New Sticky Note

NOTICE: This league is using the BLEEDING EDGE game engine. For more information, click here.

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By WarEagle
8/04/2016 11:04 am
King of Bling wrote:
We talk of emulating the NFL...


MFN is never going to be like the NFL as long as you have owners who are not as invested and knowledgeable about the game as their real life NFL counter parts are. Of course that is never going to happen with any online game.

The best we can hope for is a good Professional Football Simulation, not an NFL Simulation. Some items from the NFL would translate nicely into this game, and others would not.

I think JDB is headed down the right path of making this a great Pro Football Simulation, but it would be unrealistic to expect it to mirror the NFL.

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By mardn72
8/04/2016 11:07 am
I honestly thinking fixing the salary cap would have the biggest affect on things. Players that are offered a contract extension should really demand money that is comparable with other players in the league.

For example, I just signed an FA 86 rated OL for 42mil/6yrs, but I can resign my own 87 rated OL for 19mil/6yrs. The players are even the same age. That kind of value difference typically doesn't happen in the NFL. Players should resign at a discount, just not that extreme.

It'd be cool if the resigning discount also factored in other elements like length of time with the team and playing time. An 80 rated OL that hasn't never gotten to be a starter will likely want full value to stay with the team (because if the team is paying full value, they're going to have to think of them as a starter). Alternatively, an 9yr vet that's been with the team his entire career is much more likely to give a bigger discount to continue staying with that team. Games started, plays played, and years with team are already tracked stats, so JDB wouldn't have to create any new metrics.

If we could make the salary cap matter, teams are not going to be able to stack their rosters and will be forced to make hard decisions like NFL teams do today.

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By WarEagle
8/04/2016 11:11 am
mardn72 wrote:


For example, I just signed an FA 86 rated OL for 42mil/6yrs, but I can resign my own 87 rated OL for 19mil/6yrs. The players are even the same age.


The FA would have accepted 19mil/6yrs also if they didn't have a higher offer.

The amount your own FA demands IS based on other similar players in the league.

The difference is that the amount a FA signs for is NOT based on other similar players in the league. It is based on the best offer they get, which could be more or less than if you were re-signing that same player. If they are a top tier player it is most likely going to be more because there will be other owners trying to sign that player also. Theoretically you could sign a 3 year vet rated 100 to a 6 yr deal at the minimum if nobody else was bidding.
Last edited at 8/04/2016 11:12 am

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By mardn72
8/04/2016 11:17 am
Ok, I wasn't aware that players I'm trying to extend look at other salaries around the league. Maybe the weight they place on that needs to be increased then. You see this all the time in the NFL. One year a QB signs a contract for a record 20mil/yr, so the next year QBs all want at least that to resign.

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By tosu
8/04/2016 12:13 pm
The biggest dilemma as I see it, are things like a punter in the 90's only being able to be acquired for multiple 1sts as an example.

The trade meter is not a solve all, but at the same time, trade police, league commissioners etc would just bog down this game. Perhaps we can have **** retentive leagues where every move is up for review and either approved or disapproved by the trade police.

I've seen instances where other owners demanded an explanation why some owner made a trade. Under no such obligation, the other owner was kind enough to offer the reasoning, only to be praised by some, but utterly ripped by others.

A handful of owners somehow feel they are the game's guiding light and if they get their way, this game will get so bogged down, it will no longer be any fun to play.

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By lellow2011
8/04/2016 3:25 pm
I see a few issues with the current trade meter

- Vets weigh a bit too heavily on the trade meter, 8th/9th years guys with retirement possibilities shouldn't require a first rounder to trade for.

- The value of different positions is not taken into account (only overalls). The trade meter should also take into account players that are at less valuable positions but are rated higher in high value positions.

- Swapping future picks between teams of the same season should probably be restricted. Such as weighing future picks of teams with bad records more heavily (especially in instances of direct swaps like say it's the 2027 season and you're swapping your 2029 first for someone else's 2029 first). There is little reason a team would make a trade like this unless they are trying to take major advantage of a bad team or there is some kind of cheating/collusion going on.

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By WarEagle
8/04/2016 3:53 pm
lellow2011 wrote:

- Swapping future picks between teams of the same season should probably be restricted. Such as weighing future picks of teams with bad records more heavily (especially in instances of direct swaps like say it's the 2027 season and you're swapping your 2029 first for someone else's 2029 first). There is little reason a team would make a trade like this unless they are trying to take major advantage of a bad team or there is some kind of cheating/collusion going on.


If it's just a first for a first, then you may have a point about it not making much sense. But if it is just part of the deal I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't see it as taking advantage of a bad team, but betting on your own team to have a better record that season.

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By WarEagle
8/04/2016 3:54 pm
lellow2011 wrote:


- Vets weigh a bit too heavily on the trade meter, 8th/9th years guys with retirement possibilities shouldn't require a first rounder to trade for.

- The value of different positions is not taken into account (only overalls). The trade meter should also take into account players that are at less valuable positions but are rated higher in high value positions.



+1

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By Brrexkl
8/04/2016 4:13 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
How about a "Get advice" button which sends the potential trade to a new public forum section. Where it can be scrutinized by the public as advice requested by owner.

Or something similar for only block buster trades (or just 1st and 2nd rounders) involving newer owners. Depending on game knowledge, reflected by record, is what dictates whether the trade goes to a new forum section for debate. These are for informational purposes only and may not be able to stop the trade, but will bring the trade to light before it is accepted .

Just to note I was scrutinized for 3 out of 4 trades I ever made. It was not bad or bothersome, just I gave up alot because the meter was wierd. Still, the 1.15 I gave up ended up busting. So that went my way. The two other still need drafts to happen to truly tell who won or lost.

I want to stop newer owners one or two seasons in from letting go of low first or second rounders for a guys that do not fit there gameplan.



I like this... a lot.

It can be sent either by the Trade Initiator or by the Trade Receiver. Doesn't require both.

If either party wants more eyes to ensure it's a 'fair deal', then there you go.

Also, it allows Owners to discuss things in context... "Yes, I know that C is 20% to Retire, but I'm a Play Off Team and feel he makes me a Champion while I have him... so I'm willing to pay more than usually for such an old but talented player", etc.

People forget that a Trade is more than just the items in the box, but the situation each team finds themselves in and the situation each team is trying to create for themselves.

Re: Trying to solve the trade dilemma

By oukjweather
8/05/2016 2:40 pm
I think the first thing to keep in mind is that there are no silver bullets in this. Within this thread there are numerous different opinions on what constitutes fair and reasonable. That is what I think makes this issue so tough, is that you are largely dealing with peoples opinions. Opinions change and will vary based on experience and a persons current circumstances. I think they also would vary from league to league.

I think a good starting point, would be determine what in the site administrators view defines a bad trade and then try to codify that. I know the trade bar seeks to do just that, but I think more work needs to be done on it. In theory, I like the idea of putting questionable trades to a league wide vote. However, I recognize a downside of this, is that you are involving multiple of peoples opinions and motives. The upside is that you are encouraging self policing and making people defend trades that could be league altering. While the NFL doesn't have any kind of practice like this, it would also be true that the NFL doesn't have league managers just walk off the street and start managing multimillion dollar contracts. Some of the people on here are shrewd players and amongst experienced players there is nothing wrong with that at all. I have no problem at all with an owner trying to get the best deal for his or her team. However, I think we would mostly all agree that taking advantage of a newbie who doesn't know what they are doing yet or is ignorant on what to value or not value isn't good for the league as a whole. There will always be accusations of collusion or cheating, but aside from what the site administrator is already doing, isn't a lot that can be done to stop those things from happening. The best defense against that is for self policing of the league that is fair and is least intrusive as possible.