Owners quitting before trades completed

[Orioles GM (Ben)]

A few thoughts on what to do if an owner quits before trades have been accepted (which I obviously can’t pretend to be totally neutral on, but which I’ve tried to think through from all sides):

- First point: what a dick that guy is. 

- Getting that out the way, I think my take is that all trades made by the owner should be reviewed by the Trade Review panel and nixed if they are in any way unfair. That makes sure a future Nats owner isn’t burdened with bad trades, and is fair on the owners who made the trades in good faith.

- I think it would be pretty tough to just auto reject all trades. As they affected the bunch of trades made after that. I may not, for example, have made my trade with Angels. And would definitely have bid on Rangers package with Kluber etc. So putting the toothpaste back in the tube is difficult. You can I guess say that people carry those risks if they deal before a trade is approved, but trades move fast in this league and almost none are rejected. So that seems a bit rough.

- Unwinding things also gives the rest of the league an opportunity to one up the previous offers when a new owner joins, which seems tough.

- I can see the argument that a future owner might want to take a different approach to trading. Buts that’s been true of previous owners who’ve actually made dumb trades but hung around for a shade longer. So seems a bit arbitrary to unwind just because this guy quit before acceptance (particularly as in my take the trades are all fair ones, although I would say the TRP can review that). 

- But a tricky situation and I’ll of course go happily with whatever the admins decide. 

- Final point: I refer back to my first point. 🤯

[AstrosGM (Matt P)]

My thoughts:

1. I apologize for inviting the guy in the first place.

2. I agree with Ben. What a dick.

3. I don't think any of the three trades elevate to the need to veto. I feel like he got fair value in all three trades, especially considering how extravagant the Cole contract is.

4. I also agree with Ben that by undoing the trades, you penalize Ben and I especially in that our trades being undone put us in a position where we miss out our trade AND on opportunities like the Rangers Kluber offer or the one Tony just posted.

[Athletics GM (Wayne)]

I'll put my thoughts in. I don't think things should go backwards & moves reversed, as long as the moves are deemed fair. I don't see a problem with the moves, but that isn't my decision. A new Mgr. will have to be found that's into rebuilding, but that may not be easy.

[Blue Jays GM (Beau)]

Nats were an obvious rebuild before (picked fourth and has roster problems), trades were made towards a rebuild, Nats an obvious rebuild after. If they are fair, I vote let them stand.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

My vote is they stand though this is pretty slippery. Anyone that joins a league and immediately starts dumping their best assets is suspect. Like anything, just need the details.

These aren't criticms, it's optics and I'm not afraid to be honest.

Matt knowing the guy, then conveniently getting a Top 3 SP out of it immediately after he joins doesn't look great. Fried trade was suspect, imo. Guess it depends if you actually like Jazz? Fried is a Top 20 SP on a great contract. I don't think Jazz is ever worth what Fried is but, that could be my opinion. The rest are fine. I question someone logging in and dumping their best players/assets and then quitting though, there's really no way of knowing if he had any idea what he was doing.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

I'll also say this, people can be pissed if they want I don't care I just think it's common practice.

Can we let the new owner get his feet wet before immediately asking for his best players? I honestly think a trade freeze for new owners is necessary. You can complete wreck your team if you don't know what you're doing. And this guy, did just that.

[AstrosGM (Matt P)]

1. I didn't "know" the guy. He showed up in Splendid asking for about openings. Scott is the only guy I'm aware of that actually knew the guy, as he has recalled some bad interactions with him in Ruthian that I did not. Had I known his history, I probably would have told him to keep walking.

2. I only asked about Cole because he posted first that he was shopping Cole. I literally let him hand pick the assets in the trade.

3. Cole's contract makes him a difficult asset to trade or control. I will have anywhere from 1/2 to 2/3's of my cap committed to 2 players over the next couple of years. I will hardly have an "advantage" going forward.

4. Anyone who has dealt with me in the past has known me to be on the up and up. I don't appreciate the insinuation, and nor do I think it's fair to JJ either.

5. Max Fried, according to Fantrax, was the 44th best pitcher last year, and we can all argue prospect valuation until we're blue in the face. Chisolm is getting top 100 buzz still in spite of whatever hit tool questions remain. The Nats could say that Martin, coming off of TJS, has a bump coming, and Tejeda has some present value attached to him. Would I have pulled that trigger. No, but I wouldn't veto it either.

[Orioles GM (Ben)]

Yeah, fair enough if you don’t like the trades, but any insinuation aimed at Matt is out of line.

[z - Gaz]

Unfortunately you will never find 30 good owners in these leagues. There will always be one or two teams that are losing owners regularly, maybe a couple more with bad owners too. We've probably been quite fortunate to stay at the top end of that in this league.

This league has been very enjoyable for a long time and there have been worse rosters than that turned round in the past. Think of the total shower Beau had when he joined.

[z - El Guapo - retired]

Agree with Gaz.

Having said that, as owners and administrators we can do more to protect franchises, and in so doing, protect the integrity of the league -- especially when we see poor trades presented (veto? and if not veto, bringing up valid objections/questions?) and when we discuss trades with new owners.

[Phillies GM (Ron)]

Anyone in this league that is in other leagues I'm in know I'm against too much intervention from the league in how an owner manages his roster. I've never been one to look to the league admin's to have to intervene in trade dialog in any of the leagues I'm in to "protect the integrity" of the league.

In one dynasty league I'm in a new owner is given a mentor to help ensure none of the sharks in the league take advantage of the new owner in trades. The mentor is just there to slow things down and hear his or her reasons for the trade and the returns offered by others. Maybe have a mentor assigned for a month or so to the new owner(s) just to offset that temptation? I mean unless we absolutely know the owner from another league and see his/her experience in action we really don't know who or what were getting from the new owner.

And lets be honest there have been some hella trades in here throughout the early history of this league. 🤣

Back to my stealth mode now.

[z - Tim]

1. Those trades were made in bad faith.

2. But the bad faith was only on one side of the deals.

3. Every prospective owner we get will typically have some complaint about stupid things the previous manager did. You take the team as it comes to you, thats the challenge.

Its pretty legit to question whether the trades should stand based on 1. But there is no point in punishing the offending manager here, he’s gone! So then, its just weighing protecting the other manager vs that actual franchise. I think point 3 means this the least bad decision. There is probably some point where the deals are just unfair to league as whole (so not just about individual teams). But as Brad said, none of these deals were under review on their own.

Agree with point about a short leash for new managers in deals. That should be the assumption.

[Marlins GM (Anthony)]

Sigh...

Again, there is no insinuation. It's called optics and sometimes you have to wear it. You invited him, then immediately grabbed his best player before he quit. You can not like my comments, I don't really care. Its not personal.

"Top 100 Prospects" - Jazz has been falling down every list in the industry for 2 years. The margins between 40-150 are small anyways. And again, this isn't real baseball, it's a few categories. Elite players make the difference here. The only people pumping up back 100 prospects in fantasy are the guys trying to sell them. And since when does a SP prospect coming off TJS get a bump in prospect rankings? What are you talking about?

Max Fried - It's not a trade serious players accept, I think we know the Nats wasn't a serious player. Montas, wasn't exactly a throw in either.

Fantrax Rankings - You can't possibly use them in your evaluations. If you want to know a players real value, use an auction calculator with our scoring. Fried was a Top 30 SP last year. Because of his strong breakout, he's Top 20-30 on every SP dynasty list. Montas was Top 40 coming in to 2020. Probably even higher some places.

Again, I didn't say to Veto. But when people are asked their opinion...well.

[Blue Jays GM (Beau)]

Feb 19, 2021 14:31:21 GMT -5 Marlins GM (Anthony) said:

I'll also say this, people can be pissed if they want I don't care I just think it's common practice.

Can we let the new owner get his feet wet before immediately asking for his best players? I honestly think a trade freeze for new owners is necessary. You can complete wreck your team if you don't know what you're doing. And this guy, did just that.

The league I commish has a seven day trade freeze for new owners. In another that has a hard core Shark Rule. I think it's good practice. On Cole, that contract is a hindrance and the price given was about triple that I was willing to pay.

[Brewers GM (Brad)]

Agree with the argument against questioning the "optics" of the trade (though I know Anthony to have impeccable taste most of the time). As far as speaking up more, questioning, valid objections and what not, that can get to kind of a slippery slope. The truth is that it's a tough call on a lot of "bad" trades - not everyone thinks they're bad; with a new owner, you don't necessarily want to be heavy handed when they are still new to the league; where's the line between bad and veto-able? And then a jackass quits like this guy did (who, by the way, is thought to be a seperate indvidual and not a bot created to assist a current GM) and just muddies the water all up!

[Deleted]

I agree w Beau on the 7 day freeze

[z - El Guapo - retired]

We agree with everyone.

Hard to change a trade now, but it does not appear to be in the best interest of the now-departed new GM.

All things said, in a best scenario, we believe the new GM should have the opportunity to keep or to trade Max Fried and Gerrit Cole as he sees best suits his re-build, from his own best interest/perspective. Those trades are tainted by the GM quitting before the trades were even approved. We understand canceling the deals isn't going to happen here.

Let's hope this incident teaches us a lesson.

We like Ron's idea of maybe mentoring new owners... the only flaw being it takes the mentor out of possible trades with the newbie GM -- do to possible conflict of interest. Which GM wants to be left out of possibly trading with a new owner?

Seven day freeze also could work.

[z - Gaz]

One more thing on this, I've always thought it better when people explain why they are doing a deal. When people just post a trade and don't explain why, it looks worse if it is a lopsided trade.

Sometimes you don't need an explanation, maybe it's an obvious salary dump and you just say "dumping some salary". If it's a prospect for top player trade can't people just put a short reason why they are doing it? If it is a big deal then explain your reasoning and give the TRP an idea of what you are trying to achieve.

[Blue Jays GM (Beau)]

Feb 20, 2021 9:15:53 GMT -5 z - Gaz said:

One more thing on this, I've always thought it better when people explain why they are doing a deal. When people just post a trade and don't explain why, it looks worse if it is a lopsided trade.

Sometimes you don't need an explanation, maybe it's an obvious salary dump and you just say "dumping some salary". If it's a prospect for top player trade can't people just put a short reason why they are doing it? If it is a big deal then explain your reasoning and give the TRP an idea of what you are trying to achieve.

Hard agree.