I would like to suggest that the trade balancer uses a different criteria when only draft picks are traded. I am fine with wide disparities when players are involved because each owner can view a player(s) differently with different values.

But draft picks are more cut and dried. You know where they are going to be. MFN-2 just had a draft pick only trade that was 2100 points to 1051 points. There is no way this trade was done without collusion. Team A was 10-6 last season and traded first, second, fourth and seventh round picks to Team B, who was 1-15, for first, second, third and third round picks. All the picks are in the same draft! So Team A moves up about 20 spots in the first, 20 spots in the second, dumps fourth and seventh round picks for two thirds! No way this trade was done without collusion.

For draft pick only trades, the balancer should force the totals to be within 10% of each other, or something like that.

https://mfn2.myfootballnow.com/forums/1/1162?page=1&x=nYUP0xU8t2#3722

link is fixed

I would pm jdb

But after two seasons of collusion . ....I think it is too late . Hopefully high contracts will catch up with this nonsense

Rampant cheating in MFN and Custom leagues is part of the reason user-created leagues are so popular ... and why trade review committees are so popular in user-created leagues. At least one new league (NCAA 2.0) allows no trades whatsoever.

The problem, though, is that you could easily overcome that restriction by just throwing in a poorly rated player. There'd have to be a somewhat more complicated mechanism to determine the ratio - which I'm certainly open to implementing.

My thought it to have 1st, 2nd, and 3rd round picks require something like 80% of their value to be matched in a trade, regardless of whether a player is included or not. I'd exclude 4-7 rounds because they values are so small and their worth can very so much based on the draft.

It'll be hard to understand the inner workings of, but will make for fairer trades.

Player - Trade Value 400 - Min Needed 200
Draft Pick - Trade Value 400 - Min Needed 320
Total Offered 800 - Total Min Needed 520

+1

The issue with picks is the uncertain volatility of future picks. One hopes that trading into the future will get them a better pick. Say for example, a current 3rd/#16 pick traded for a future 3rd from a team who has the #90 pick is hoping that the one who gave up the future pick will have a bad year, when in reality they will not. Common Knowledge says a future pick should be forecasted as a round higher (a future 3rd should be seen as a future 2nd of the same level) but in reality it is not. Future picks should be viewed as only half of movement....3-16 as 3-8 ect.

And using the NFL draft chart as a guide-line helps for those unfamiliar or uncomfortable with trades

This is BOTH TEAMS third REALLY shady move in the last number of days... https://mfn2.myfootballnow.com/forums/1/1147?page=1&x=IZOdG7W1Lr#3729
and
https://mfn2.myfootballnow.com/forums/1/1162?page=1&x=ngVoVGl1JZ#3730
and
https://mfn2.myfootballnow.com/forums/1/1148?page=1#3702

This is a really bad situation that is just being flaunted as Cleveland trades extra picks for the "privilege" of dropping several spots and giving up more picks in terms of rounds??