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)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Trade Rules

By Gustoon
2/09/2015 2:39 am
jdavidbakr wrote:
I did consider this and capped the years forward that you could trade to a place I felt was a good compromise. The only option I see Is just reducing the forward years to 2 or 3, but I also don't want to limit the options to trade either. Do you feel that reducing like that would make it difficult for legit trading?


If someone wants to make these kind of 'unrealistic' trades, then maybe some kind of sanction should be imposed on them, eg: that owner cannot take another team on until those draft picks (that got traded away) have been used.

As has already said, its not fair that some owners can get a team into cap and draft **** then just walk away leaving the next incumbent on the starting blocks some 100 meters behind everyone else.

The OP has this spot on.

Re: Trade Rules

By WarEagle
2/09/2015 7:00 am
I like the idea of having a blind vote to overturn any trades that the majority of the rest of the league feels should not happen.

However, it should be the majority of the league (or a minimum of no votes), not the majority of those who voted for or against. I'd hate to see a trade get overturned just because one person voted against it, and nobody else voted at all. Or maybe not voting is counted as approval?

Maybe there could be a "vote" notification like there is for new messages (or trades) on your league home page.

Also, I don't like limiting trades of future years picks. I think it is good where it is. If we have the vote mechanism, that should take care of any obviously bad trades.

I also want to note that trading away all of your draft picks for proven players is a legitimate strategy. It's very uncertain what you will get in the draft, and I can understand the perspective of someone who would rather not even bother with it if they can get good players now. They may also be in a "win now" mode. Why not give up a 2nd round pick for a 2nd round quality player? Or a 1st round pick for 2nd round quality player if that's what you'd probably get in the later part of the first round anyway?

I've actually been considering going this way myself. I may be in the minority, but I've been disappointed in the quality of the players available in the draft (specificallly 1st round talent). I'm starting to think 1st round picks are way over-rated unless you have one of the top 5 picks.

Last edited at 2/09/2015 7:01 am

Re: Trade Rules

By Gustoon
2/09/2015 7:12 am
WarEagle wrote:
I like the idea of having a blind vote to overturn any trades that the majority of the rest of the league feels should not happen.

However, it should be the majority of the league (or a minimum of no votes), not the majority of those who voted for or against. I'd hate to see a trade get overturned just because one person voted against it, and nobody else voted at all. Or maybe not voting is counted as approval?

Maybe there could be a "vote" notification like there is for new messages (or trades) on your league home page.

Also, I don't like limiting trades of future years picks. I think it is good where it is. If we have the vote mechanism, that should take care of any obviously bad trades.

I also want to note that trading away all of your draft picks for proven players is a legitimate strategy. It's very uncertain what you will get in the draft, and I can understand the perspective of someone who would rather not even bother with it if they can get good players now. They may also be in a "win now" mode. Why not give up a 2nd round pick for a 2nd round quality player? Or a 1st round pick for 2nd round quality player if that's what you'd probably get in the later part of the first round anyway?

I've actually been considering going this way myself. I may be in the minority, but I've been disappointed in the quality of the players available in the draft (specificallly 1st round talent). I'm starting to think 1st round picks are way over-rated unless you have one of the top 5 picks.



I am 100% against this idea as it has all the trappings of sadly getting misused.

I agree with your second point though as if an owner then decides to quit, at least the new owner has 2 options, trade those players away back for draft picks and/or players or stay put and and continue the build.
But in the short time I've been here seen examples of players using a 'win-now' mentality, moved onto another team with what looks like much greener pastures and done the same thing again. In the process the old team being left in a poor state, that's not fair for any new owner or even a NEW PLAYER that's just joined.

I think that if somehow the trade weights could just be doctored in someway, we can still keep the integrity of the owners and game intact.

Re: Trade Rules

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
2/09/2015 7:55 am
Davesgang wrote:
Limit future trades to the number of seasons of ownership.
If your new you can trade next years picks. If you're a three season vet you can trade three years out.


Hm, that's actually a very interesting thought. I'd still cap it at 5 years I think, but that also would help prevent the drive-by team implosion issue.

Re: Trade Rules

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
2/09/2015 8:00 am
WarEagle wrote:
However, it should be the majority of the league (or a minimum of no votes), not the majority of those who voted for or against. I'd hate to see a trade get overturned just because one person voted against it, and nobody else voted at all. Or maybe not voting is counted as approval?


If this gets implemented it would be a % of ownership required to overturn, i.e. in a full league it would require 16 votes to overturn. It would also have to be within a very short timeframe because the butterfly effect of some trades propagates very quickly, which would probably mean that even a bad trade would be hard pressed to get overturned.

Another thought I've had is to prevent one side from offering more than, say, twice the amount of the other side, i.e. you can't trade one pick for more than two other picks. Or one side cannot offer more than two pieces more than the other.

Re: Trade Rules

By Wolfpack
2/09/2015 8:53 am
I'd just do away with trading. Too many options for mis-use, and as noted, that will kill your young community fast. Trades are rare in the NFL for the most part.

Re: Trade Rules

By Morbid
2/09/2015 9:00 am
Wolfpack wrote:
I'd just do away with trading. Too many options for mis-use, and as noted, that will kill your young community fast. Trades are rare in the NFL for the most part.


I would have no problem with this as well. I have decided I am not making any more trades any ways.

I just cant see how your can say your in a rebuild mode if your trading away all your 1st and 2nd round picks for later round picks.

Re: Trade Rules

By WarEagle
2/09/2015 9:33 am
Wolfpack wrote:
I'd just do away with trading. Too many options for mis-use, and as noted, that will kill your young community fast. Trades are rare in the NFL for the most part.


I like being able to trade. The draft is too much of a **** shoot to have to rely soley on it and free agency.

Getting rid of trading would be going in the opposite direction in terms of realism.

Why not get rid of injuries, the salary cap and players who bust while were at it?

Morbid has the right idea for those of you who feel the same way as him. If you don't like trading, don't trade.

If owners are going to have any sense of control over their team, there will always be the possibility that an owner will abuse that control or use very poor judgement. I don't see any way around that. We can either run our teams the way we see fit, or we can't.

Re: Trade Rules

By JCSwishMan33
2/09/2015 9:33 am
Frankly I don't see the problem with the way things stand as they are now.

As one of the teams involved in the OP, I feel that I should have the option to future-build through multiple Drafts and multiple Draft picks if I so choose. Am I going to get burned by doing that? Surely that's a possibility. And frankly if it boils down to, "Well, it hasn't been seen in the NFL", I'd caveat that with a "yet" unless there's a rule against it. And if there IS a rule and JDB implements a matching rule here, then fine.

And I apologize if I come off a little 'snippy'... One, I'm at work (always a downer). Two, I guess I'm a little protective of my team and the perception of how I play. I'm not playing to be someone's farm team. I'm playing my brand of football, be it 'right' or 'wrong'.

Anyway... That's my 1/50th of a dollar.

Re: Trade Rules

By Morbid
2/09/2015 9:34 am
JCSwishMan33 wrote:
Frankly I don't see the problem with the way things stand as they are now.

As one of the teams involved in the OP, I feel that I should have the option to future-build through multiple Drafts and multiple Draft picks if I so choose. Am I going to get burned by doing that? Surely that's a possibility. And frankly if it boils down to, "Well, it hasn't been seen in the NFL", I'd caveat that with a "yet" unless there's a rule against it. And if there IS a rule and JDB implements a matching rule here, then fine.

And I apologize if I come off a little 'snippy'... One, I'm at work (always a downer). Two, I guess I'm a little protective of my team and the perception of how I play. I'm not playing to be someone's farm team. I'm playing my brand of football, be it 'right' or 'wrong'.

Anyway... That's my 1/50th of a dollar.