Warrior General Games

the problem is that the only benefit to trading vs cutting them and signing a FA is that you can only cut 2 people a day, but trading isn't limited. However, cuts and signings take place immediately, while trading takes a day to process


the only thing I could see making trading even somewhat more useful, is if they made it so that trades did not hurt team chemistry, while cutting and signing a new player would. But even then, I don't think it's enough to matter.

Since cash trades are a no go now, and there is no draft to trade picks etc, it's pretty rare to find a teams that happen to have opposing needs and surpluses in the right positions. Generally, you have a general shortage in one position. Not to mention, the system doesn't really allow for supply and demand all that much. For example, right now in the higher leagues there's a shortage of TEs. This is due to the addition on 2 TE sets leading to teams wanting to run 3 or 4 TEs instead of just 2 like traditional. So while a good TE might be worth a good LBer AND HB, the game views it as a lopsided trade etc

Originally posted by Chysil
Generally, you have a general shortage in one position. Not to mention, the system doesn't really allow for supply and demand all that much. For example, right now in the higher leagues there's a shortage of TEs. This is due to the addition on 2 TE sets leading to teams wanting to run 3 or 4 TEs instead of just 2 like traditional. So while a good TE might be worth a good LBer AND HB, the game views it as a lopsided trade etc

This x1000

I mean literally...trades are really just a mechanism to screw other teams over. Hell, before purchasing equipment was done away with trading was pretty much dead. That's because there weren't nearly as many noob owners that could get preyed upon by more experienced owners. That, and rules/punishments were put in place to stop teams from using farm teams to equip all their players and then moving them to their "real" team.

I just don't see any valid reason to bring back buying equipment with cash or cash trading.

Originally posted by hatchman
Originally posted by yello1

If they allowed imbalanced trading don't you think it would have a place for teams making a run versus teams building for the future? Ala baseball?

seriously I can't believe you made this post.

this is not baseball and not that many agents want their players traded to shitty teams. most agents only asked to be traded when they were on shitty teams or the owners sucked in the first place.

-1 to the OP trading should be removed all together it was a easy way to game the system and screw agents players over. and in the future it would be the same way again.

I know its not baseball, the point was to refer to the trade deadline practice in baseball where teams in the hunt dump lesser long term signed players in bulk for a single or duo of star players from a team that is not in contention. Rather than just write that out and risk being misunderstood I noted the analogy so that the reader would know what I meant by just that reference.

As to the evils of trading, the idea being discussed here was whether trades can be made useful to teams again so that they actually happen.

Whether thats a good thing at all, as you note, is another issue.

I totally agree that the very nature of trading is kinda anti-democratic as it were. Whether it should be in the game at all for that reason, or if it should be but any active player can veto a trade before it takes effect (ie presumed no trade but no trades have waiver clauses), that is an entirely separate issue from making trades useful to teams again. Hand in hand perhaps but two different problems to consider and resolve.

For my part, and clearly its an opinion, I think that trades should be in the game because in the right circumstance they can be useful and because they add to the arsenal of things an owner can do. As noted above the way to make it useful would be to allow imbalanced trading to entice someone to make the trade of a valued player. Perhaps that could be tied to other things like multi-team trades (so I can trade my minor leaguers to the other guys minor league team as part of the deal). Also perhaps a must sign extension clause would be possible, where the deal only goes in if the noted player agrees to an offered contract from his new team.

If we want to add to that that all players in the deal have to agree to the trade, I think thats a great idea.

As to why a player would want to be one of three moving to get the better player, first off those may be the owners dots and not have an opinion. Secondly they may think the grass is greener on the other side of the fence. They may be the 6th CB here and would be the featured return guy on their new team or the starting CB1. Or if we include the 3 plus team deals they may be moving from a crummy minor league club to a better one. Or maybe they want the access to the new teams network. Etc. Etc Etc. 52 flavors of ice cream. So long as the players are okay with the deal, we needn't bother ourselves with the why of it.

So yes, you are right. But that concern can be dealt with in a new trade paradigm and need not require that all trading be banished.


Oh and why not just let people release and re-sign instead, because of the trust and reliability factor. If you just say "okay you release my guy and I will release mine" the reality is that eventually people will get screwed when they release a dot and the other guy does not hold up his end of the deal. Whether it could happen by mistake, misadventure (loses power till the trade/release deadline passes) or malfeasance, the risk would be there and that would mean that people would avoid making such arrangements to begin with.

Whereas a trade mechanism makes sure the deal either happens completely or not.

Originally posted by yello1
For my part, and clearly its an opinion, I think that trades should be in the game because in the right circumstance they can be useful and because they add to the arsenal of things an owner can do.

Chysil pretty much laid it out in his post how this is just not true.

Originally posted by Chysil
the problem is that the only benefit to trading vs cutting them and signing a FA is that you can only cut 2 people a day, but trading isn't limited. However, cuts and signings take place immediately, while trading takes a day to process


the only thing I could see making trading even somewhat more useful, is if they made it so that trades did not hurt team chemistry, while cutting and signing a new player would. But even then, I don't think it's enough to matter.

Since cash trades are a no go now, and there is no draft to trade picks etc, it's pretty rare to find a teams that happen to have opposing needs and surpluses in the right positions. Generally, you have a general shortage in one position. Not to mention, the system doesn't really allow for supply and demand all that much. For example, right now in the higher leagues there's a shortage of TEs. This is due to the addition on 2 TE sets leading to teams wanting to run 3 or 4 TEs instead of just 2 like traditional. So while a good TE might be worth a good LBer AND HB, the game views it as a lopsided trade etc

Originally posted by All American Dude

Chysil pretty much laid it out in his post how this is just not true.


True. And a chemsitry boon would rock.

But see my post above. Allow multi-team deals would make trades useful again.

Need a TE in the Natty Pro?

Use your extra O Linemen in the National Minors to buy it!

Originally posted by yello1
True. And a chemsitry boon would rock.

But see my post above. Allow multi-team deals would make trades useful again.

Need a TE in the Natty Pro?

Use your extra O Linemen in the National Minors to buy it!






-1 again to OP and -1 to multi team trades.

we used to trade within our network to build cash flow and stadiums and pretty much cheat the system like the bosses we all were.


wat

I just don't see why a few people think there is such a need to make trading more important. Legitimate trading has never gathered any interest at this site. As stated previously, the only time trading was even remotely popular was when it was being abused all to hell. You can add whatever you want to trading, it won't matter. As long as owners can't use it in an exploitive manner little to virtually no owners will care about trading.

my favorite was trying to get like million bucks for a bunch of stupid Centers.

You could pile up a bunch of money pretty quickly.

When you stop to think about it trading is pretty retarded for this game in the first place. Filling a roster for your GLB team is much more like recruiting in college football than anything else. Trading is an NFL thing. Why? The primary reason is they have a draft and often use trades to improve their draft stock. There's no draft here and according to Bort there never will be (NGTH list). Combining college type recruiting with trading just makes no sense.

Originally posted by All American Dude
When you stop to think about it trading is pretty retarded for this game in the first place. Filling a roster for your GLB team is much more like recruiting in college football than anything else. Trading is an NFL thing. Why? The primary reason is they have a draft and often use trades to improve their draft stock. There's no draft here and according to Bort there never will be (NGTH list). Combining college type recruiting with trading just makes no sense.

-1 to OP

+1 to eliminating trading altogether

Originally posted by All American Dude
I just don't see why a few people think there is such a need to make trading more important. Legitimate trading has never gathered any interest at this site. As stated previously, the only time trading was even remotely popular was when it was being abused all to hell. You can add whatever you want to trading, it won't matter. As long as owners can't use it in an exploitive manner little to virtually no owners will care about trading.

Did you even read my idea? The stuff about multiple teams unbalanced trades etc?

There is a supply of players

There is a demand for players

If you make the system functional then people will use trades.

Maybe not every owner or even most.

But some would use it.

Just because it didnt work in its old format doesnt mean it couldnt work now in an entirely different one.

Originally posted by The Big Cack Envy
my favorite was trying to get like million bucks for a bunch of stupid Centers.

You could pile up a bunch of money pretty quickly.

Yeah the whole money thing was horrible back then.

Yes, and my statement still stands. There is little to no demand for trades. Once all the unscrupulous shit was put to an end trading ceased (and that was when cash was still involved).

I have no idea where you get the idea that there is a supply of players. There are still CPUs on one of my teams because I couldn't fill the roster (and I worked my ass off recruiting).

Originally posted by yello1
Did you even read my idea? The stuff about multiple teams unbalanced trades etc?

There is a supply of players

There is a demand for players

If you make the system functional then people will use trades.

Maybe not every owner or even most.

But some would use it.

Just because it didnt work in its old format doesnt mean it couldnt work now in an entirely different one.

there isn't a supply of players look at the amount of CPU teams there are. so where are you going to get all the extra players needed to actually make a supply of players.

Yes there is a demand since there isn't enough players to fill all the leagues. thus CPU teams in all leagues except WL

even if it were functional the only reason most people would make trades is to screw someone over.

I doubt if a handful would use it so why even bring it back and put work into it for really no good reason.

Like others have said this isn't something the majority of GLB would want so why even consider bringing back something that is flawed no matter how you rearrange it. there is no draft in GLB so what is the point of it.