Number of Trades Allowed in ATD 2021?
- Thread starter ImporterExporter
- Start date
- Status
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
You guys need to realize that 5 trades is not as much as you think it is. If you just want to jump over 2-3 picks to get your guy, this is a minor trade that exist as an option, and it can happen many times, but you just burn a trade with this.
I say 7 is a good number, because then you can make a couple of major trades and a few minor ones.
I say 7 is a good number, because then you can make a couple of major trades and a few minor ones.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
Whatever, I'm fine with 5 too, but I don't see the point. No one is gonna "break the draft" cumulatively, it has never been done. What has been done is a few major trades were hotly contested, but a cap on trades doesn't fix that.
I wouldn’t complain if it ended up being unlimited, I just think capping it at 5 makes sense.
I liked (I believe it was Van’s) idea of a possible trade veto if 3 GM’s contest the deal. Although I thought that was always the rule in years where trades are permitted?
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
I think if you contest a trade you should explain why, and the whole thing should be discussed, to avoid vendettas. Not simply vote against "just because". Back in the days there was a trade committee, which everybody except rookies could sign up for.
Yeah that’s a good point. If someone is going to contest a trade they should state their case as to why it shouldn’t go through. It at least needs to be more than just “nope not good, don’t like it”.
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
Just to be clear, in previous trade drafts all trades needed to be approved. Most were no-brainers and approved very quickly by 1 or 2 veteran GMs.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
When Dreakmur votes for 7 trades, you know I'm right.
I change my vote for 7, to avoid dispersion.
I change my vote for 7, to avoid dispersion.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
7 was the magic number that worked the last few times we had trades.
The only reason to limit the number of trades is to stop abuse.
Like the guy in the one draft who made 3 consecutive and time-consuming blockbusters with 3 different GMs to move up 3 spots...
Most GMs don't just trade for the sake of trading.
The only reason to limit the number of trades is to stop abuse.
Like the guy in the one draft who made 3 consecutive and time-consuming blockbusters with 3 different GMs to move up 3 spots...
Most GMs don't just trade for the sake of trading.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Have you participated in a trading draft before? Trades go by pretty fast. I think several GMs are going to find themselves capped at 5 trades, whereas a 7 trade limit will affect very few. And IMO that's a good thing.
I mean, limiting it to 5 trades won't kill anyone, but it starts to approach the realm of saving trades as a strategic mechanism. Which is maybe what some people want?
3 trade limit would be awful - at that point, I'd rather just have banned trades.
Last edited:
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
The only GM that does that is @ResilientBeast
I'm actually thinking of 2 particular GMs who made a ridiculous number of ultimately pointless blockbuster trades that held up the draft repeatedly and annoyed everyone. It was something like they made 15ish trades each, while nobody else broke 7 (and most didn't even approach 7).
Those 2 guys don't play ATD anymore.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
5 is enough.
The point of trading isn't to have fun wheeling and dealing but of helping get your team get out of a bind: "Oh, the guy perfect for my line won't available at my next pick" or "Nobody worth picking now fits my lineup, so trading down makes sense."
The point of trading isn't to have fun wheeling and dealing but of helping get your team get out of a bind: "Oh, the guy perfect for my line won't available at my next pick" or "Nobody worth picking now fits my lineup, so trading down makes sense."
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
We reintroduced trading to mix it up, so there's an added element of fun. Not as a get-out-of-jail card.
Last edited:
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
Something those voting for 3 or 5 trades may not be considering...
Perhaps you’re thinking you won’t need more than 3/5 trades to get the key players your team needs, but you also need to consider those times when you’re indifferent about your upcoming pick and another GM really needs it. For example, if the trade number is too limited then you may not be willing to make a simple trade that allows another GM to move up 3 spots to get his guy because that would be wasting one of your valuable trades. Of course, the very same thing may happen to you later, and you will miss your guy.
In other words, don’t forget there needs to be 2 sides to every trade.
Perhaps you’re thinking you won’t need more than 3/5 trades to get the key players your team needs, but you also need to consider those times when you’re indifferent about your upcoming pick and another GM really needs it. For example, if the trade number is too limited then you may not be willing to make a simple trade that allows another GM to move up 3 spots to get his guy because that would be wasting one of your valuable trades. Of course, the very same thing may happen to you later, and you will miss your guy.
In other words, don’t forget there needs to be 2 sides to every trade.
ted2019
History of Hockey
The first one I participated in was under a full trade format.
I still think 5 is enough personally, but whatever the poll ends up at is the one we will go with. I guess I don’t care a whole lot either way. I won’t cry if it’s 7.
Theokritos
Global Moderator
- Apr 6, 2010
- 12,541
- 4,937
I'm unaware that moderators could change votes in a poll. I don't think it's possible.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I picked 5 as it seems like a nice middle ground.
There should be some element of strategy involved in making deals. Being judicious in when/how you trade is the biggest factor. 5 allows you to make 2-3 moves in the early portions and still retain an ability to move in the middle rounds.
Most people won't even make 5 trades if that were the number picked. I think expanding the # beyond that gives those who have gone through trading drafts and figured out the lay of the land, an inherent advantage in posturing during the draft. And I say that as someone who is in that group IMO.
I don't think trading will slow the draft down tremendously, but I do think there should be a solid balance as a lot of people simply won't get involved in trading much/if at all.
Just my .02 but I'm game for whatever wins the vote.
There should be some element of strategy involved in making deals. Being judicious in when/how you trade is the biggest factor. 5 allows you to make 2-3 moves in the early portions and still retain an ability to move in the middle rounds.
Most people won't even make 5 trades if that were the number picked. I think expanding the # beyond that gives those who have gone through trading drafts and figured out the lay of the land, an inherent advantage in posturing during the draft. And I say that as someone who is in that group IMO.
I don't think trading will slow the draft down tremendously, but I do think there should be a solid balance as a lot of people simply won't get involved in trading much/if at all.
Just my .02 but I'm game for whatever wins the vote.
- Status
