Broken Bat - Suggestions: Trading: A Logical Approach

Forum >> Suggestions >> Trading: A Logical Approach

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#15299	02/25/2015 4:53:22 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	I completely agree with mduban. I think we should at least be open to it. I think the game is fine without it, but if trading can be implemented, it would really improve the game.

#15300	02/25/2015 4:54:07 pm
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Maybe even limiting to one trade per team per season during a limited, one week or so, "Hot Stove" period in the off season. That would further reduce Steve's potential workload. It would also reduce the "pestering" PMs between players I could see happening if it was a year round option down to a mere week or so of annoying each other

#15309	02/25/2015 10:52:55 pm
MukilteoMike Joined: 08/09/2014 Posts: 3294 Inactive	Initially I was pro-trading. Over the last month or so I've switched sides. The main reason is due to the number of teams. There are just too many obstacles to ensure fairness and I don't think the payoff is worth it. I am completely against any trade process that requires Steve to do anything. His time is better spent on making improvements to the game. What is the purpose of trading? That's a serious question; I'm not trying to be smart. It's to improve a specific position or area, right? I would likely be in favor of one true draft a year and/or a modified waiver system because I think the result of those could be similar to trades without having the complexity and policing problems.

#15312	02/25/2015 11:28:06 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	Yeah, I don't know. I thought about a "true draft," as you put it, but how would that work? Would owners have to spend their own time evaluating draftable players? How would they evaluate them? Or, would they be introduced to the players only on draft day, meaning they are basically drafting blindly? I don't think that would work, especially with so many teams as you pointed out. To me, trading seems to be the most obvious solution. However, I like the two-tiered waiver system, or maybe even an auction based waiver system. Perhaps those would be easier on Steve and still increase the use of an owner's strategic baseball skills. The ultimate purpose behind my trading proposition is to increase the use of one's baseball mind in the game. There are many ways to do this besides trading, like the auction based waiver system which I find intriguing. However, I still think that trading represents the most obvious solution, even if it is not as feasible. Updated Wednesday, February 25 2015 @ 11:33:09 pm PST

#15316	02/26/2015 5:35:28 am
Mig2012 Joined: 09/26/2012 Posts: 547 Inactive	There have already been mentioned many and big reasons why trade systems and auction systems are very bad ideas. This suggestion adds nothing new, reasonably doable or worth it to what has already been suggested and widely refused.

#15422	02/27/2015 2:45:12 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	@Mig2012 I understand the down side of trading, I really do. I will not drop the subject of trading because of the "wide refusal," as I would not jump off a bridge because others do. However, I will drop it because if Steve would have to put a tremendous amount of work in to incorporate it fairly, it is not worth his time since we can do without it. However, I don't see what is so bad about an auction waiver system or at least a two-tiered waiver system being discussed. Could you enlighten me on these issues instead of snapping at me like I'm an idiot? My point is simply to increase the amount of strategy in the game. Looking at the current waiver system, any idiot can see a high skill index and claim him. To quote you, "Why is it ok for this game to reward repetitive mindless actions and not ok to reward someone clever enough to get a toy or intelligent enough to build one on his own? Why is it ok for this game to reward no brains and not ok to reward those with them? Makes you think, doesn’t it?" Why yes, yes it does. At least a two-tiered waiver system would decrease the "rewarding of mindless actions" associated with clicking the claim button for anyone with a skill index above 110 in your case or 100 for teams like me. I'm not claiming its an end-all-be-all as everything in this world can be improved, but it should at least be considered. Updated Friday, February 27 2015 @ 2:47:39 pm PST

#15439	02/27/2015 5:12:18 pm
Mig2012 Joined: 09/26/2012 Posts: 547 Inactive	I fail to see where is that snapping in my previous reply. But, since you're so good in digging old comments I made years ago in a completely different context and bringing them up to support your agenda, I suggest you go read what has already been said about trading and auctions. Not everyone wants to go another 15 rounds every time another trade thread pops up.

#15447	02/27/2015 10:03:33 pm
Slug5373 Joined: 12/23/2014 Posts: 376 Inactive	To answer your first question, you are right about the "snapping" as I put it. You really didn't snap, you more just shot down the issue. My apologies. Next, I don't see how this is a different context. You were absolutely right in your quote. To paraphrase, why shouldn't the smarter baseball mind be rewarded for their superior knowledge of the game? What changed in this context? Are you implying that in this context the smarter baseball mind should not be rewarded? Hmm... Oh, this is either the third or the fourth time I've seen the argument that "everyone else is against it," and the argument "Steve has better things to do." Regarding the first one, I've seen just as many of those in this post who support trading as those who don't. If everyone is so opposed to trading, why didn't all the broken bat legends just shoot it down in one swoop and pass me off as another naïve nube who knows nothing about the game? I will say, that I have seen compelling arguments against trading and they are logical. Everyone here who RESPECTFULLY disagreed and provided reasons as to why have successfully changed my mind on the issue. However, I'm talking more about the two-tiered waiver system right now. To get back on subject, I have seen more people for this system, or at least considerate it, than those against it. As to the admin issue, you seem to be talking for Steve. If he says that he has better improvements he can be making for the game, so be it. It is his game and he has done more for this community than we can ask for, for free. I will absolutely yield to his judgment should he say this. However, let HIM decide what the "worst thing" for this game is. I have seen many people support an improved waiver system. As I understand it, the waiver system in place now is a big improvement to whatever was in place before, proving that this change can be implemented fairly painlessly and effectively. I await inevitable insults soon to be thrown my way. Updated Friday, February 27 2015 @ 10:07:30 pm PST

#15470	02/28/2015 9:31:18 pm
dwindacatcher Joined: 04/03/2014 Posts: 633 Inactive	I'm open to trades, but I don't think an overwhelming majority are, and that's the problem. I think for Steve to seriously consider coding it in we would need to be nearly unanimous in wanting it. Even if we come up with an air tight trade system. Though I suppose coming up with a great system could make it easier to sway people. I sympathize with those thay don't want it, but every time this idea pops up it gets beat like a dead horse with "it won't work" and "nobody wants it". I'd say if you are opposed feel free to say you are, but getting into arguments about it accomplishespecially nothing for either side. I say we use this thread as an avenue to theory craft a better system for the community to judge. An argument will only hurt any chance of those thay are pro coming up with a possible system or also coming to the conclusion of it not being able to work. I like the idea of trades only being open in the off season. It would temper the load of whatever board, Steve or otherwise, has to police. Spit balling an idea here. Somewhat stealing the automated system idea. What if you could put a player on the Trade Block with what you are looking for and teams could submit potential trades based on your want. Maybe a clause that you can't trade with anyone you share a login location with. I know that can be gotten around, but it stops some cheating. No trades until you have had a team for a season. Review time for trades should be a week minimum. A trade system shouldn't be for an immediate need. Accepted trades should be viewable to all users while in the review period. Some system needs to be in to auto block trades of high potential prospects for low potential ones. A dedicated forum for trades. We don't need that cluttering up the others.

#15591	03/04/2015 2:21:02 pm
DANGLESNIPECEL9 Joined: 01/29/2014 Posts: 64 Inactive	I'm not for or against trades, but what about a dedicated trade thread where ALL trades have to go through that everyone can see on the forum. From this thread users can debate and vote for trades. A certain number of yes this trade can go through has to happen before a trade can be completed. Another thing that could be added is no one from your league can vote on the trade because say you are the second place team and are upgrading your pitching in exchange for prospects, the first place teams manager could say no to the trade because they don't want your team improving. This is just and idea, like I said, I'm not for or against trades.