What Changes Could be made........

HI!
I was thinking about the leagues I have been in over the last 10 years and I thought I would throw this out to the group.
What changes could be made to a League so that trading players would not only be encouraged but become an advantage to the owners of teams in that league? (I want managers to want to trade players)

I am at a loss and thought you guys might have an answer.

Mike Lopp

I am not sure what can be done...one issue is that most leagues are 12 team leagues...
most teams have good talent with players having some great and bummer years mixed in...
hard to trade a dude who may have a superstar year next year...

also hard to find equal value match ups...

Thanks for replying Ghost!!

So maybe part of the answer is either:

1. A 24 team league ( and/or)
2. Controls on salary, say an 80 million salary cap? (or maybe 60 million)

It would seem to me that a 12 team league with a 60 million salary cap might do it. If I had superstars that
I couldn't play due to excessive salary I would be tempted to move them. Check my logic.

Mike

PS - I see the Randomization League randomly assigns stadiums. That might be a thing.

Mike, I took over your team in the D2D 24 team league a few years back. We have active trading even though the salary cap is 200 mil. Trading happens in preseason and during the season. 24 teams to me is the answer.

I am also in a 12 team league filled with superstars on every roster and at the end of the season all the bad teams trade their great cards (Edwin Rios, Sam Huff, etc) for draft picks and bad cards having good years (Logan Webb, Nick Castellanos, etc) to the first place teams. This is no fun because after building one of the best teams, you have to trade away your future to stay competitive with the other first place teams acquiring these one year wonder cards. There is no normal trading, just end of year dumping.

Thanks Eddie!!

I think that the 24 team league may play a part in a more active trade market. I wonder if a 60-80 million salary cap might have a deterring effect on your "12 team league" example. Is it possible that having a low salary cap might mean that a team would have to think twice before making a deal like that? For example, maybe I cant have a 9 million dollar Castellanos on my team if it meant having to move other players to fit in under the cap. Check my logic.

Mike

Thanks Eddie!!

I think that the 24 team league may play a part in a more active trade market. I wonder if a 60-80 million salary cap might have a deterring effect on your "12 team league" example. Is it possible that having a low salary cap might mean that a team would have to think twice before making a deal like that? For example, maybe I cant have a 9 million dollar Castellanos on my team if it meant having to move other players to fit in under the cap. Check my logic.

Mike

I think your logic holds. Having a $60M cap makes trading challenging because you have to really manage your active players to fit under the cap. It might value cheap players who outperform in a certain park, causing a different type of market for trades, but could you move last year's Sam Huff mid-season? That would cause a cascading effect on the rest of roster. Could work, though.

The problem with 24 team leagues is that active rosters are smaller, making lining up trades more difficult. I haven't noticed a marked difference between 24 and 12 team leagues in number of trades. I've found the hardest trades are when both owners are trading for strength: you have two good 2bs, and I need one. I have 3 good LF and you need one. I'm sure it happens, but I can't recall off the top of my head the last time I saw two teams in contention trade. I assume this is a factor of roster construction. By the time a competitive team is done it's drafting there's usually not a lot of excess good backups just sitting there to be traded.

Here are some thoughts:
- Loose prospect rules: when you need to call up a prospect quickly it de-incentives making deals. Stashing prospects makes deals easier. Downside: Prospect drafts start becoming first year drafts with some prospects riding the MILB circuit for years after they've been carded.
- Larger rosters: most 12 team leagues top out at 40 and 24 team leagues at 30 (I think), with more players there's more room to make deals. There's also the potential to have a viable player on your bench that another contender might want. Downside: that's a lot of drafting and might encourage more stashing and less chance to improve through the draft.
- Create some requirement for trades. Maybe some type of reward system in the next draft for making trades? Would a randomized order for next draft reduce tanking and encourage more trades of players versus picks; does that matter? Downside: Sounds like a headache for the Commish, and really is more of a theme league rule.
- Haven't thought this through, but something that could get worked into existing leagues: Turn supplemental drafts into partial redraft where you can keep any traded players and not count them against your roster. So, 12 team 40 man roster that you need to drop to 35 (?) mid-season; no more than five round draft with essentially unlimited rosters (capped after the draft). It would likely encourage trades, and allow for contenders to trade with each other.

Mike, I do think a smaller salary cap would reduce all of the dump trades I see in 12 team leagues. Worth a try anyway.

Grant, I have made quite a few trades in the 24 team leagues, players for prospects, players for draft picks, players for players , all types. Now one note, I am an active trader and enjoy that part. At the start of a season most of the 24 teams feel as if they have a chance. Part way through the draft, I find some teams come back to reality as they havent been able to acquire all of the players they thought they were getting in the draft. Midway thru the season teams are trying to get one more piece to make the playoffs. Late in the season, not a lot of trading occurs. But having lots of other teams in the league does increase the chances of finding a trading partner that you match up with .

A randomized order for the next year's draft is interesting in terms of getting rid of the dump trades for draft picks , probably wouldnt stop dump trades for players though. Would like to see this play out but it does hurt the bad teams in the league by not guaranteeing them a good draft pick.

The biggest issue I have with a 24 team league is that the draft is very thin and it takes a few seasons for a rebuild. With the supplemental draft and the prospect draft weeding out all the new cards in a draft its tough to get anything other than a reliever at the bottom half of the first round.

Other options include...

Some leagues limit the number of supp or prospect picks to 2 or 3 each

Others have a lottery for the draft sequence of the worst teams in the 1st round -- say, the first 8 slots out of 24 -- in order to limit teams tanking just to guarantee a great draft pick

Still others limit the number of keepers, in order to encourage changes in each team's makeup on a regular basis

HI!

Eddie and Cochran thanks for some really thought provoking ideas. (sorry for not replying earlier, I had the norovirus stomach bug and well....you know.

I like the 30 man roster to limit the dilution of talent in drafts. It is a bummer to know that a draft cant really solve
any of your roster problems. On the other side it might provoke more trades. There needs to be better balance here.

As the NFL is finding out, tanking for a draft pick is no guarantee of success. In a 60 million league I would think that would be less likely. Example: If you cant afford Wander Franco on your roster do you trade the pick or draft that next less expensive player? In any case I think a draft lotto is a bad idea because it assumes the worst. (Not my style) Of course I was an elementary school teacher. lol

I wonder if a 12 team league with a 30 man roster (including prospects) at 60 million with no chance of picking up players left undrafted There would be talent there, and tradeable prospects, but I cant see how things ..... wait
How about:

A 30 man roster salary cap at 70 million? Let me know what you think. I will keep working through your thoughts.

Mike

HI!
I had an idea. What if all trades were done in an open forum like this one where everyone could see what everyone else was saying. Now I have to admit this does make me a little nervous but open/transparent trading might stop some shenanigans. I know I have offered people up for trades and gotten only one offer then make the trade and gotten the "I would have given more for him, message. Example: If I am going to trade you Kevin Kiermeir for Mike Trout and Joe Manager offers you a better deal then that's a win for everyone from the point of view that best value has been reached in that moment. There would have to be a rule about trash talking I think.
Check my logic.

Mike