Trading rules discussion (see post 50)

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Feel free to use this thread to discuss the pros and cons of options, but send your votes via PM.

Rank the following 4 in order from 1-4 and send your votes via PM to both seventieslord and me (TheDevilMadeMe):

1) No trades (other than swapping full draft positions)
2) strictly limited trading, such as 3 trade max, no more than 4 assets per team per trade - similar to ATD 2011.
3) loosely limited trading, such as 6-8 trade max, no more than 20-25 assets may be swapped in total. The limits here are purposely designed to not affect most teams.
4) Unlimited trades, subject to veto - the same as ATD 2012

If option 2 or 3 wins, we'll have another discussion to hammer out the exact details.

1/13/12 edit: Voting is complete. Option 3 wins.

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Why not have a trading conference and a non-trading conference?

Like MLB has different rules and don't meet until the World Series at the end of the playoffs (so would each conference have its own champion before the final series.

That way those who want to compete without trades can against divisional rivals playing under the same rules... and yet those who want trades can also compete in divisions against others doing likewise.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'm voting 1 to see how many headaches it saves us.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why not have a trading conference and a non-trading conference?

Like MLB has different rules and don't meet until the World Series at the end of the playoffs (so would each conference have its own champion before the final series.

That way those who want to compete without trades can against divisional rivals playing under the same rules... and yet those who want trades can also compete in divisions against others doing likewise.

A little late to bring this up for the first time now, don't you think? The planning thread has been up for over a month and the options included are the ones we discussed there.

 

[Say Hey Kid]

Voted.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm voting 1 to see how many headaches it saves us.

just in case this was a quick vote without reading post 1 entirely, we'll need a PM with the options ranked.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

just in case this was a quick vote without reading post 1 entirely, we'll need a PM with the options ranked.

I need some time to think about whether option 3 or 4 is my 2nd choice. (Is there any way to make options 2 my 2,743rd choice?)

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

What is the deadline for getting our vote in?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What is the deadline for getting our vote in?

I don't think there's a rush - I'd like it if everyone who signs up gets a chance to vote if they wish. Let's see where we're at in a week (Jan 9) before setting any deadlines.

 

[EagleBelfour]

A little late to bring this up for the first time now, don't you think? The planning thread has been up for over a month and the options included are the ones we discussed there.

We discuss about it before in the planning thread, just like my option, which was:

- After the swap of all picks prior to the draft, perhaps only accept 2-on-2 trades if any picks that change hands are in the Top-100, and then only accept 3-on-3 if any picks that change hands are in the Top-250/Top-300 etc ... My thought behind this is to easily be able to evaluate a trade with high picks involve (The consequences of a lopsided trade in the 500's isn't really important). I think most of the trades in the draft is for one team to get the player they are coveting, and this rule enable the teams to do so, while not giving a competitive advantage to another one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We discuss about it before in the planning thread, just like my option, which was:

- After the swap of all picks prior to the draft, perhaps only accept 2-on-2 trades if any picks that change hands are in the Top-100, and then only accept 3-on-3 if any picks that change hands are in the Top-250/Top-300 etc ... My thought behind this is to easily be able to evaluate a trade with high picks involve (The consequences of a lopsided trade in the 500's isn't really important). I think most of the trades in the draft is for one team to get the player they are coveting, and this rule enable the teams to do so, while not giving a competitive advantage to another one.

VI presented the "no trade conference" idea a couple of years ago, but I don't see it in the planning thread.

I think your idea could be an option if "strict trading limits" wins, or do you think it should be its own option?

If there's more support for the "no trade conference" thing, I suppose we can add it as an option.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Just voted , the truth is I'm somewhat fine with every options.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't really care outside of the fewer the better.

It just holds the thing up and generally it seems a trade or two slips through that ends up unbalancing things.

 

[tony d]

Just voted.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Nobody seconded either of the two additional proposals in this thread, so in the interest of moving forward, please vote on the 4 options in the original post. If option 2 or 3 wins, we'll discuss details afterwards.

Please send your vote to both me and seventieslord by Saturday, January 12th.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you don't rank all 4 options, your vote won't count

 

[EagleBelfour]

Opinion given.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have full votes from 13 GMs right now: God Made Me, MadArcand, Bench Brawl, tony d, nik jr, Nalyd Psycho, Eagle Belfour, Van Islander, Hobnobs, vecens24, TheDevilMadeMe, Modo, Monster Bertuzzi

If you don't care what the rules are, don't vote, but then don't complain afterwards

 

[seventieslord]

voted.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I have full votes from 13 GMs right now: God Made Me, MadArcand, Bench Brawl, tony d, nik jr, Nalyd Psycho, Eagle Belfour, Van Islander, Hobnobs, vecens24, TheDevilMadeMe, Modo, Monster Bertuzzi

If you don't care what the rules are, don't vote, but then don't complain afterwards

Don't expect any votes from me:
1) My head-GM voted and whatever he says I support...he's signing the paychecks after all...

2) I'd feel uncomfortable voting on things that weren't abundantly obvious to me as I've never done an ATD before, I don't know what's what...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don't expect any votes from me:
1) My head-GM voted and whatever he says I support...he's signing the paychecks after all...

2) I'd feel uncomfortable voting on things that weren't abundantly obvious to me as I've never done an ATD before, I don't know what's what...

Yeah, I don't expect first time GMs to have an opinion, and I'd honestly be surprised if I got a vote from a first timer.

The guys who were here last time are the ones who know how willing to be annoyed by trades they are.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By the way, voting is awfully tight and there are people anxious to start the draft, so the deadline of 11:59 PM Eastern (U.S and Canada) Standard Time on January 12 is a very strict one. Feel free to send in votes earlier, rather than later.

I'll have results posted ASAP and we can then have a few days to finalize details.

 

[VanIslander]

By the way, voting is awfully tight

Again, if there are enough GMs who want 'no trades' why not let us have a trade-free division? All GMs who choose to have their team join the division would commit to no trades. Surely there are four of us who would like that!! (assuming there will be 8 divisions, 4 teams per division) Why the heck would the rest of you object. Let us do it for our division!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Again, if there are enough GMs who want 'no trades' why not let us have a trade-free division? All GMs who choose to have their team join the division would commit to no trades. Surely there are four of us who would like that!! (assuming there will be 8 divisions, 4 teams per division) Why the heck would the rest of you object. Let us do it for our division!

How many GMs are going to willingly join a conference where you have fewer tools at your disposal than the other conference? I'm sure there are some, but I sure wouldn't. I actually had "no trades" as my second favorite choice, but if "different rules for different conferences" were an option, it would be my last place one by a longshot.

Then there's the fact that we'd basically have to throw out this poll and start a new one from scratch if we want to consider the different-rules-for-different-conferences option, right?

 

[VanIslander]

we'd basically have to throw out this poll and start a new one from scratch if we want to consider the different-rules-for-different-conferences option, right?

No. Just let four teams join a division in which they commit to doing no trades. Period. Simple, easy, fair and equal. Let those who want 'no trades' VOLUNTARILY commit to a division (or two, if there's enough interest) in which that is the case.