SOT Trade Announcement
Soxin7 Trades: E. Ayabar/A. Jackson/J. Vazquez
Evil Empire Trades: N. Swisher/R. Davis/N. Hagedone
Wow! Looks bad on paper right now.
Good Luck to All!
Soxin7 Trades: E. Ayabar/A. Jackson/J. Vazquez
Evil Empire Trades: N. Swisher/R. Davis/N. Hagedone
Wow! Looks bad on paper right now.
Good Luck to All!
1) Where’s the rule that says a 4-4 tie reverts back to the commish’s vote?
2) Why would the commish have a vote that counts twice ONLY in this scenario. We vote on rules all year, yet this rule for some reason gives the commish two votes.
3) What if DMB’s team is involved in the trade, is he expected to vote on his own team as the deciding vote?
I only see the rule that says the commish decides in the event of two players being traded, but don’t see anything about the tie-breaker. This is a judgment call made by eight owners, how does common sense dictate one owners vote should count more than the others in a league with eight equal owners.
Hopefully for the last time. Commish decides. If the owner losing the player feels as though the Commish made a bad decision, the team has a right to a league vote. If the league overturns the Commish decision(5-3 vote the other way) then the decision is reversed. If it doesn’t, like this example, we revert back to the Commish Decision.
You had a chance to have the league vote 5-3 in your favor. They didn’t. I’m sorry you lost a player. It happens to almost all of us.
This system isn’t perfect, but it’s what we have. Maybe you can propose to a new rule at the WM, so we can vote on it going forward.
To date, we haven’t had a split decision on a Commish player, but once again please bring all ideas to the WM to discuss.
Hopefully for the last time, where is this rule? The current rule does NOT address a tie vote, which means you’re making this up as you go. We have a rule in place that gives the commish the right to take a side, then the owner can ask for a league vote. However, if there’s a 4-4 tie, there is no rule in place.
Is this why you haven’t addressed question #3? In fact, you don’t have an answer for #2 either. Why would you get an extra vote, when you don’t have an extra vote in any other circumstance.
Cut the shit with the “I’m sorry you lost a player.” Who cares, it’s not about losing a player, it’s about having a rule in place, because we currently don’t. (I’ll beat you to it, “Simpleton, you obviously care which is why you’re bitching about losing a 19 year old who hasn’t pitched above rookie ball and is a dime a dozen.”)
Here’s some common sense for you:
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.
So tell me where logic fails here?
Once again, you obviously have a problem with the current Commish or a Commish in general. Hopefully, this example will help. At the WM, we vote on new items and to change existing ones. If the league vote is 4-4, then the existing rules stays as is or the new rules isn’t passed.
Same applies for Commish decision on trades. Commish decision, then league vote. If the league overturns the Commish then the decision is reversed. It’s pretty simple.
We do have a rule in place, but you don’t like it. I suggest you copy and paste #3 into a WM Proposal so we vote on it next Saturday.
I don’t have the spare time to waste on answering your silly questions, In fact this will be the last response from the Commish on this matter.
How you make the connection between me saying no one should have a vote that counts twice, and me having a problem with you is truly mind boggling. Can you for once not take this as “everyone is against the commish and I need to assert my power.” Is that possible for you? Let me be clear, NO ONE OWNER SHOULD HAVE A VOTE THAT COUNTS MORE THAN THE NEXT. These are judgment calls being made by us, why would you believe that your vote should count more than mine, or AG, or Si7, or 101? This is basic stuff, I can’t believe it’s even at this point.
As for your 4-4 scenario, well, thanks for making my point. When we have a tied vote, the rule doesn’t change. We don’t say, “since the vote is tied, let’s have Mike vote again to break the tie.” So why under this trade scenario would we decide to do that? There’s no logic behind it other than you thinking for some reason that your vote should be worth more than another owners.
And for the rule in place – for the 4th time now, where is it written in the constitution that the commish’s vote is the tie-breaker? And, in the scenario that DMB’s player is involved, then what do we do? It’s not there because it’s NOT a rule.
You’re not answering the question because there isn’t an answer, I get it. Do you some integrity left in you right now or is this still a personal “let me flex my muscle” battle? Stop being so emotional, you’re coming off like a Democrat who got his feelings hurt. There isn’t a rule in place because that’s not how we EVER deal with a tied voting situation. No SOT owner has two votes for any rule we’ve ever changed or voted on.
So why don’t we get this right and stop with the “hey simpleton,” “your questions are silly,” “this is my last response,” stuff. This isn’t a personal battle between me and you, it’s about getting an SOT rule right.
KG has spoken!
Arodys Vizcaino
Year in Review: The high-ceiling Dominican dominated the much older hitters of the New York-Penn League, and then was the key part (because it wasn’t Melky Cabrera) in the Javier Vazquez deal.
Andy, four of us and KG agree with that, others think “19 year old Dominicans with two arms and two legs” are a dime a dozen. And then of course there are others who don’t know who he is. Can’t wait for the 30th!
First off, you are one taking this personally. As evidence by your 10 emails and 20 postings. I never suggested my vote should be worth more than anyone else. But as the commish that’s what the league decided. You must have been off in London during that WM session.
Your new proposed rule would effectively allow 1 owners vote to count twice. So I’m sorry, but i don’t see the difference here.
Go back a read all your posts. The common theme being you have a problem with giving the Commish(Mike) power to make a decision. You commonly refer to Mike having multiple vote and Mike “flexing his muscle”. Mike just so happens to the Commish of SOT. As Commish he has to deal with crap like this from you. To date, I believe you are the only one who still doesn’t get the Commish decision rule. I can’t help that. No one else in the league seems to have a problem with it.
As for a commish trade, I have no idea. If the league voted 4-4, we could maybe use your proposed method where a name is picked out of hat to determined which owners vote is going to count TWICE. We’ll have to make sure we hold an emergency SOT meeting to take care of that. Because we all know no one can be trusted to do a random drawing.
This rule is right on sir. You just don’t like the outcome. We all know if the Commish’s vote awarded you JV, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. It’s time you move on, although I do suggest you add this to the WM agenda for next week.
“10 emails” – Another lie – does this type of crap make you feel better? I’m purposely not emailing you direct about this because it’s not between me and you, it’s a league wide issue that needs a solution.
And yes, my proposed rule would effectively give one owner two votes, but that would chosen by random eliminating any possibility of bias, and removing the “deciding vote” privilege from the same owner every time. As someone who likes to talk about logic, you don’t see the logic behind this?
As for the rule, it states one thing – Commish discretion, then vote if needed. THAT’S IT. It says nothing about using Commish’s vote twice if the league-wide vote is tied, and it clearly doesn’t address what would happen if the Commish had players involved in the trade. You don’t think this last topic would’ve been brought up at the WM’s?
“As Commish he has to deal with crap like this from you. To date, I believe you are the only one who still doesn’t get the Commish decision rule. I can’t help that. No one else in the league seems to have a problem with it.”
- You took offense to my comment about acting like a 5-year-old, and when I tried to bring some common sense into the debate, you responded in typical fashion, with a bunch of “simpleton” and “silly questions” talk. I didn’t take it personal, that’s just you being you, but it doesn’t change the crux of the argument. I’ve talked to three other SOT owners about this, and not one of them thinks it makes sense for you to have a deciding vote on the judgment call. But just to be clear, they don’t believe ANYONE should have a vote count twice, you see? This isn’t about you, or the office of the commish, or DMB, or the two-time champ, or 22 Water St. It’s about any SOT owner having a deciding vote in the event of a tie – it’s just not how we do things, never have. Furthermore, not one of them could find it in the constitution. The only rule we have is the one that gives you the first choice, then it goes to vote. That’s all that was written in the constitution, and that’s all that is listed on the post WM’s spreadsheet that was sent out to everyone.
So I know you don’t want to answer my silly questions, but at some point you’ll have to address four of them:
1) Why is this “rule” not written anywhere in the constitution?
2) Why was this “rule” not included in the follow-up spreadsheet reviewing all league rule changes?
3) Why would we have created this “rule,” but not addressed what would happen in the event of a DMB player being involved in the trade?
4) Why would we have one league owner have a deciding vote in the event of a tie, but ONLY when it pertains to this rule and not every SOT rule change?
There is one simple answer to all your questions. No one cares about the rules until they effect their own team. Period! As evidence by the above posts.
There are 8 owners in this league. 1 Commish. I believe I do my fair share of work for SOT. I think it’s time some owners get together and get the Constitution updated. I’m not the eloquent speaking/writing one, so I suggest someone like yourself take the initiative and be the guy who finally updates the Constitution.
It’s great. Your questions are personal and directed at the Commish. see #2 & #3 above. Is it time again to evaluate the job being done by the current commish? What a joke! When you put in half the effort I do, then you have the right to start asking questions like the one’s above.
Do yourself and all of us a favor by taking charge in updating the Constitution.
I have no problem updating the constitution(or attempting to). Obviously with a week to go before the Winter Meeting we don’t have much time. So as part of WM2K10 we should try to do the following:
-update the Constitution as we ammend/pass new rules effective 2010
-Attempt to update/review/ammend existing rules that are vague or outdated.
-maybe give 5 mins to any owner that has a question,comment,concern about a rule being proposed.
I’m more than willing to help out if needed.
The real issue here is not that WTNY didn’t get JV, its that he gets nothing for losing Arodys. If Arodys lives up to the potential that WTNY thinks he has, a 12m SP in the last year of a deal probably pales in comparison to what WTNY would get if Arodys lives up the the 4 star ranking.
I think AG may be on to something with his proposal to award down the line. Arodys was not going to impact the 2010 SOT Standings so why judge his value in the winter of 2009? Id much rather talk about this future comp during the WM then Melky vs. Arodys. I dont think any of us can take that debate anymore.
We have to look back to Jair vs. Tabata before we can make these crazy career projections. At the time, the majority of the league was in favor of awarding Tabata. This makes me vote for Melky in the Arodys deal. A 19 yo domincan is a long ways away from contributing. In five years, we could look like fools for thinking Melky was the better peice if Arodys is the next Johan… but what if he is the next Willy Mo Pena (I know, he was not a SP). One hole in the Arodys argument that WTNY has not defended is why the Yanks would trade a cant miss SP for JV??? Does not make a lot of sense to me.
I’d rather work towards how we award future compensation for prospects vs. a Melky/Arodys breakdwon. I think Atlanta wanted Melky to help them win the 2010 NL East plain and simple.
Sorry.. just got home from work.. Of course I meant Gorkys Hernandez in all of this…
Mike – The rule IS in the constitution, and the rule WAS sent out in the follow-up emails, so clearly that’s not the issue. The issue is that you’re version of the rule isn’t the one that was voted on and put in the constitution. Why would you put only half of the rule in the constitution and list half of it on the follow up sheets, but not list the tie-breaker portion?
Here’s the deal, I know we discuss 100 rules every winter meeting, and we vote on 20 of them, and we forget 10 of them. I understand this, and everyone else should to. All I’m saying is this rule was voted on, and the constitution and follow up sheets prove it. However, we never did think about a tie-breaking scenario (Melky/Arodys), which is why it’s not part of the rule in the constitution. We may have discussed it, but nothing was ever voted on (which is why we never got into a big debate over one team having two votes, and what would happen if DMB had a player in the trade). After talking to a few other owners, all agree that no team should have more than one vote in a league rule. I’m guessing you would agree with this, correct? This just seems like common sense stuff. If that’s the case, and the tiebreaker isn’t covered in the constitution (that’s not arguable, we can both read it), why are we going back and forth on this? Let’s fix the problem. I know 2/3’s of your posse (EE & Si7) won’t chime in on this because they like the outcome, which is the only reason you’re taking the brunt of the debate. If Marc had a backbone, he’s step up and tell us why it makes sense to follow a rule that isn’t in the constitution, and why it makes sense to have one person have a vote that counts twice. But instead he wants you to do it for him, even though it’s not your battle. C’mon Si7, take the results of this ruling out of it for one second and tell me why this makes sense?
As an aside, you’re playing defense like the 86 Bears here…but for no reason. I haven’t questioned your SOT work ethic when it comes to updating the constitution or sending out post WM notes, why the heck would I? Everyone should be involved with this. I just pointed out that the constitution that was updated by you, and the sheets that were updated by you, were both without the tie-breaker rule.
Pat – I’m not sure how else to say this without coming off like a Dbag, but, you’re wrong – just about everywhere.
1) While not getting a player in return for Arodys sucks, it’s not close to the REAL issue because we have a rule that covers this. Unfortunately, the rule looks a little soft, but it’s one that we all voted on. I have nothing to debate here, other than to suggest a rule change (which I did). I’m guessing you can figure out what I believe the real issue is, just by reading my post above so I won’t rehash it.
2) “If Arodys lives up to the potential that WTNY thinks he has.” It has nothing to do with what WTNY thinks, and by the way, 3 others in SOT agreed with me which is why we’re stuck 4-4. I realize you had no idea who he was a few weeks ago, but he’s a top 100 prospect, and will be top 50 in Baseball Prospectus. Since we’re an AL only league, that means he would’ve been somewhere around top 25 in the AL.
3) “A 19 yo domincan is a long ways away from contributing.” And 24 yo white kids, like Clay Buchholz, are also not contributing. It has nothing to do with contribution and everything to do with SOT value. David Price hasn’t contributed either, but you still wouldn’t trade him for Sabathia would you (and if you would, consider it done). Obviously there’s no arguing who contribute more statistical value, but SOT value is a different story, and that’s what we’re trying to figure out.
4) “One hole in the Arodys argument that WTNY has not defended is why the Yanks would trade a cant miss SP for JV??? Does not make a lot of sense to me.” Pat, why would I defend this when it’s been written in numerous spots already. I freely admit that I have more time to read, since I don’t have a wife, and I don’t have kids, and I don’t work at night. But if you’re going to write something like this, I do need to call you out. Can you find me one article that calls Melky the centerpiece of the trade?
5) “I’d rather work towards how we award future compensation for prospects vs. a Melky/Arodys breakdwon.” Agree, and I posted a potential solution, but it doesn’t solve the REAL issue in play. Unless you have the answer maybe? Can you show me where we voted on the specifics of the tiebreaker rule and maybe explain why it was excluded from the constitution?
6) “I think Atlanta wanted Melky to help them win the 2010 NL East plain and simple.” That makes sense, because the guy who was arguably the 2nd best pitcher in the NL last year wouldn’t help them win in 2010. C’mon Tillman.
Chris, just curious here, you keep referencing the Constitution and the fact that the process is first Commish discretion and then, league vote if one of the owners thinks it is necessary. The Constitution that is posted on the CBS site, which I assume is as up-to-date as we have as it includes the 20 prospect amendment, says the following,
“If a Rotisserie League team loses a player to the “other” league in an interleague trade, then the team losing the player has the first right to acquire the player moving into the AL, as long as the added player’s salary stays within the salary cap limitations. (When multiple teams are involved, the Commissioner decides which team gets first priority)”
Nothing about a league vote, so I think you might be putting the cart before the horse in looking to resolve 4-4 tie scenario, in that we don’t seem to have a concrete rule even sending this issue to vote.
Perhaps the verbage in the CBS Constitution is not current, if so, please cut and paste the most current section pertaining to this topic.
“Nothing about a league vote, so I think you might be putting the cart before the horse in looking to resolve 4-4 tie scenario, in that we don’t seem to have a concrete rule even sending this issue to vote.”
The 2007 WM’s follow-up spreadsheet reads:
16) Commish Discretion, commish then vote if needed. Need more info on this.
On top of that, the concrete rule sending this to vote has come into play numerous times already, starting with the first – Maybin vs Miller – back in 2006 I believe. So while it may not be in the updated constitution, it is clearly noted in the follow-up spreadsheet that the commish sent out, unlike this supposed tie-breaker rule, which is nowhere to be found.
It seems to me that the leap of faith you, Si7, and DMB have taken so far is to assume that since the commish makes the first decision, he should also make the final decision after a tied vote, which would effectively give him two votes. In SOT, there isn’t one Winter Meeting rule that gives any owner two votes. We simply keep the rule the same as in previous years, so why in this scenario do you feel it’s appropriate to give one owner two votes?
We have 8 owners. There will be multiple scenarios where we have a 4-4 tie. See the WM every year. The difference here is the rule states the Commish makes the decision. If an owner or other league members feel it’s an error, then a vote is done. If that vote comes out 4-4 then doesn’t the original decision stand?
It’s not giving the Commish 2 votes. The vote is simply to see if the commish made a wrong decision. In this case, it was a tie. So, it’s clear the vote could have gone either way. In these cases I don’t see a problem with keeping the Commish’s decision. Since the league wasn’t able to overturn the initial decision.
“The difference here is the rule states the Commish makes the decision.”
The rule states the Commish makes the initial decision, it doesn’t say that the Commish also makes the tie-breaking decision. Big difference.
It’s obvious that you believe your decision is worth more than mine, or AG’s, or EE’s, or anyone else’s in the league. I disagree that any one person should have a more powerful vote than the rest of us, and can’t understand why it would be worth more ONLY in this one tie-breaking scenario but not others. I also can’t imagine any other owner would think giving one person the tiebreaking vote makes much sense (other than Si7). I guess we’ll find out tomorrow on that one though.
“So, it’s clear the vote could have gone either way. In these cases I don’t see a problem with keeping the Commish’s decision.”
Correct, it’s clear that it could’ve gone either way, yet your first response back to me was “no brainer.” So isn’t it possible that you completely misread how close this would be? That shouldn’t be surprising though, we have 8 guys with different opinions. All the more reason no one vote should trump another.
I’m not surprised that you would think your vote is the right one, I’m guessing everyone thinks their vote is the right one. But I’m shocked to read that in a league with 8 equal owners, you believe your opinion should be the determining factor. Period. Why stop here though, shouldn’t your opinion be the determining factor on any 4-4 tie?
My vote as a team owner is worth the same as everyone else in this league. However, SOT and I assume every other fantasy league has a Commish for situations like these.
So once again, it’s apparently clear you have a problem with the Commish of SOT making any decisions in circumstances like these.
Maybe it’s me, but i’m having a difficult understanding how you don’t get the part about the Commish making the decision. We put this rule into place to have the Commish decide on which player has more SOT value.
Why wouldn’t we just vote on every trade like this? The unfortunate answer is owners may vote in their teams own best interest. That’s why this rule is in place.