|
| Author | Message / Information |
| bradu Quote | Reply | | new trade policy? posted on: 3/7/2008 11:18:42 AM My idea is this...every time there is a trade, instead of either putting it through or holding off, I would send that trade in the daily league email as a proposed trade. Within the next day, gms around the league have the chance to assess the trade, and if more than 1 person writes to me expressing concern about the trade being too uneven, then we would put it to a league vote. Simple as that. If nobody complains about a trade, it's official on the next sim. At the very least, this would take the pressure off ME. So many people seem to have been upset with me for expressing my views on a trade, or otherwise for NOT having a stronger opinion on a trade. I'd much rather use the collective thoughts of the entire league, both to eliminate bias and it just seems more fair all around. What do you guys think? Agree? Disagree? Similar or different ideas? I do feel that something needs to change, because fantasy hockey is supposed to be fun, and for me it has felt as stressful as my job at times this season! And I don't even get paid for this!  |
|
thrashers
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/7/2008 11:26:50 AM Sounds good. Go for it........ |
|
BostonBruins
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/7/2008 11:45:27 AM Ok, so what do we do with the latest deal between Calgary and the Rangers, which I guess is what made this discussion come up ? Should we take that discussion in another thread or do we do it right here ? |
|
bradu
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/7/2008 12:12:54 PM Nick, certainly don't start that discussion here. There have been at least 5 trades in question this season. A few of them have been more intense/debated, a few have just had minor discussions. This discussion regarding the trade policy is not a result of any single trade, but hopefully a solution for the future. |
|
jleopardi
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/7/2008 12:23:45 PM I'm only weighing in on this because one of my trades was questioned. As members of this leagues we are all adults and have some hockey knowledge. What might appear as a strange deal presumably makes sense to both sides. I think if we get into a situation where every move is debated and question it is going to cause bigger problems, i.e. more arguments and less player movement. That just leads to hard feelings and a very boring league. While some guys may have questioned my deal I think the results speak for themselves. In addition to what I got for Heatley I am also gaining a draft pick in one of the deepest pools in memory. Let's be careful to not legislate the fun out of the league. Jim PHI |
|
Goofy4JC
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/7/2008 1:20:29 PM A big 2nd to what Jim said. We are all going to have different opinions about a players value. One player can also be of different value on different teams. If I have 5 quality centers, one of those guys is worth alot less to me then a guy who only had 2 centers. As a commissioner who runs other leagues, I tend to not get involved in trades unless it is glaringly obvious something is going on. I.E. Crosby for John LeClair. If a trade is made in good faith, and the owners are satisfied, let it go. I've seen too many situations where owners voting on trades turns out worse then letting the trade go to begin with. People have a tendecy to vote against a trade if it is going to help their rival. This league has enough quirky rules limiting movement...we have no need for another. |
|
canucks_ahl
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/7/2008 7:56:25 PM While I have found a few of the trades very strange and one sided, I have to agree with Jim and the others. To have every trade scrutinized by the entire league does not serve the league well. I sympathise with Brad having to take the brunt of the criticism but what's next, having all our trade picks checked over as well? To quit a league because you disagree with some trades is kind of sad, but you take the chance of losing other members who have trades overturned. With a 30 team league weird things will happen. Instead of threatening to leave the league when you disagree with a trade, why not try to make a trade with that person, hoping to do the same, helping your team. At least these teams are trying to improve their teams for now or the future via trades. Better than sitting on the fence and doing nothing. One note. As far as claiming the upcoming draft will be the deepest in years, I disagree, to a point. All drafts look great before the test of time occurs. It may turn out to be a great draft, but who knows? But that is the beaty of trades and draft picks, you never know....... Dan, Canucks |
|
roadstar
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/7/2008 10:21:35 PM You shouldn't have to do any trade arbitration or even read owner tirades. Bad enough you have to make the file adjustments. Bad trades have a way of resolving themselves over time. Minnesota says no more rules. If guys start scewing around (I'm going to miss the playoffs so I'll give you my 3 best forwards for a 6th round pick) then either cancel their franchise or ban them from the next year's draft. Something that is meaningful. So here is my proposal. Rather than arbitrating trades, just post RIDICULOUS trades for a ruling by a jury of their peers. A YES/NO vote on whether or not the owners should be banished from the next draft. 60% to carry. With that possibility, I am pretty sure owners will trade in good faith. |
|
bradu
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/8/2008 12:33:10 PM several thoughts...first of all, glad to see this has become a good discussion with people advocating both sides. Let me first elaborate on some of the pro's of my idea. 1)knowing that a trade is going out to the whole league before it becomes official, I think teams will be far less likely to be on the 'winning' end of a 1 sided trade. 2)if a trade IS within reason, there is no voting. It just goes in an email first so that people can see. It's only when people have a problem with the trade that it would go to a vote. As far as just letting all trades go because we're all adults here, in an ideal world, that works. If both teams agree, let it go. But as evidenced this season, that doesn't always work out. Some trades still end up 'too' one sided. Also, there will be league turnover. Brand new gms with zero experience come in often, and we've got to protect them a little bit. They can be perfectly capable and intelligent, but some of the ability to evaluate players comes with experience with APBA and even in a particular league (based on that league's rules.) In AHL, for instance, a guy who has a fantastic year followed by an off year can still hold great value because of the non-update rule. I'm still undecided on this. I'm not convinced that my idea is a good one, in fact if anything I'm leaning the other way. But it does have some strong points, and I want to look at all sides. I think perhaps the fact that we're having this big discussion at all will hopefully make teams more aware in general that they need to keep their trades fair. |
|
jleopardi
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/10/2008 10:15:47 AM I understand Brad's predicament because it's his league and he wants to see it run smoothly and be successful. Many of us are running leagues and understand what that means. Unfortunately, maintaining the integrity of the league is one of the chores. My opinion, if Brad sees something that doesn't look right it is his perrogatove (sp?) to investigate. I would be uncomfortable with a tribunal evaluating everything that is done because in the end this is supposed to be fun. |
|
dbrooks
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/12/2008 5:34:17 PM Including Brad, I’m the 8th GM to weigh-in on this discussion. While it’s been a healthy (and hopefully helpful) exchange of views, it’s unfortunate that the ‘other’ 22 GM’s haven’t cared enough to contribute. Although I’m receptive to Brad’s predicament, I can only agree with Jim that evaluating ‘iffy’ trades goes with the territory of running a league. There will always be ‘some’ trades that (as is) cannot be approved. Brad makes an excellent point in reminding us that new GM’s must be protected. More importantly (I feel), ‘franchises’ must be protected from a GM who makes a series of poor trades before quitting the league. All in all, I’ll have to side with Jim, Brian, Dan and Peter, all of whom feel that a league-wide vote (or “tribunal,” in Jim’s words) would do more harm than good. As Jim noted, Brad should always have the option of privately seeking a couple of objective opinions before making a final decision. Peter, although your idea of possible punishment has merit, I don’t think it’s doable because it wouldn’t cover a situation of a team having ‘already’ traded all of its picks for the next draft. And BTW Peter, I loved your email protesting the “outrageous” Krog-Baumgartner trade. ‘Very’ good, and a reminder to all of us that this is fantasy hockey and we mustn’t lose our sense of humor. Brad has always run this league as a democracy. If there’s to be a new trade policy, it will be based on a consensus of the views expressed on this page. That’s the way it should be. Don / Pittsburgh |
|
dchaiken10
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/13/2008 12:31:54 AM I agree with most of the posts except I think a league wide tribunal is kind of unnecesary. Maybe new GMs should be on 3 trade probation, conducted in a way that would make it easy for Brad to track. Each new GM's first three trades would be analyzed a bit more strictly than other trades in the league and Brad could explain to the GM the pros and cons of the deal if a GM has a suspicious trade comes up. Once the probationary period is over, all trades should be good. |
|
buffalohead
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/15/2008 6:01:23 PM Just to ease the mind of people that the "other" 22 GM's have no comment on the subject here is my thought on the matter. I'm fine the way it is and I'm fine if Brad wants to change it, in other words I have no opinion, constructive criticism or any suggestion on the matter that's why I have reserved comment. Don't forget this comes from someone who in other leagues is known for his long winded and sometimes lengthy opinions on topics whether called for or not. I trust that Brad will make the best decision for the overall health and well being of the League and the GM's |
|
EdLeafs
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/25/2008 5:30:07 PM I sometimes hold on to players because I like that player, but someone else might not like the same player. It goes the same for me when looking to acquire one, for me sometimes I just like that player. Sometime I just go by a gut feeling like picking a backup goalie knowing he can start for 10 other teams in the NHL. Maybe I over pay, maybe I under pay, but having some one veto me thinking I am getting the short end of the stick, or vice versa because to me I paid just what I felt he is worth to me. I cannot get into the heads of people to know what is going on in their minds, but for me trades mean something to me and are worth it in my head. I also agree that if there is a trade police, there will be less player movement. Just my feeling on things. |
|
bradu
Quote | Reply | |
new trade policy?
replied on: 3/26/2008 12:00:50 PM if you guys haven't figured this out, for now I'm going to hold off on any changes. In fact, if I am to make any changes it's that I'll try to let people handle their own trades more. I think in some instances I've created more problems by getting involved instead of just allowing everyone to use their own judgment as Ed just said. |
|
LinkBot
|
Gamers Wanted is looking for people to write game reviews and post news, |
|
|
| Tired of seeing ads? Click here to upgrade to Elite Membership! |
ChatArea.com Help & News Forums | Terms of Use | Contact ChatArea.com | Advertising
Powered By ChatArea.com - Get your free Society today! © Copyright 2003 Wewp!