBL Members" <members at lists.ibl.org>
> *Sent: *Wednesday, May 3, 2017 11:55:07 AM
>
> *Subject: *Re: [IBL] idea for a new protest process
>
> While that's a list of trades that made it to the Review Board, that does
> not include deals that were either held up by you before allowing them
> through the server, or where an owner was taken aside by people with
> authority in the league (yourself, Rusty) to have the deal altered, with
> the explicit consequences being that if not changed, the deal *would* be
> protested.
>
> So the threat of a protest is enough to force a deal to change, or at
> least require a vociferous defense to very specific people in the
> community.  This is not necessarily bad, just hidden from the text of our
> Constitution (and also any theoretical "court transcripts" about actual
> protests); it might be necessary in order to "keep the peace".
>
> I wasn't around ten years ago when the "bad blood" era seems to have
> occurred, so my perspective may be different from those of you who were
> here, but the secrecy I detailed above is what frustrates me about the
> current system.  I'm in favor of anything that opens discussion among all
> teams regarding potential unfairness in a deal *before* it goes to the
> Review Board.  I would love to have had a conversation about the
> Stephenson/Souza trade, because I find it fascinating, but apparently that
> conversation is not allowed, ostensibly because the decision has already
> been made, but there was no period of time for comments on it *before* the
> decision was handed down, either.  Ideally, a period for open comment
> should occur before a formal protest is placed, but there should at least
> be a posted thread for all of us to see before the ruling is made (with
> light moderation is fine, to keep the conversation civil).
>
> I like the idea of creating consensus before going to the Review Board
> (with the understanding that the Board is still the final arbiter; will
> those judgements still be respected if they go against consensus?), but in
> order to do that conversation is needed, and I don't see that happening
> without a known forum being available (not IRC; having a life where you're
> not always available to chat should not be a barrier for discussion), and
> for the forum to have far fewer restrictions on discussion than just
> happened.
>
> All this raises other questions:  Is there a deadline for protesting a
> trade?  Additionally, should any deadline be shorter during the FA Draft,
> to keep picks from getting held up?  Further, how would protests of trades
> made during the list phase of the draft, when the trades are only announced
> at the end of the entire draft?
>
> Noel
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On May 3, 2017, at 10:04 AM, Sean Sweda <sweda at ibl.org> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibl.org/pipermail/members/attachments/20170504/ad2b2281/attachment.html>