OK, so there are trades. Now what?

[seventieslord]

I'm voting based on what I want. For whatever reason, I find limiting the amount of trades frustratingly restrictive. While I find the idea of straight up lateral moves to be exactly what I need. Free wheeling is fun and all, but I agree that it can unbalance things. 4. Allows for balance but also tactical manoeuvring to ensure that we build our team the way we want it built.

Actually, I believe you. We've had this conversation before. Sorry for the implication.

 

[seventieslord]

By my count:

Option 1- 26 points
Option 2- 32 points
Option 3- 20 points
Option 4- 16 points

I've been keeping track closely, and I'm also counting my own votes and VI's (which he sent to me via PM) and this is what I have:

1: 28
2: 38
3: 23
4: 25

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree, I think 3 is a starting point, and if the trade-happy GMs say they want more, we could look at 4 or 5 for sure.

So with option 2 in the lead by quite a bit at the moment, anyone have thoughts on this point?

 

[EagleBelfour]

So with option 2 in the lead by quite a bit at the moment, anyone have thoughts on this point?

I don't think we need nothing more than 3 or 4 trades. I understand that the first 5-6 rounds are important as to which direction your team will take, and you might want to do some trades to get the players you want. However, do we really need to try and move on 10 spot in the 19th round to get that coveted 4th line player? (And I know that I'm known to do those kind of semi-meaningless trades).

 

[nik jr]

since there were fairly large numbers for unlimited trading and for no trading, and since limited trading is partly as a compromise, there could be a limit of 5-6-7 trades.

 

[EagleBelfour]

since there were fairly large numbers for unlimited trading and for no trading, and since limited trading is partly as a compromise, there could be a limit of 5-6-7 trades.

If we limit to 6-7 trades, it's pretty much like a no-trade draft. I would be interest to know how much GM traded more than 7-time in the last few drafts.

 

[nik jr]

If we limit to 6-7 trades, it's pretty much like a no-trade draft. I would be interest to know how much GM traded more than 7-time in the last few drafts.

5-7 per team

 

[EagleBelfour]

5-7 per team

As I said earlier, if we allow more than 5 trades per team, it's pretty much mean a no restriction trade draft. My humble opinion is that we don't need that many trades allowed per team.

 

[jarek]

This thread is hilarious. Here's how it should have gone:

1. seventies lists all the possibilities.
2. Everyone votes on said possibilities. Some deadline is set.
3. seventies tallies up the votes on the deadline.
4. Draft starts. Everyone shuts up.

Why is there so much discussion here? All the possibilities available are pretty much all the possible logical ones.

Just as a side note, if the "trade happy" GMs WANTED more trades, they would vote for option 1, not option 2.

 

[seventieslord]

This thread is hilarious. Here's how it should have gone:

1. seventies lists all the possibilities.
2. Everyone votes on said possibilities. Some deadline is set.
3. seventies tallies up the votes on the deadline.
4. Draft starts. Everyone shuts up.

Why is there so much discussion here? All the possibilities available are pretty much all the possible logical ones.

Just as a side note, if the "trade happy" GMs WANTED more trades, they would vote for option 1, not option 2.

I like option 2 more, easily. Last draft we had to very scrupulous about which trades we actually went ahead with. It was a good thing.

what's wrong with discussion?

Plus selfishly, as the admin, I'll have to do less updating.

I'm actually thinking that if we're going to change that limit, then 4 is perhaps as high as we should go.

 

[nik jr]

then maximum of 4 trades, and we can start.

As I said earlier, if we allow more than 5 trades per team, it's pretty much mean a no restriction trade draft. My humble opinion is that we don't need that many trades allowed per team.

i voted for no trades, since it would be easier.

i guess you meant to write in post 56 no restriction on trades instead of no-trade?

 

[seventieslord]

i voted for no trades, since it would be easier.

i guess you meant to write in post 56 no restriction on trades instead of no-trade?

I assumed as much.

 

[jarek]

I just think if we wanted to increase the trade limit, it would be easier to just attach a poll to this thread and let the majority speak for themselves.

 

[Stoneberg]

1-4-2-3

 

[seventieslord]

I just think if we wanted to increase the trade limit, it would be easier to just attach a poll to this thread and let the majority speak for themselves.

Agree, except it's almost so trivial in the grand scheme of things that it's not poll/thread worthy.

 

[jarek]

Agree, except it's almost so trivial in the grand scheme of things that it's not poll/thread worthy.

Oh, that I definitely agree with. I don't even know why it's up in the air. 3 trades max or not limit at all. The 3 trade limit is simply to force teams to carefully think about their trades. A limit of 5 is going to be good enough for most teams except a very select few who might go over that to the point where they may as well not be a limit at all.

 

[EagleBelfour]

i guess you meant to write in post 56 no restriction on trades instead of no-trade?

YES!

 

[seventieslord]

Let's stick with 3 trades per team as a limit, just to maintain status quo, unless anyone is really vocal about having more - then we'll revisit.

 

[VanIslander]

Can we have just one division with no trades? Must we all compete against the savvy traders? I feel like I'll be swimming with sharks.

 

[Velociraptor]

2-3-4-1

 

[seventieslord]

Can we have just one division with no trades? Must we all compete against the savvy traders? I feel like I'll be swimming with sharks.

I don't know if this will ease your concerns or not, but the impact of a trade made by two teams on the rest of the draft is being greatly overstated. Assuming the committe does their job and keeps the trades fair, each team is giving something to get something and shouldn't run away with any advantage. A trade should be to move up to get the player you want, to get into a more economical position to get the player you know will fall, to put a pair of picks together to grab a tandem, or to "cash in" on someone else who wants to do that. If you don't trade you won't be any worse off.

And who knows, maybe you'll like trading. I got right into it right away, and I don't think I was hosed. I stared down veteran GMs and demanded better value, and got it. Now, they still did better on the deals by drafting way better than I did (and I had no vision for the picks, I was just trying to get better drafting positions), but they would have done that anyway.

The "no-trade conference" idea is the least popular right now, with just 6 GMs ranking it first. We'd have to knock one out to make it a no-trade division, or get four other teams to join their ranks to make it two. But the idea should probably just be taken off of life support at this time.

 

[Derick*]

Seventieslord is both a mover and a shaker.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

3,2,4,1...

Lets not get crazy with option 1.

 

[seventieslord]

So be it. Option 2 it is. Same as last draft. We'll keep it to three trades; no need to upset those who wanted no trading at all, by raising the limit of trades.

Draft order and divisional alignment to come in the next 24 hours, job willing.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So be it. Option 2 it is. Same as last draft. We'll keep it to three trades; no need to upset those who wanted no trading at all, by raising the limit of trades.

Draft order and divisional alignment to come in the next 24 hours, job willing.

Not that it matters, but I'm pretty sure ATD12 was the draft with a 3 trade max. ATD2010 aka ATD13 was basically unlimited trading, IIRC. If it wasn't, well... multiple GMs got away with violating the max trade rule.