|
|
Post by Broncos GM (Kevin) on Sept 22, 2018 15:52:56 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone here plays in blitz but this is a trade today that I'd feel I'd want to veto
Team A TRADES-
-- Adoree Jackson: $1.05M / $1.40M / $1.75M
-- Kenny Clark: $1.20M / $1.50M
-- 2020 2nd RD pick
Team B TRADE-
-- Josh Gordon: $5M / $5M / $5M
-- 2020 3rd Rd pick
I like Jackson a lot, there's more than a corner back there. Kenny Clarke is a good tackle. The third is going to be low due to comp picks next year and Gordon may screw up/ fall apart. get suspended again real quick
It's passing at a canter in a league where anyone can vote but the pass rules state 4 more passes than vetos until we get to 4 vetos. Then it's vetoed. I'll probably not vote because I've been told I'm too critical of that league anyway
In this case the experienced GM is trading for Gordon, should that make a difference
|
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Sept 22, 2018 16:06:52 GMT -5
I don't know if anyone here plays in blitz but this is a trade today that I'd feel I'd want to veto Team A TRADES- -- Adoree Jackson: $1.05M / $1.40M / $1.75M -- Kenny Clark: $1.20M / $1.50M -- 2020 2nd RD pick Team B TRADE- -- Josh Gordon: $5M / $5M / $5M -- 2020 3rd Rd pick I like Jackson a lot, there's more than a corner back there. Kenny Clarke is a good tackle. The third is going to be low due to comp picks next year and Gordon may screw up/ fall apart. get suspended again real quick It's passing at a canter in a league where anyone can vote but the pass rules state 4 more passes than vetos until we get to 4 vetos. Then it's vetoed. I'll probably not vote because I've been told I'm too critical of that league anyway In this case the experienced GM is trading for Gordon, should that make a difference We shouldn’t be looking at the question of experienced or inexperienced...we should be judging the trade based on the facts of the deal only and whether it makes sense of each of the teams |
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Sept 22, 2018 16:13:11 GMT -5
Laying out certain principles to follow sounds like a good route to try. I have my concerns with the 24 trade discussion before being posted. This could lead to more confusion or work for the league. As an example. What happens when a GM wants to make multiple trades in a day but already has a trade going through the 24 hr waiting period? You cant fully commit to any other moves until that first trade is passed. So essentially you'll be waiting at least 48 hrs to get multiple trades done at once. With 3 days (Sun,Mon,Thurs) of games that leaves a close window for a lot of these trades to be done in time for the weeks played. This issue will arise more during in season trading then off season of course but will still be difficult for GM to try stacking or doing multiple trades at one time. Also think any changes we do decide to make on trade voting should be done with some test runs before we fully implement it into our league. Without knowing how these new rules will effect the short and long term of the league can come with new unforeseen issues. Im more on board with the idea of following certain principles for a trade rather then making rules for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Sept 22, 2018 16:20:20 GMT -5
I'm for the proposition. I do not believe it will solve the issue, but it could help deter certain bad trades from hitting the board. When GM's realise their trades will be up for discussion, they'll think more about making in one of fair value. Years ago I proposed a trade to a GM who loved the proposition, which was over-valued, but was afraid it would not pass. So he took the time to make it more equitable before we presented it to the Trade Approval Board. Those days appear long gone where one GM was just as interested in making sure the other team received a fair benefit that would enhance his/her chances of becoming competitive just as much as their own. Darryl, you have hit on the very point Im trying to make. Instead of all individual GM's trying to figure out what proper value is or is not in any given trade, maybe an attempt at self policing by the two parties trying to come to an agreement will come into play. A league wide discussion could bring about a balance that avoids the disaster of an emotional based trade decision as well, as it will give time for both parties to reconsider using the information on hand, and avoid an embarrassing veto by a GM who might have been hosed in a deal. I also dont fear how a discussion may or may not influence the votes of DOT members, because in the end we should all have a mutual respect for one another, and we all have trades to make at some point in time and a chance at retribution against an unjust discussion always exists. We're already in a league where members allow 90 plus % of trades to be passed anyways, I dont think honest information is going to deter DOT members from colluding against what is the right decision. And for that matter, with a conscience effort by both parties to try and craft a trade that would be seen in the light of fairer balance, I actually think this would lead to the vast majority of trades getting passed, because an expectation and a standard may be presented by other league members. What Im hoping happens is we actually inadvertently remove the veto elements of trades in this league all together.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rams GM (Frank) on Sept 22, 2018 16:24:50 GMT -5
Laying out certain principles to follow sounds like a good route to try. I have my concerns with the 24 trade discussion before being posted. This could lead to more confusion or work for the league. As an example. What happens when a GM wants to make multiple trades in a day but already has a trade going through the 24 hr waiting period? You cant fully commit to any other moves until that first trade is passed. So essentially you'll be waiting at least 48 hrs to get multiple trades done at once. With 3 days (Sun,Mon,Thurs) of games that leaves a close window for a lot of these trades to be done in time for the weeks played. This issue will arise more during in season trading then off season of course but will still be difficult for GM to try stacking or doing multiple trades at one time. Also think any changes we do decide to make on trade voting should be done with some test runs before we fully implement it into our league. Without knowing how these new rules will effect the short and long term of the league can come with new unforeseen issues. Im more on board with the idea of following certain principles for a trade rather then making rules for them. Ricky, you bring up a great point. The more I have thought about it, maybe a 24 hour review window is a bit long. Maybe its a 12 hour review window, or maybe even 8, we can leave that up for discussion. But without a doubt, this is an idea that will slow the rate of trades down in this league, and we all have to be alright with that. |
|
|
|
Post by Bills GM (Anthony) on Sept 22, 2018 16:28:55 GMT -5
The issue of still getting trades vetoed or passed that should or shouldn’t be is still going to be there with this discussion period or not —does this fix the consistency aspect of the problem?
Even though a trade won’t be officially passed or vetoed—technically it will be during that discussion period. What this does is just prevents votes from needing to be casted. What is going to happen is two GMs will agree on a deal, some people won’t like it, then the teams will yank the deal because Dot will be giving their opinions on the deal, which will basically be their vote
But I think we’re not adresssing the real issue here.
The real issue is what trades should be passed and which won’t. This doesn’t address that. DOT needs guiding principals to help with the actual voting process.
Should experienced GMs have to pay more for a RB1 then a team whose been in the league for 3 months? I’d love an answer to that question. If DOT agrees that one of our guiding principals is that experienced GMs should/need to pay more, Im ok with that, but I think all DOT members should be on board with that . If we agree that an experienced GM should pay more, we need to define what an experienced GM is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Titans GM (Ricky) on Sept 22, 2018 16:34:30 GMT -5
Another concern I have is when teams are trading picks during the draft. These trades are usually more straight forward so not sure how long they need to be in a waiting period to be discussed. Especially when sometimes you don't know if going to keep or trade pick til your guy is gone one or two picks away. With the draft being on a timer that also doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room to get some of the trades passed before you draft timer is up. I don't know if pausing the draft is possible on MFL so once a trade is posted it can go through the voting period without concern of missing the pick.
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Sept 22, 2018 18:18:35 GMT -5
Hello all,
I would be remised if I didn't bring up a couple of concerns I have. First, with regards to the 24 hour review period, I see some great benefits to this like getting opinions and thoughts of the trade out in the open. Some concerns I have though are, in the proposal it states that the trade can be revoked if after the discussion one of the teams involved changes their mind. I don't agree with that. Once a trade is agreed on by both parties it should be binding unless vetoed. The purpose of the review period shouldn't be to change the minds of the teams involved. Along those same lines, I can see the DOT members being influenced by this review period. Maybe that is the point, I am not sure. In my opinion the DOT should only look at the trade to decide how to vote, not popular opinion, not the experience of the GM's involved. Strictly the trade and the elements of it. I like raising the number of votes to 5, I think that will help. I am not convinced on the review period. I am not sure what the answer is, this is a complex problem. I would be open to having some basic guidelines for the DOT as it pertains to voting and the elements we should be looking at. One thing I didn't realize happens, and I am very guilty of this is we put in our approvals, "This trade is close, but I will approve because it involves two veteran GM's." I have found things like this in a lot of past trades. This would suggest an easier approval simply because they are veteran GM's. That shouldn't be the case. The only thing that should be considered is the trade itself. Anyways, I just wanted to put my thoughts down.
Thank you all for the great discussion, I have 100% faith in Frank and this league that something will change and the league will be better than ever.
|
|
|
|
Post by Colts GM (Darryl) on Sept 23, 2018 10:56:41 GMT -5
About 7 years ago I created a guideline to help better assist our Trade Approval Board in assessing bad trades. Bad trades to me, are those which are detrimental to a team, which subsequently leads to a deterioration of league competitiveness. There was a moderate degree of success until members of TAB were slowly being replaced. Each new member not really taking the time to review and understand past trades and/or implement those guidelines when assessing a trade, and experienced members becoming overly relaxed. Which I understand in part as we just want things to be fast and easy. But running a league this size is not easy. It is fun, but it also requires work as each GM is tasked with the responsibility to build a dynasty.
Thus here we are - reduced to perceived inconsistencies. Basing trades on the value of a player that does not really exist. For an example, how can an established middling QB be worth a 3rd round pick in one trade and 2 first round picks along with potential players in another? As it now stands, DOT will approve these trades and label their voting as being consistent based on the value of the player. It is my belief that this is really not about a particular players value as some would make it out to be. If the trade is fair and beneficial to both teams and does not effect the league as a whole, it is a good trade.
In any case, here is brief list of those things the TAB was tasked to look at: Player/position value - QB was considered "Platinum", making the RB position "Gold", etc. Contract years/salary contributes to a sliding scale Condition of the teams - overall state of the team - assets (availability of quality players/picks and cap), position depth/shortages, competitive advantage/disadvantage) Team direction/goals - (i.e., rebuild, gathering picks, competing for the title, etc.) Trade history - Sometimes a single trade cannot determine whether a trade is detrimental to a team/league. This is where reviewing a series of trades can assist in preventing damage.
In leagues like this where severely OVER-paying for a player is not frowned upon (again with the flip side of the coin being frowned upon), the trade must still remain fair. Beneficial to the teams in question without harm to one or the other.
This could perhaps be modified to fit our current league/values....idk
|
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Sept 23, 2018 11:07:38 GMT -5
About 7 years ago I created a guideline to help better assist our Trade Approval Board in assessing bad trades. Bad trades to me, are those which are detrimental to a team, which subsequently leads to a deterioration of league competitiveness. There was a moderate degree of success until members of TAB were slowly being replaced. Each new member not really taking the time to review and understand past trades and/or implement those guidelines when assessing a trade, and experienced members becoming overly relaxed. Which I understand in part as we just want things to be fast and easy. But running a league this size is not easy. It is fun, but it also requires work as each GM is tasked with the responsibility to build a dynasty.
Thus here we are - reduced to perceived inconsistencies. Basing trades on the value of a player that does not really exist. For an example, how can an established middling QB be worth a 3rd round pick in one trade and 2 first round picks along with potential players in another? As it now stands, DOT will approve these trades and label their voting as being consistent based on the value of the player. It is my belief that this is really not about a particular players value as some would make it out to be. If the trade is fair and beneficial to both teams and does not effect the league as a whole, it is a good trade.
In any case, here is brief list of those things the TAB was tasked to look at: Player/position value - QB was considered "Platinum", making the RB position "Gold", etc. Contract years/salary contributes to a sliding scale Condition of the teams - overall state of the team - assets (availability of quality players/picks and cap), position depth/shortages, competitive advantage/disadvantage) Team direction/goals - (i.e., rebuild, gathering picks, competing for the title, etc.) Trade history - Sometimes a single trade cannot determine whether a trade is detrimental to a team/league. This is where reviewing a series of trades can assist in preventing damage.
In leagues like this where severely OVER-paying for a player is not frowned upon (again with the flip side of the coin being frowned upon), the trade must still remain fair. Beneficial to the teams in question without harm to one or the other.
This could perhaps be modified to fit our current league/values....idk
Darryl, Thank you for posting this. This is where I think we need to look. I think the DOT needs to be "trained" or expectations listed. We need some guidelines to vote on trades. All of us have our own ideas of value and those need to put aside in my opinion. We need to look at the trade itself and have some baselines for the value of certain positions. So when we look at a trade involving a QB then we can look and say does the trade meet the baseline? Then the next step is we have to decide if that means it is approved or not? What other factors should go into it? I love your post, I think that this is where we need to look to fix the issues of voting on trades. |
|
|
|
Post by Washington GM (Blaine) on Sept 23, 2018 11:10:00 GMT -5
Creating a baseline could be complicated at first because there are different tiers of players but once we have it created I think it would work out well. It would also set a starting price for negotiations.
|
|
