|
Post by Dan P on Jul 23, 2021 3:33:10 GMT -5
Given the recent Pittsburg situation, it seems the BoD chose not to apply a long standing league rule stating that it was necessary to do so to “maintain competitive balance.” I propose neither the League Commissioner nor the BoD have the authority to override a league rule. The original intent of the BoD was not to enforced rules. The original intent of the BoD was to accelerate passing trades and nothing more. Further, the Commissioner’s role is league rule enforcement, not league rule creation or modification. That capability rests solely with a majority of league members.
Formal proposal: League rule creation or override must require a vote of all league members. Any league member has the ability to call for a vote of league members in the event of: (1) a decision to change a documented, historic, or traditional league rule; (2) the creation of a new rule; and/ior an appeal of the misapplication and or enforcement of a league rule.
A side note; the original BoD was an elective office not an appointed one with a one year term. Candidacy was based upon years of league participation, so all levels of league participation were represented.
Dan P. Current Padres’ GM
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 23, 2021 6:24:53 GMT -5
There's a lot to unpack here. I don't have time to address all of this today but being brief: 1. You are correct the bod was originally election based, but it never had terms. You were a member, as were dugatto, and chose to leave the board. It was never term based. I would be interested in adding a rotating member seat and have expressed that to the BOD in the past. 2. The funny thing here is you are assuming the league would override the decision on the pirates, which I am pretty sure they wouldn't, given 1)the lack of outcry aside from the impacted party (you) and 2) they understand why we stepped in. The bod exists to apply the rules yes, but it has also existed to not apply them if situations occur where we need to give owners breaks (e.g rookies) or in this instance when an owner is clearly not not interested in continuing with the league. It makes no sense to let this team continue with 1) without an active manager and 2) allow anyone else to pilfer a player when said manager was not active to make the roster move legal. 3. You had no problem with the changes we made in last year for Covid, in offseason when it came to the draft or scoring. You are only petitioning now because you are negatively impacted on alozlay. For that reason I see your argument as flawed on its face. 4. The bod was actually created by Jeff to manage rules and to make decisions like this. See the attached pictures of the email sent by Brad... And your volunteering. The bod morphed to take on trade voting shortly after because of all the issues we had with trades. 5. You are more than welcome to appeal to the BOD to try your luck. 6. Can always talk trade with pirates for Aloazay.
|
|
|
Post by Dan P on Jul 23, 2021 10:03:42 GMT -5
Some history I didn’t know. And, don’t misunderstand my intent - I accept the decision on the Pirates. My lingering concerns are: (1) decision process; and (2) rule enforcement. Essentially, I view the override of the 72 hour rule as a rule change as an exception to the rule. In other words: 1. (I’ll hazard a rule restatement: The 72 hour waiting period to determine a players free agency at the time the player comes off free agency) can be overruled by the Commissioner in consultation with the BoD, if it is determined that the Cobra franchise has become inactive. In such a case, the Commissioner will halt the bidding process, lock the bid, and determine next steps. 2. If #1 is the rule change intended, how does it become a standing rule. How is this decision made? What is the process for its implementation? 3. My proposal is that the League Membership vote on the rule change before its implementation. The Commissioner and the BoD are not empowered to make such a decision. 4. IMO, the same is the case with any rule change - including measurement changes. As we both agree, the original intended purpose of the BoD was to expedite trade decisions.
Something I think many have enjoyed over the years is the sense of inclusion one had as a member. Time required to manage the league to continue that philosophy should not change based on Commissioner time.management requirement.
I’ll intentionally ignore the ad hominem arguments. It’s likely that I would have lost the Pittsburg bid anyway - lol. Good discussion - I’ve learned from it.
Dan P. Padres’ Acting GM
|
|