FanGM

Not certain if this has been discussed before but I think a trade review committee is something that could be given strong consideration in the near future. For example, when a trade occurs a GM with vested interest or not could request to have a deal tabled and reviewed by a group voted as a trade committee of say 4-6 GM's to approve or decline with the GM's involved in the reviewed trade given an opportunity to present their case.

Thoughts?

In extreme cases, Troy has overturned trades before. I believe it was simply one instance.


However, getting a group together to vote on trades seems like a can of worms. (in my opinion)

I can appreciate that but I know some GM's have been in a DHL league that other players in the AFFL/CFFL/DFFL are in and can testify to its effectiveness.

We've had this discussion before, and there is a "competition committee". However, I think that we're more like watch dogs, that bark to warn Troy if anything seems fishy.

To play devils advocate, define 'fishy" and that is very important however without sounding overly opinionated could it not be argued that very one-sided deals can be bad for the league(s) in general. We've talked about fairness, realism and competitveness in FANGM before and I am just looking at the longterm integrity of our leagues. It doesnt serve anyone if the league cannot protect a GM from his/her own incompetence/lack of knowledge, etc and in turn has the potential to be exploited.

You can always bring a trade to Commish's attention. I don't oppose a committee but it tends to cause more issues then it often helps. If you had one, I'd suggest each league have committee members that weren't invested in the league.

Its our league and I think Troy has enough on his plate. I think its a good idea.

Jared A wrote:In extreme cases, Troy has overturned trades before. I believe it was simply one instance.


However, getting a group together to vote on trades seems like a can of worms. (in my opinion)

I think the trade committee would be the wrong direction. How do you decide it, what if any of the members are away, and what if they are involved in the committee.

However, I believe if there is a very bad trade out there that almost gives the impression that owners are working together to build one powerhouse - a GM could catch it, Troy can decide if it should be voted upon and then we all can vote on it - just like we do with rule changes.

That is my preferred method.

However, while I like the idea, I hope that is never or very rarely used.

Was looking to start a discussion on pros/cons. I certainly see some of the pits falls that could arise. If implemented correctly it could be a very valuable tool. Food for thought. For consideration also could be the idea of a mentor assigned to new GM's for a period of time. FanGm can have a learning curve as it is uniquely different than typical fantasy leagues that many new Gm's can be accustomed to. I know this from personally experience.

I agree that it would be good to find a way to break new GMs in slowly. Some of this was already discussed in another forum. I think Royce mentioned that he reached out to people on the waitlist about working with him and said he found no takers. I don't want to discourage new GMs, but maybe requiring new GMs to spend some time paired up with a current GM before they get their own team would be a good idea. This would require that several current GMs would be willing to work with new users, but there seems to be some interest in that.

I don't know how often it happens that a new GM comes in, bungles a team and trades away too many future assets, and then leaves the game. Requiring them to work with a current GM might have them better prepared. It also is a way to get new GMs involved immediately rather than putting their name on the list and having to wait until next season for a shot at a team.