The team losing a player receives a draft pick in the following season to compensate. That way, even if it turns out that the league made the wrong decision (Gorkys), the owner will still receive some type of compensation. The tricky part is awarding compensation, but here’s my suggestion. All teams vote on the value of the player lost. Our current compensation is too broad, but at the same time doesn’t cover enough, if that makes any sense. My proposal allows all 8 teams to vote on compensation, and we can eliminate the high end and low end vote and take the average of the remaining 6 votes. (I may overvalue prospects, so my vote for a higher round pick will be canceled out by Tillman, who will most likely be on the higher end of these votes.)

My example:

Yanks trade Montero and Cano for Lincecum. In a close vote, Cano is voted as the more valuable SOT player, awarding Lincecum to 101. You get left with no player in return, but according to our current rule, you would receive a compensation pick after the 2nd rd (I think…or is it the 3rd rd?). I think it’s obvious to everyone that a 2nd/3rd round pick isn’t equal to the value you lost. Therefore, all teams vote. WTNY votes 1st rd, 1st pick. Tillman votes 3rd rd 1st pick. DMB votes 1st rd, 8th pick. etc. etc. Once we tally the votes, and remove my vote and Tillman’s, assuming those are the two outliers, the average would be the compensation awarded. If the Avg was 1st round 6th pick, then you would get that pick in next year’s draft (but would select AFTER the SOT team is scheduled to pick – so it would actually be the 7th pick in the 1st round.)

Thoughts?

We currently have compensation in place. Top 20 AL prospects from BP, BA, and Sickels top 100. If you want to increase these parameters then I suggest we talk during the WM.

Thoughts?

For example, if Arodys Vizcaino turns out be a top 20 prospect next year then WTNY can petition the league for compensation or he can elect to wait to see if AV has greater success at the minor league or even mlb level and ask for more compensation. Obviously there is some risk as to when to petition the league. We could set up compensation parameters. This is obviously related to the proposed Jair Jurrgens Rule #6 but didn’t want it to get lost in the shuffle.

- You do realize transparency is a good thing, right? So thanks, that’s my goal. And it probably makes sense that I’m the only one bitching here since, well, I’m one of two teams involved in this Melky/Arodys situation, and the other one has been told he gets first choice even though the vote was 4-4. Follow? I’m pretty sure TRC doesn’t have anything to bitch about in this deal, and neither does Tillman, 101, EE, or JM.

“The fact you asked for a league vote 3 weeks after the trade happened.”

- I sent you an email the day the deal went down, to which you replied, “there’s no doubt Si7 gets JV.” No doubt? How does 4-4 sound. That email was the day of the trade, so why lie about it?

“I’m sorry you lost a 30 year old 4th OF and a dime a dozen 19 year old pitcher coming off back to back 44 inning season in rookie ball.”

- For now the 2nd time, it wasn’t rookie ball, and since when did Top 100 prospects become “dime a dozen”? We all know you don’t believe what you’re writing, and 4 star prospects who are ranked in the top 100 in baseball are not “dime a dozen”.

“Commish rules on trade. If a team feels there is an error, they may ask for a league vote. If the league vote is 4-4, then the commish’s original ruling stands. Isn’t this the logical resolution?”

- I’ll avoid the simpleton talk and try to use common sense in telling why it’s not logical.

1) The written rule does not cover a tie-breaker, just the original trade scenario. It’s also pretty silly, because in cases where it’s not a no-brainer, why wouldn’t an owner want all eight teams voting instead of just one? So shouldn’t we just put it out to vote? But fine, if you prefer to state your case then have everyone else vote, go for it, just seems redundant.

2) We have eight team owners, all with equal say in the rules and direction of this league. We don’t all think alike, but the majority rules. Under what scenario does it make sense to have one of these eight owners make a judgment call, and have that vote count more than everyone else? When we vote on rules, every owner has one vote, and we’ve never had a rule where one owner had a vote count twice. I don’t care if we had an owner named Keith Goldstein Callis Sickels, there’s just no logical reason why one owner has a vote that counts more than the next in a judgment call situation.

3) You’re right there is some luck involved in this league. So I’m proposing that in the case of a tie, we bring the luck factor back in. All team names are put in a hat, one name is pulled, whichever name comes up, we revert to that teams vote as the final decision maker. That way there’s no bias involved and no team with a higher voting authority than the next. The losing team can’t complain about the vote, and there’s no need to debate. There’s also no need for one team to gain an edge by having their vote count more than the rest.

“It went to league vote and Maybin won. So i’m fairly confident we have a system in place to take care of this.”

- Maybin/Miller was not a tie vote. It was either 6-2 or 5-3 in your favor, so what’s the point?

Stop taking this so personal, there’s no need for you to show your power, or talk about how great your team is, or assert your supreme intelligence over the rest of us. We have a 4-4 tie in a vote that you originally thought wasn’t close. Common sense says every team should have the same voting rights in a judgment call situation. If you can’t understand why that should be, then I’ve got nothing else. Continue on your current line of thinking that says for some reason you should have more voting power. At the same time though, I’ll propose this alternative rule to the league and see what all eight teams think. That’s how SOT works, all eight teams get a say in the direction of the league.

Not sure you need to question to integrity of the commish coming from the guy asking for a league vote 3 weeks after the fact.

Remember the last time the commish’s team was involved in a decision like this? maybin/miller I believe. It went to league vote and Maybin won. So i’m fairly confident we have a system in place to take care of this.

“an intelligent conversation” about what? The fact you asked for a league vote 3 weeks after the trade happened. Is it just a coincidence you asked a league after you realized you lost two players from your team? I doubt it.

I’m sorry you lost a 30 year old 4th OF and a dime a dozen 19 year old pitcher coming off back to back 44 inning season in rookie ball. Maybe it’s Karma. That’s what I attribute all my luck in SOT to.