Warrior General Games

Not many trades seem to happen anymore, probably because it is just far too time consuming to find a good match, yet there are still many unbalanced teams, Seems like it would help to have UI to search for desired matches. For example,

Your Search Criteria:

Number of Players: 1

Desired Position: OT
Desired Archtype: Passblock
Desired Level: 30 to 33
Contract: <=$80,000
Contract Ending: <=season 27, day 40
Player Value: >= 490

Willing to Give Up:
Desired Position: RB
Players Currently at Desired Position: 4
Desired Archtype: Elusive or Scatt
Desired Level: 30 to 32
Contract: <=100,000
Contract Ending: <=season 28, day 40
Player Value: >= 500

Return Results:
RB 30 Elusive PlayerName1 Teamname 1 Contract1 CE1 PlayerValue1
RB 30 Scat PlayerName2 Teamname 2 Contract2 CE2 PlayerValue2
RB 31 Scat PlayerName3 Teamname 3 Contract3 CE2 PlayerValue3

Originally posted by okieblitz
Not many trades seem to happen anymore, probably because it is just far too time consuming to find a good match, yet there are still many unbalanced teams,






You spelled, because you can't trade for cash anymore, wrong. -1 on this, if trading was made useful, this would be a good idea, but since there really is no point to trade players now, it's not worth the work.

Actually i would think it's very unlikely people do trades anymore because you have to have a player to trade a player. How many teams are going to be carrying around extra players just to trade? GLB doesn't work like real sports. I can't think of a reason why, at least not nowadays, would send a contract to someone in order to use them as trade bait for another team, who also has a player they don't need.

If someone needs a position, they look for that player and sign them.

Trading at this point is an obsolete function that won't be used much, if at all, anymore. You used to be able to trade for cash when money was used for equipment. Now there is no real reason for teams to be trading.

So not that i hate your idea, it's just pointless. -1

I have no idea what that first response meant. It looks like he is suggesting that he made a spelling error, but his own response is unreadable.

On the second response, your assumptions are all wrong.

He never suggested that teams would carry players just to trade. While it could happen that team sign players to use as trade bait, the no trade clause would prevent that where players are concerned with that activity.

The fact is that an owner occasionally has trouble filling a roster with good players at all spots. If you are unable to sign at a particular position, and another team is having difficulty signing at another position, this would enable a win win situation.

Originally posted by SinvebBabe
I have no idea what that first response meant. It looks like he is suggesting that he made a spelling error, but his own response is unreadable.

On the second response, your assumptions are all wrong.

He never suggested that teams would carry players just to trade. While it could happen that team sign players to use as trade bait, the no trade clause would prevent that where players are concerned with that activity.

The fact is that an owner occasionally has trouble filling a roster with good players at all spots. If you are unable to sign at a particular position, and another team is having difficulty signing at another position, this would enable a win win situation.

I think you misunderstand my point. Point out a team that signed players they can't use and need to trade to another team (rather than just cutting the player to let them find their own team)? I just don't believe that it generally will happen anymore beyond mistakes. With rosters so hard to fill, what are the chances that a team with 46 players and trying to fill a roster, will have someone they can then give up?

If i had a player that signs to a team, and then have that team turn around and trade me, i'd be quite pissed. Players don't need teams to act as intermediaries to another team. That is what trading does. It could be possible someone oversigned players, or find they just happen to have one extra... lets say CB they could trade to someone for some player but that is so rare these days.

It used to happen in the past where someone would sign players, just to trade them to other teams for cash. That has been eliminated. I just don't see this really happening anymore. The whole idea of team trading nowadays is that you have an excess player to trade for someone else's excess player. If you have someone on your team you don't need, why are you holding onto their contract in the hopes of finding another team holding onto someone's contract that they don't need (and hoping it's the same position you need) for a trade?

If they implement this change, thats fine, doesn't affect me. But i just don't see this as being something that will be realistically used.

Originally posted by alindyl
I think you misunderstand my point. Point out a team that signed players they can't use and need to trade to another team (rather than just cutting the player to let them find their own team)? I just don't believe that it generally will happen anymore beyond mistakes. With rosters so hard to fill, what are the chances that a team with 46 players and trying to fill a roster, will have someone they can then give up?

If i had a player that signs to a team, and then have that team turn around and trade me, i'd be quite pissed. Players don't need teams to act as intermediaries to another team. That is what trading does. It could be possible someone oversigned players, or find they just happen to have one extra... lets say CB they could trade to someone for some player but that is so rare these days.

It used to happen in the past where someone would sign players, just to trade them to other teams for cash. That has been eliminated. I just don't see this really happening anymore. The whole idea of team trading nowadays is that you have an excess player to trade for someone else's excess player. If you have someone on your team you don't need, why are you holding onto their contract in the hopes of finding another team holding onto someone's contract that they don't need (and hoping it's the same position you need) for a trade?

If they implement this change, thats fine, doesn't affect me. But i just don't see this as being something that will be realistically used.



I think he can't read correctly, since my answer was unreadable??????


NO ONE IS TRADING, BECAUSE TRADING ISN'T WORTH DOING ANYMORE, is that more readable for you, get a sense of humor, and don't take GLB so serious.

My point, When cash is involved, trading was a popular thing, now that cash isn't involved, there is absolutely no point in trading.

Originally posted by CNinja


I think he can't read correctly, since my answer was unreadable??????


NO ONE IS TRADING, BECAUSE TRADING ISN'T WORTH DOING ANYMORE, is that more readable for you, get a sense of humor, and don't take GLB so serious.

My point, When cash is involved, trading was a popular thing, now that cash isn't involved, there is absolutely no point in trading.

UMAD?

Originally posted by ProfessionalKop
UMAD?

Nope, just typing it, cause he can't read so well.

Originally posted by alindyl
Actually i would think it's very unlikely people do trades anymore because you have to have a player to trade a player. How many teams are going to be carrying around extra players just to trade? GLB doesn't work like real sports. I can't think of a reason why, at least not nowadays, would send a contract to someone in order to use them as trade bait for another team, who also has a player they don't need.

If someone needs a position, they look for that player and sign them.

Trading at this point is an obsolete function that won't be used much, if at all, anymore. You used to be able to trade for cash when money was used for equipment. Now there is no real reason for teams to be trading.

So not that i hate your idea, it's just pointless. -1

Pretty much this tbh.

Once the 55 roster cap was implemented it made it to where teams had to sign ONLY what the really needed, thus not really having anything to trade.

-1 simply because this is pretty pointless.