The One Thing That Strat's Missing...

[cummings2]

Personally I believe PBTR and Jerr have excellent points. Although I agree that it would be nice to see more trading it is also difficult given the nature of the game: Highly specialized teams both to park and divisional matchups limit greatly the player pool that fits those strategies.

This set is a bit washy with extreme parks but even then I see teams that are highly specialized out there.

As Jerr mentioned above, sometimes the offers are not good.

One of the other reason why I think trading is becoming difficult is because there seems to be a certain fascination from certain managers to just get "names that work" I see some managers that assemble teams/winning combos by just trying different cards but I really doubt that they even stop to think why their good teams win and why the bad teams loose, that is that in some cases even managers with winning records don't really understand how they can tweak a winning combo they just memorize things like: such-and-such is good value in Shea, the-other-one is good for Coors, etc... The problem with this is closely related to PBTR's point. It has nothing to do with understanding the intricacies of the game or not, it's rooted in what sometimes happens with rating systems and the "Whose the best CF in 07" threads where what they end up creating is a rush for some recurring cards.

So, at the risk of sounding like a snob, IMHO what would really help promote trading is if some managers would actually [b:c39db105a7]think[/b:c39db105a7] [i:c39db105a7]why[/i:c39db105a7] is it that their teams are losing -or hopefully winning- [i:c39db105a7]what[/i:c39db105a7] is it that they need in order to change their "luck", [i:c39db105a7]How[/i:c39db105a7] is the proposed trade helping -or not- so that we actually have[b:c39db105a7] managers [/b:c39db105a7]with [b:c39db105a7]strategies [/b:c39db105a7]as opposed to a color-by-number kind of approach.

You want trading to happen more often? -Have everyone read the Newbie Advise Thread over in the Strategy Forum.

Just my .02

[kimkrichbaum2]

At first I wanted more trading, but now I see the beauty in the game the way it is. It is more like baseball, and less like "Let's Make a Deal". I agree it could be a bit more elegant though. I would recommend that the 5/10/20 drop penalty increasing over time, be the default for all leagues. I also think there could be pro[trading league option for managers who want it. Say no drop penalties and a maximum of 20 moves, so things don't get too crazy.

[chasenally]

Real baseball has a luxury tax in place. See George Stienbenner. He has to pay all other teams cash when he is over the cap. He who has the cash rules. Trading is easy for those that have the money. Maybe if you want to go over the cap you give up wins for each million you go over the cap and receive wins for each millions you give up. This would have to have a cut off date so that each side would have to ride out the trade for awhile. I have Beltran at 12 million and would just give him away right now for say 6 wins and lose the 12 million from my cap. Want him for free and lose 6 games from your win coluum 100 games into the season? Just a thought.

[packleader]

I have thought for a long time that no one should be able to drop a player without first offering that player to all other managers in the form of a potential trade. This could be accomplished by not permitting a drop to go through for 24 hours, perhaps at the midnite deadline when the games are run. It would only penalize the cutting manager by three games, while allowing someone else to pick up a player via trade that would never be available without a huge salary cap hit if one has to use the drop/add feature to pick up a free agent. I've never understood the mentality from some managers who will decline a trade offer only to cut the player I requested in a trade, when if they really couldn't help themselves from wasting 20% could simply cut the unwanted player that they got from me instead of cutting the player I wanted and now can't afford.

[blue turtle]

[quote:da10d5f7a4="ggapp"]I have thought for a long time that no one should be able to drop a player without first offering that player to all other managers in the form of a potential trade. This could be accomplished by not permitting a drop to go through for 24 hours, perhaps at the midnite deadline when the games are run. It would only penalize the cutting manager by three games, while allowing someone else to pick up a player via trade that would never be available without a huge salary cap hit if one has to use the drop/add feature to pick up a free agent. I've never understood the mentality from some managers who will decline a trade offer only to cut the player I requested in a trade, when if they really couldn't help themselves from wasting 20% could simply cut the unwanted player that they got from me instead of cutting the player I wanted and now can't afford.[/quote:da10d5f7a4]

How do you make a team accept a trade? Or if there are multiple offers/interest, who decides which one?

Although I get irritated when someone I am interested in and think I could offer for gets dropped. On the other hand, dropping instead of trading can be strategic as well. If my opponent wants the guy, he will have to drop someone of greater value to take the 20% hit to get "my" guy I dropped. In theory, it lessens the value of his team.

[Rant]

[quote:0fe768dfec="jeffdoh"]Yes, DeanTSC, youre 100% right. TSN could do wonders for us by simply helping calculate this stuff for us. It really should be built in.
I do think though that you are missunderstanding my point about the salary cap. No one is asking to do away with the cap. While I am proposing that TSN ALLOW ALL DEALS to go through even if it breaks the cap, I am also saying that the newly acquired players should NOT BE ALLOWED INTO Games until that team is under the Cap. The team should be given penalty-free time to drop or pick up players to even out his cap situation. He would never be "cheating the cap" because none of his new guys will be usable until his cap is fixed. Yet we can all benefit from an easier trading mechanism in this way.[/quote:0fe768dfec]

Theoretically I think you make an interesting suggestion, but I imagine that it's a pretty major overhaul to the game mechanics.

[packleader]

You obviously can't make someone accept a trade. Maybe the game engine could be set up to allow an option which includes the waiting period before drops could be made, kind of in the same vein as the current salary cap and frenzy vs waivers choices. More likely, that would not possible (at least in the short term) so maybe someone could start a league with a gentleman's agreement that includes agreement on drop policy among the 12 league managers. Let's see if there is any interest in that approach based on future posts here. :)

[centerfielder17]

Lot's of good thoughts in the above posts. A couple of things I have noticed:

The higher salary cap leagues tend to have fewer desirable free agents around, forcing managers to look to trade more.

Specialty leagues that center on franchises can also promote trading from strength to shore up weaknesses.

But, in all cases, you have to propose deals that make sense to BOTH teams. You have to be prepared to give up a quality player if you expect one back.

For example, I had a manager upset with me for turning down a seven player for four swap. Well, I was giving up the 3 highest valued players in the deal; I didn't have room on my roster for all of the extra players; and the 'centerpiece' of his offer was a middle of the line starting pitcher - when my team was leading the league in ERA. Huh?

It can be difficult to trade for 3 reasons:

1. You have to match up salaries or have cap space.
2. You have to have complimentary needs / strengths.
3. You have to have 2 managers who are valuing the talent in a similar way.

To the last point, I enjoy leagues with more experienced managers for that reason. They are generally more rational in their approach to trading and talent evaluation.

As for answers to the first two, TSN-SOM can only be asked to come up with a solution to the first point. Several decent ideas have already been posted. Does anyone know if these are being passed onto Bernie for his thoughts?

[jeffdoh]

Yeh, I really wish we could get some of these ideas to Bernie. Anyone know how to do so?
Some people had several great suggestions to help promote trading and get around the cap barrier, without disturbing the integrity and importance of having a cap.

My proposal was that TSN allow ALL DEALS to go through even if it breaks the cap, BUT that the newly acquired players NOT BE ALLOWED INTO Games until that team is back under the Cap. This would allow this team to use the waiver wite to even out his cap situation and would make trading so much easier.
I also think that the team that was pushed over the cap by a trade should be given penalty-free time to drop or pick up players to even out his cap situation. In other words, he would get 100% value for players he needed to drop to even out his exceeded cap caused by the trade. This could be done with a "token system". For example, if I trade for 3 high priced players, I would receive 3 tokens to drop 3 guys at 100% value. For obvious reasons, these tokens should expire a certain number of days (1-3, i would guess) after the trade.
Anyway, botton line is that such a manager could never be "cheating the cap" because none of his new guys will be usable until his cap is fixed. Yet we can all benefit from an easier trading mechanism in this way.

Do you guys like this idea? I really don't see much of a downside.
Can anyone take it to Bernie?

[LMBombers]

Jeff, Just post your idea in the Suggestions Forum and Bernie will read it.