Trading rules discussion (see post 50)

[Elvis P]

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?

Agreed. We all know some GMs are savvier traders than others. Why pretend otherwise and give them an unfair advantage over the rest of us who would be unable to make trades?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

I guess it's an option worth considering, depending on who wins this poll.

I'm in favor of letting GMs pick draft position (with a lottery to decide things when half the GMs favor as early as possible), so this isn't much different I guess.

 

[VanIslander]

Yeah, if we can pick our division, then perhaps four GMs interested in 'no trades' might enter a "genetleman's agreement" to join a division together. There need be no binding rule, just four like-minded teams wanting to compete against teams that - like themselves - have no interest in trading.

 

[BenchBrawl]

There's the possibility that some teams will gain too much value making trades and teams stuck in a ''no-trade division'' could never compete against them.While it's likely that some GMs won't even make a single trade (even if they are allowed) and that trades won't necessarily result in powerhouses , they would at least have the power to change their strategy if they realize some teams are getting too strong right in the middle of the draft.

I'm against rules and structures that aren't for everybody in general.

 

[Elvis P]

There's the possibility that some teams will gain too much value making trades and teams stuck in a ''no-trade division'' could never compete against them.While it's possible that some teams won't even make a single trade even if they are allowed , they at least will have the power to change their faith if they see some teams getting too strong right in the middle of the draft. I'm against rules and structures that aren't for everybody in general.

Agreed. It would be the same thing as the Eastern and Western Conferences having different rules. Some GMs are better traders than others and all the GMs are too intelligent to give their opponents an advantage. No one will want to be in the no trade division. Also, some GMs like to trade all their picks before the draft even if they make no trades during the draft.

 

[VanIslander]

Agreed. It would be the same thing as the Eastern and Western Conferences having different rules.

So you are against what MLB does. Fine. **** the ****.

 

[BenchBrawl]

So you are against what MLB does. Fine. **** the ****.

Baseball is a broken sport.It's too bad because it is a great one.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Yeah, if we can pick our division, then perhaps four GMs interested in 'no trades' might enter a "genetleman's agreement" to join a division together. There need be no binding rule, just four like-minded teams wanting to compete against teams that - like themselves - have no interest in trading.

I don't see how this wouldn't be an option if we accept trading.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

I vote for option #1. No trades its gets really annoying once the draft starts to kick in.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I vote for option #1. No trades its gets really annoying once the draft starts to kick in.

PM us an ordered list if you want your vote to count.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Last week, some GMs asked me to give a deadline, so I did.

Today, a few GMs want me to ignore the deadline I gave earlier and post the results right now.

You guys are a tough crowd, and no matter what I do, I'm sure I'll get complaints via PM.

So... do I stick to the original deadline (3 days from now, give or take a few hours), or give in to people who need to see results ASAP?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have votes from God Made Me, MadArcand, Bench Brawl, tony d, nik jr, Nalyd Psycho, Eagle Belfour, Van Islander, Hobnobs, vecens24, TheDevilMadeMe, Modo, Monster Bertuzzi, and Hawkey Town 18 - only 14 GMs. Seventieslord also voted, though I don't think he's a GM at this point. Either way, that makes it 15.

 

[ck26]

4, 3, 2, 1 ... I don't see what the big deal about trading is.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The result is less important in my mind now that LeafsForever and Mr Bugg aren't in the draft

They were good GMs and I mean no disrespect but last year was a circus.

 

[Hobnobs]

4, 3, 2, 1 ... I don't see what the big deal about trading is.

its not a big deal when its done in time but last draft we had several big blockbuster trades made on the clock which made drafting a ***** to keep track off.

 

[Sturminator]

The result is less important in my mind now that LeafsForever and Mr Bugg aren't in the draft

They were good GMs and I mean no disrespect but last year was a circus.

Bugg was the problem, not LF (nothing he did was any different than what had happened in previous drafts), and mostly Bugg's problem was that he wasn't actually trying to compete, maximize his own value and build a winning team, but rather trying to build a Soviet ice capades. Which is precisely why any and all trades must forever and ever be subject to a veto from the group, or the committee or the apparatchik, or whatever. Some people will always give away the farm, or simply troll the draft, as Bugg attempted to do there towards the end. But as much of a headache as it was last time around policing Bugg's foolishness, it was a hundred times better than the abortion that was the 2011 three trades rule.

Please, for the sake of all that is holy, either have no trades, or simply evaluate them one-by-one in a reasonable way without any hard-and-fast caps. I'm not going to put in a vote here because I'm no longer an ATD GM, but trade caps are a monstrosity that just make it unnecessarily difficult to build the team you want.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Please, for the sake of all that is holy, either have no trades, or simply evaluate them one-by-one in a reasonable way without any hard-and-fast caps. I'm not going to put in a vote here because I'm no longer an ATD GM, but trade caps are a monstrosity that just make it unnecessarily difficult to build the team you want.

I completely agree. IMO, option 2 is by far the worst option here.

(Option 3 is designed to only apply to the LeafsForevers and Mr Buggs of the world and leave the vast majority of GMs untouched).

 

[seventieslord]

The result is less important in my mind now that LeafsForever and Mr Bugg aren't in the draft

They were good GMs and I mean no disrespect but last year was a circus.

good point.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Yeah, I am fine with options 1, 3 or 4. I can't possibly express how strongly I oppose option 2.

 

[overpass]

Don't wait for my vote. I don't need to trade but don't mind if others trade.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don't wait for my vote. I don't need to trade but don't mind if others trade.

I'm not waiting on any particular GM, but I'm reluctant to close voting early with things this close.

 

[markrander87]

4, 1, 2, 3

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Votes MUST be sent via PM to both seventieslord and me (TheDevilMadeMe) for them to count. They MUST be an ordered list of all 4 options for them to count. If you don't follow these instructions, your vote will not count.

Thank you.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yeah , let's not make the job of those who count the votes more difficult by forcing them to look in the thread post by post.They are already making an effort to organize this so please make the effort of sending PMs if you want your point of view to be taken into consideration.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here are the results of the trade vote. 22 GMs voted. 4 points were assigned to a 1st place vote, 3 points were assigned to a 2nd place vote, 2 points were assigned to a 3rd place vote, and 1 point was assigned to a last place vote. As you can see, it was ridiculously close, and only a handful of GMs voting differently could have resulted in any of the options winning.

• Option 3 (trading with loose restrictions): 59 points
• Option 1 (no trading): 55 points
• Option 4 (unlimited trading): 54 points
• Option 2 (trading with tight restrictions): 52 points

So loose restrictions wins. Hopefully, we can have a civil (and short) discussion about what that exactly means.