Kicked out of league because of bad trades???

[Cyclone792]

Originally Posted by rewc27

I want to run a highly competitive league.

This one really got me thinking...

So I decided to check out the league itself, peruse its rules and take a quick browse around specific teams. Sure enough, the Yankees broadcast revenue is $122.5 mil. Meanwhile the Tampa Bay Devil Rays have a broadcast revenue of only $70 mil. For those of you scoring at home, that's only a small advantage of $52.5 mil, which is 75% higher than Tampa Bay's.

Maybe the attendance makes up the gap? Yanks fan interest is 85, Tampa's is only 48. At least the merchandising revenues were well within the sphere of competitive.

Salary cap? Off, of course.

I must say, giving one team a $52.5 million edge annually in broadcast revenue alone in a league without a salary cap doesn't exactly spell "highly competitive" to me, but more like highly unbalanced.

[Dean Gordon]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

I even threw some key points in italics here. IMO, this isn't about the trades at all, but seems to be more about the owners in this specific league want the Yanks to be ran a specific way. And if the Yanks' owner doesn't run the team parallel to their desired method, they drum up some excuse to kick him out. Given the RIDICULOUS broadcast revenue the Yankees apparently have in this league, the desired method appears to be that the team should maintain a high payroll and consistently be competitive with expensive veterans. So any attempts made by any newcoming owner to rebuild and mold the team to their liking will be met with swift resistance.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but after reading everything in this thread closely, that's where the underlying problem appears.

Bullseye.

This seems to be the exact problem. The other owners wanted the Yankees to be run the way the previous owner did, and took offense to a new owner coming in and doing things his way.

The commish let things get out of hand.

I've seen countless times a new owner come in and do a 360 on a team, and other owners email me with a "what the hell" type of email, asking me whether the new owner was sane. My reply is always - "its his team". Owners like to put their own stamp on a team, nothing wrong with that, unless its taking a top flight contender who is missing 1 cog and stripping it for draft picks. That kind of retooling would be questionable in any league. But this doesnt seem to be the case here. The Yankees could contend year after year, but unless they bring in studs, I dont think they will take a title, only grow old until the team has to rebuild. Trade 1 and Trade 2 is along that line. Trade 3 is odd, but hey - its an owner's right to be eccentric, up to a point. A commish CANT - repeat, CANT - step in and veto trades because he or she doesnt like them or a few self-interested owners object to them. The criteria for vetoing is only AFTER the owners involved have been given a chance to amend a trade AND after it passed the smell test of "would I do the trade".

After it failed the smell test, after the owners involved were givven a chance to amend the trade but refused to do so, then the trade could be vetoed - but I would make damn sure my rationale for veoting is clearly marked out. But kick out the owner for a bad trade? No. Thats wrong.

Each team is run by an individual acting in their own interests. A commish can not interfere in that process UNLESS the trade is a complete rape job or obviously stacking another team.

The commish did wrong here. Best thing he could do is offer the kicked out owner a chance back in the league, if the owner wants to jump back in.

[jnshmoo]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

And then you decided to become a wannabe minion?!?!? D00d, go back and do some more research!

Well, that was after a found a couple of good leagues to join. I'm a wannabe minion for the travel and adventure!!1ONE

[Cooleyvol]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

I don't understand why he would be kicked out given the reasons mentioned in this thread. There have been a couple kicked out of leagues I was in, but the things they did make this guy look like a choirboy. Veto the trades if you must (although I didn't see anything worth vetoing), but kicked out?

I'll have to agree with Stacy here............I don't see anything wrong with what he did.
Sure, he wasn't playing the role of Georgie, but who said he had to? Some of the comments from the commish made it sound like the commishes wanted the Yanks to be run like the real life Bombers.

[abailey3313]

Originally Posted by Cyclone792

Some interesting quotes buried within this thread that supports Melo...

"None of these trade helped your team, and the Yankees have never been known to cut payroll." -- rewc27

"I want to run a highly competitive league." -- rewc27

"...since they reflect moves made by a team who was in dire financial straits and needed to desperately dump payroll, and the team he was running the yankees had just made a 70 mill profit in year 1 and had a 122 mill TV contract for year 2 with only a 99 mill payroll..." -- MarinerGM

"...In a league filled with veteren OOTP'ers no one wants to worry about having to be a watchdog of 1 gm, especially if he is running the yanks, its easier to just get a seasoned Gm who has a better udnerstanding of the value of players and who will make sound decisions in to replace him..." --MarinerGM

I even threw some key points in italics here. IMO, this isn't about the trades at all, but seems to be more about the owners in this specific league want the Yanks to be ran a specific way. And if the Yanks' owner doesn't run the team parallel to their desired method, they drum up some excuse to kick him out. Given the RIDICULOUS broadcast revenue the Yankees apparently have in this league, the desired method appears to be that the team should maintain a high payroll and consistently be competitive with expensive veterans. So any attempts made by any newcoming owner to rebuild and mold the team to their liking will be met with swift resistance.

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong, but after reading everything in this thread closely, that's where the underlying problem appears.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head.

It seems to me like the owners in this league have their own particular ideals of how things should be, and were just hunting for anything remotely questionable they could call the guy on. The trades were reasonable. He may not have been getting a boatload in return, but essentially all he was doing was trading name value for financial flexibility. What's wrong with that?

Just because Steinbrenner's Yankees are financial juggernauts doesn't mean a fictional OOTP owner is obligated to be the same. He has his own style. If anything, you should embrace that. What's the point in running an OOTP league if every team is a mirror image of it's real-life counterpart?

But the question at hand, I believe, was whether or not the owner should have been removed from the league. And no, he shouldn't.

The fact of the matter is this: In each trade there were two parties. One party was removed from the league and accused of unfair play, and the other gets to stay in the league. So essentially, the owners who got the great end of these trades get to kick back and enjoy their handy work, and the poor sap who got ripped off gets thrown out.

This is a joke, really.

If you're kicking one owner out, you may as well show the others involved in these trades the door too. Otherwise, you're not solving anything.

And if you believe your league is made up of quality, trustworthy, legitimate GMs, then what about the owners who didn't complain about this trade? Does the fact that they didn't complain (essentially seeing no problem with these deals) bare any reaction?

Like I said, this is just a joke.

[canadiancreed]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

Sharks getting a whiff of fresh blood?

I've always hated it when established owners try to take advantage of a newbie by offering lopsided trades. I've seen it before and in extreme cases have seen it disallowed. Not saying this is the same since no details were mentioned.

Same. Although I never got that when I joined leagues (maybe i'm lucky?) I'm seen it happened with other sport sims that I've done. Not rpetty.

[wireman]

Unsolicited advice:

-- The commishes should set every prospective GM straight: "If you make a couple of trades we think are questionable, we'll kick you out of the league."

-- The GM who got booted should just forget it and find another league. I would not try to get back into this league.

My sympathies are 100 percent with the GM. As Dean Gordon said, "It's his team." Barring a breach of ethics, they should have let him run it.

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Figured as long as I'm posting here, I'd throw in my two cents. My sympathies too are with the GM, but you should be glad you found out about the way this league was run before spending too much time here. There are tons of great leagues out there that let owners have the freedom to put their own stamp on things. Don't let this bad one sour you on the online experience.

There was one trade posted that, frankly, I wouldn't have made and would likely have thought it was unwise. But it was about a million miles away from anything that looked like a breach such that it needed to be voided. Actually stripping the owner of his team unconscionable. If you want a league where all the owners perform as they do in life, make a solo league.

[Melo]

Originally Posted by Eckstein 4 Prez

Figured as long as I'm posting here, I'd throw in my two cents. My sympathies too are with the GM, but you should be glad you found out about the way this league was run before spending too much time here. There are tons of great leagues out there that let owners have the freedom to put their own stamp on things. Don't let this bad one sour you on the online experience.

There was one trade posted that, frankly, I wouldn't have made and would likely have thought it was unwise. But it was about a million miles away from anything that looked like a breach such that it needed to be voided. Actually stripping the owner of his team unconscionable. If you want a league where all the owners perform as they do in life, make a solo league.

Even the Jackson trade isn't THAT bad. Look at his ratings: 1)Edwin Jackson: 21 years old - (Ratings-86-68-34)
(Talent- 93-91-53)

Low movement = tons of HRs and trading Jackson is like trading a young Eric Milton

[IatricSB]

Originally Posted by Melo

Even the Jackson trade isn't THAT bad. Look at his ratings: 1)Edwin Jackson: 21 years old - (Ratings-86-68-34)
(Talent- 93-91-53)

Low movement = tons of HRs and trading Jackson is like trading a young Eric Milton

That's why an owner should be allowed to run as he sees fit (short of breaking ethical rules). One owner (like me) would value kids over established vets whereas another would trade his prospects to get guys that help them now. It's fun when you find an owner that thinks opposite of you since you can establish a history of trading with them. In one league I'm in, several owners want prospects and several like the vets, so there's quite a few trades that go back and forth between the same group of owners (not necessarily the same ones each time).

[Eckstein 4 Prez]

Yeah, that's true. I'm not too good at reading the OOTP6 pitchers' ratings myself. In any event, the trade is at worst bad. Not terrible, or unthinkable. Just bad. This league should've either made it clear that it was a roleplaying league and the owner was expected to behave like Steinbrenner, or should've stopped being such busybodies.

[BCStone57]

Time to move on and leave this league behind, there are many leagues out there that would welcome you with open arms. My bad experience was this.....I had joined the CrackerJack baseball league and had took on the worst team in the league, with no talent to peddle, so I took the patient route and started rebuilding the team through the draft. After 3 seasons of patience and losing the team finally had acquired a good talent base, one which finally meant that the team was on the verge of turning it around......What happened ?......The Commissioner decides he wants money from each and every GM so he can buy championship t-shirts for the World Series winner, I told him politely that I had no intention of sending money because I play this game for fun.....I was fired from the league and my team...All after nobody would take this team because they were so bad when I took them over....and this was the thanks I got..........

[STLFAN2003]

I'm having trouble finding leagues because I would like a relatively new league

[canadiancreed]

Yeesh. I wonder if anyone actually did pay for some stupid t-shirt

LIke website costs? Makes sense. Shirts? Forget it!

[IatricSB]

I found out long ago that it's difficult for owners to decide what is in the best interest of the league vs what is in their best interest. In the mid-80's, I joined an APBA league that was run at a guys business using the actual cards. We would meet once a week and play a three game series against one of the other owners (rolling dice, tracking stats, etc). When I was invited into the league, I got the last place team that had won only 25% of their games and they gave me the players and the minor league players that belonged to me. I studied the players and maximized their talent and managed to win 50% of the games while I was in the league. After about 21 games, someone noticed that the minor league players I was given were not for my team. Discussions ensued as to what should be done. I was willing to give back the players since they weren't mine and was willing to replay the 21 games if necessary. Some owners suggested that I should also have to forfeit all my wins. A vote was taken and it was a tie with one vote outstanding (belonging to the guy who asked me to join the league). To my shock, he voted I should forfeit the wins and so it went. I was amazed that I would get such a heavy penalty beings that I personally had done nothing wrong but use the players that were handed to me. When I asked my "friend" (an acquaintance that I bowled against) why he would vote the way he did, he said it was because my team had beaten his and knocked him out of first. As a 25 yr old (back in the 80's), I was amazed that all of these 30 to 40 yr olds would let the personal desire to win get in the way of their thinking, but unfortunately for some, winning is above the fun of participating.

[Melo]

Originally Posted by IatricSB

I found out long ago that it's difficult for owners to decide what is in the best interest of the league vs what is in their best interest. In the mid-80's, I joined an APBA league that was run at a guys business using the actual cards. We would meet once a week and play a three game series against one of the other owners (rolling dice, tracking stats, etc). When I was invited into the league, I got the last place team that had won only 25% of their games and they gave me the players and the minor league players that belonged to me. I studied the players and maximized their talent and managed to win 50% of the games while I was in the league. After about 21 games, someone noticed that the minor league players I was given were not for my team. Discussions ensued as to what should be done. I was willing to give back the players since they weren't mine and was willing to replay the 21 games if necessary. Some owners suggested that I should also have to forfeit all my wins. A vote was taken and it was a tie with one vote outstanding (belonging to the guy who asked me to join the league). To my shock, he voted I should forfeit the wins and so it went. I was amazed that I would get such a heavy penalty beings that I personally had done nothing wrong but use the players that were handed to me. When I asked my "friend" (an acquaintance that I bowled against) why he would vote the way he did, he said it was because my team had beaten his and knocked him out of first. As a 25 yr old (back in the 80's), I was amazed that all of these 30 to 40 yr olds would let the personal desire to win get in the way of their thinking, but unfortunately for some, winning is above the fun of participating.

I've played online leagues since my FBPro days. Some of the antics wear on you after awhile and when I had a bad run of online league experiences, I vowed never to play an online league again. Peeps who run a good league deserve a lot of credit and sometimes the things that make them good organizers and operators are the things that could turn people off. I think the GMs of this league jumped the gun and the situation got a bit out of control.

I'll try to respond to as many of the points brought up as possible



1) the main point people are makign is that it seems like we are determined to have a GM run the Yanks liek Steinbrennar does.

-The previous Yank Gm traded Arod in a deal to obtain Edwin Jackson and another Dodger Minor League Pitcher. No one said anything about it. Would the real yanks trade arod for prospects? So if we all were obsessed with the yanks beign run a certain way something would have been said then. The MAIN POINT, which everyone seems to be missing here is that the owner didn't understand that he didn't have to cut costs to make competetive bids on free agents during free agency, which is what he continually kept mentioning in his defense of his trades, here is an exact quote......"My yankees had a payroll of 99 million. I could not afford it with a 79 million revenue. " I don't even know where he got the 79 mill number from, but aparently in his mind he though he was gonna lose money if he didn't do severe cost cutting. Am i trying to put him down for not understanding how to read the financial report, of course not, but when you use that as your explanation for making the trades you don't have a leg to stand on.

-Alot of people think throwing an owner out should be the last resort and only used if the owner is cheating or doesn't export. Thats your opinion, one i do not share, i have seen very active owners who don't cheat ruin leagues and ruin teams. There is a thread goign on right now discussing a person who ruined a team so badly that they had to contract the team completely. Now, in my mind if you can prevent that before it happens, then why not prevent it.

-I think somebody actually said the edwin jackson deal wasn't that bad, i am not really sure what to say to that, i actually don't even have a response.

[STLFAN2003]

I had 79 million of revenue and then it jumped up higher. But I had agreed to two of the three deals already. And I was just taking the adivce of the commish. Dont overspend because everyone gets new TV deals next year. Edwin Jackson has proven nothing, I was there to win! Thats probably why you didnt win the World Series

[wireman]

Originally Posted by MarinerGM

I'll try to respond to as many of the points brought up as possible



1) the main point people are makign is that it seems like we are determined to have a GM run the Yanks liek Steinbrennar does.

-The previous Yank Gm traded Arod in a deal to obtain Edwin Jackson and another Dodger Minor League Pitcher. No one said anything about it. Would the real yanks trade arod for prospects? So if we all were obsessed with the yanks beign run a certain way something would have been said then. The MAIN POINT, which everyone seems to be missing here is that the owner didn't understand that he didn't have to cut costs to make competetive bids on free agents during free agency, which is what he continually kept mentioning in his defense of his trades, here is an exact quote......"My yankees had a payroll of 99 million. I could not afford it with a 79 million revenue. " I don't even know where he got the 79 mill number from, but aparently in his mind he though he was gonna lose money if he didn't do severe cost cutting. Am i trying to put him down for not understanding how to read the financial report, of course not, but when you use that as your explanation for making the trades you don't have a leg to stand on.

-Alot of people think throwing an owner out should be the last resort and only used if the owner is cheating or doesn't export. Thats your opinion, one i do not share, i have seen very active owners who don't cheat ruin leagues and ruin teams. There is a thread goign on right now discussing a person who ruined a team so badly that they had to contract the team completely. Now, in my mind if you can prevent that before it happens, then why not prevent it.

-I think somebody actually said the edwin jackson deal wasn't that bad, i am not really sure what to say to that, i actually don't even have a response.

You're perfectly free to handle the league any way you want. It's a good idea to be upfront about these views. Saves everybody a lot of grief. You might even consider linking up prospective GMs to this thread

Personally, just personally, such a league is not to my taste. I can defend the trades I make, but I'm not interested in having to justify every move I make that somebody might not agree with.

[Melo]

Originally Posted by MarinerGM

-I think somebody actually said the edwin jackson deal wasn't that bad, i am not really sure what to say to that, i actually don't even have a response.

Good, I'll be sure to look in on the league to see how he progresses. My guess is that if he pitches in a pitchers park he may be at best a #2 starter and more likely a 3-4. His movement ratings are way too low, IMO. He will give up a lot of HRs. Sure, you could justify keeping him til he hits FA because he is a servicable pitcher at a cheap rate but that low movement rating will hurt him.