Role of the TRC

[BrewCrewGM]

I know the timing of this is interesting but I feel the question is justified. Even Eric was asking it a week or two ago. What is the role of the TRC? Do we evaluate trades without caring about how experienced each owner is? Just evaluate them purely on fairness?

My interpretation used to be that the primary objectives were to protect new owners and maintain the competitive balance of the league, but obviously that's not the case.

Are we the TRC supposed to tell experienced owners how to run their teams? Do we know better than them? Because not letting them run their teams the way they want to seems to indicate that.

I get it, I'm being a whiny bitch here and what not in everyone's eyes, but I'm being serious.

I'd really like to know what the TRC's duties are.

[Atlanta Braves]

I do feel like this is a discussion that needs to be made and even though I know most people think I'm just an absent owner who doesn't do anything or make any trades I've still been here for awhile so I just wanna give my 2 cents for once even if nobody cares.

From what I remember when the TRC was 1st set up it was to both protect new owners so they can know the proper value of a 30 team league since it's not a common league, but it was also to make sure all the trades were fair too. There's too much turnover that a couple of uneven trades from a team and then if that owner leaves that team has nobody and it's almost impossible to find an owner (unless Yanks takes them over to attempt one of his world famous flawless rebuilds). My feeling is that it goes in spurts where everything passes and there's no issues then as soon as there's a veto someone gets upset because everything else was passing and his deal got vetoed (that wasn't a shot at you brew but it's happened with other owners in the past too) so other trades start to get vetoed to show it just wasn't his.

I do think we need to establish new rules for the TRC about voting on trades. For one I think the only thing that should be said in a post is either Veto or Approve unless someone asks for a reason. Besides that there should be no other chatter such as complaining or discussing value in the trade thread. The only other talk in the thread should be if the TRC asks for justification then the teams can give further reasoning behind the trade to help the TRC members vote or if an owner wants to bump the thread up for more votes. Nobody can stop you from talking about it in the chat box and quite frankly that's why it's there to discuss things almost off the record.

I know this one won't be popular but maybe the TRC should rotate between owners year by year to keep everyone involved. Maybe something like 1 team from each division and every team will have a chance to be a part of it at some point. If a team doesn't want to be apart of it that's fine they can decline the invitation and it'll go to someone else in the division or someone appointed by an Admin. I feel like there are a lot of knowledgeable owners in this league but don't really get a change to really be a part of it besides to run their team and every once & awhile vote on a rule change.

Maybe even if a trade gets vetoed that players in that trade can't be traded to other teams for a time window to allow for renegotiation such as a week or something. Idk just throwing out ideas now.

I'm sure other owners will have somethings that they'd like to see change and maybe my ideas are just stupid and will be ignored but I just wanted to throw in my thoughts on the situation. Now I'll go back into hiding lol

[Deleted]

If a trade is too unbalanced it's the TRCs job to veto without taking variables like standings into play.

Variables that I do consider is rebuild vs contending, and new vs veteran owner.

A rebuilding team is going to place higher value on prospects, whether it's quantity, quality, level of play, etc.

A contending team is going to value production a bit more.

I'm also a lot looser with two active veteran owners and a bit tighter on weaker, less active, and newer owners as far as acceptable gap in perceived value goes.

There's a lot of subjectiveness obv.

As far as a hard and fast set of rules, objectives, etc to govern the TRC...that's going to be impossible due to the subjectivity involved, but generally if you can't get three of the TRC to approve, there's a glaring problem.

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

I just want to say thanks to Braves for sharing his opinion. I know he takes heat (and some of that has been from me in the past) for inactivity, but he really has improved since I joined the league, and as one of the members who have been here the longest, it's good to hear your take on how it has evolved.

I do thing you make some good points and suggestions. I would be certainly be open to a rotating TRC. I think that's a great suggestion, and would love to see more owners be more involved in the league.

I think it would be tough to enforce a "1 week renegotiation window" though. There would be nothing to stop the owners from still shopping the player around and if they find a better offer, just waiting the one week to take the better trade. I honestly don't have a problem with a team whose trade is vetoed trading that player to another team who wasn't originally involved. If someone else is willing to pay more, I don't see why the original team should have rights to the trade. I could possibly see what you're saying about it rewarding a team who didn't do due diligence in shopping their player around.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

Seeing as most of the Managers in TPB are intelligent, and most trades are approve worthy. If we run into an instance where a trade is getting veto votes or gets vetoed quickly, the managers involved will give a detailed rationale on why they're doing the trade.

If the rationale is still flawed in the eyes of the TRC the trade gets squashed, re-jigged, whatever.

[Deleted]

I do like the concept of having an exclusive negotiating window between the teams who's trade was veto'd. Not something that could be easily enforced, but it does seem fair.

[KeithTorGM]

i agree with Royals...it seems workable and fair

[BrewCrewGM]

Would just be pretty hard to enforce though

[Deleted]

Could have a defined penalty for it. 1 year cap hold and/or draft picks. Accusations of violations require a certain amount of evidence to warrant penalty.

Not a perfect system, but most systems aren't perfect. The penalty would certainly stop division rivals from violating it. Too much to gain by reporting them.

[Deleted]

Just throwing ideas out there. Obviously would need to be refined.

[Deleted]

Here's another opinion with the TRC...shouldn't a trade be accepted by all parties before anyone casts a vote? Seems like some are in too much of a hurry to push things along.

[BrewCrewGM]

May 23, 2016 11:04:37 GMT -5 @rays said:

Here's another opinion with the TRC...shouldn't a trade be accepted by all parties before anyone casts a vote? Seems like some are in too much of a hurry to push things along.

Why I add "pending whoever's acceptance" after the approve