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.

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?

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 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?

“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.

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.

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.

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.

-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.