Broken Bat - Suggestions: Player To Be Named Later

Forum >> Suggestions >> Player To Be Named Later

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date	Function

#32063	03/19/2016 9:19:38 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Had an idea for a mechanical trade system that borrows some concepts from my earlier Trade Pool suggestion, but is mostly new materials. On each team’s complete roster page (the one that includes minor leaguers) each player would have a box next to their name. The owner can check the box next to any one player on the roster they would like to trade. If a player’s box is checked after a weekly deadline, that player goes on the trade block and the checked box would be locked until the next week’s deadline. Once per week the game engine would scan all players on the trade block. If there are at least two other players on the trade blocks of their respective teams that match the age, potential and are within a few points of SI (a far more dynamic and secure system could be created if players on the trade block are assigned a rating based on age, potential and SI, but the example used is the simpler option) of your player, then you will be sent trade offers beginning the following week and continuing until a trade offer is accepted or you uncheck the player’s box removing him from the trade block. The owners of these players that match yours would also begin receiving trade offers as long as there are three or more such players on the trade blocks of various teams. Should you accept a trade offer, the player offered is added to your roster and the player you designated for trade would be removed from your roster, but instead of moving to the other team involved in the trade, he would be moved to a holding pool. This pool would essentially be a phantom team with no roster limit invisible to owners. Minor leaguers in the holding pool would receive training as if they were in the proper level of another team’s minor leagues. Major leaguers in the holding pool would receive training similar to that received by players who are on major league rosters but do not get any ABs or IPs. Players in the pool would be offered in trades for the remainder of the season. If they spend the entirety of the season in the pool and are never accepted in a trade, they would be released onto waivers when free agency re-opens the following season having aged a year. The other team involved in the earlier trade that sent a player to your team would receive a Player to be Named Later (PTBNL). This would be indicated by a note on the roster or transaction page. Beginning the week following the original trade, owners with a PTBNL will receive trade offers with players that match the age, potential and SI of the player that was traded away until an offer is accepted. Whether that be the next week or five season down the road is up to the owner. Owners would only be allowed one successful trade per season and cannot place a new player on the trade block if they have a PTBNL. No direct swaps of players would be made and any owner who cheats by owning multiple teams and attempts to swap the best player from one team to another would be checked by the requirement that the player coming back would need to be of equal age, potential and SI (or rating if that were instituted) as well as by the fact that any player on the trade block gets offered randomly to any team with a player or PTBNL that matches. If a rating system using a formula that took into account age, potential and SI were used, the odds of being able to game the system would be further reduced as a wider range of players would be available that would match the rating of the player on the trade block. This system should be at least as secure from cheating as the waiver system is. Updated Saturday, March 19 2016 @ 11:05:06 am PDT

#32067	03/19/2016 11:21:45 am
Spoonerific Joined: 01/17/2013 Posts: 339 Inactive	Aside from the age, SI, POT, etc. restriction I like the idea. I don't think the system should be tied up trying to gauge what managers value. If out and out restriction where made to players that can be traded {i.e. must have been on your roster for a full season] then I'm okay with that. But how can you quantify the value of a 100 SI closer against a 130 SI OF? Personally the closer will win more games for you than the player, especially if none of the O-Skills are over 16 at least in my experience. I'd also like more of a put one player in the pool, pull one out of the pool system where you randomly were given a handful of players already in the pool... utilizing the bot teams to fill it so that players couldn't just wait for the pool to be depleted and potentially exploit the system. But the holding team fixes so of the problems with what to do with players in the pool as they can still gain experience and training.

#32071	03/19/2016 1:59:01 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9600 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Sounds like a lot of coding. I think the waivers are a pretty good emulation of trading.

#32085	03/20/2016 5:00:27 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Watched Michigan State get dismantled in the tourney, so I decided to go for a walk. You know those disgruntled sports fan walks The idea for this just popped into my head. I felt it was too good not to suggest it, but I don't expect it to lead anywhere. There were some loose ends in my Trade Pool idea that were nagging at me and this ties those up to for me.

#32086	03/20/2016 5:33:20 am
Frankebasta Joined: 09/15/2013 Posts: 884 Kodiak Mules III.3	Me, I like it. Maybe it's not a top priority need, but it would fit just nice for those people (like Haselrig, me, others) who can't stop thinking about BrokenBat and how to improve our team... Thumbs up!

#32087	03/20/2016 6:59:02 am
Seca Joined: 05/05/2014 Posts: 5201 Waterloo Dinosaurs Legends	Consider allowing a position to be specified? Is the pool initially populated? My concern is that this would be a mechanism for parlaying bad high SI players into good ones. Or at least attempting to. I can't see the pool holding anything other than poorly allocated cast-offs.

#32089	03/20/2016 7:48:32 am
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	I'd like to emulate players on the trade block and owners fielding offers for that player, so I'd lean towards not being able to specify position. As proposed, you would only be able to consummate one trade per season, so patience in waiting for the right offer would amount to the same thing. There wouldn't be a time limit once you've traded a player away, so you're basically deferring a roster spot/salary until you get a player you want to fill that spot. I think having a hundred or so pre-made players on the pool team roster of varying ages and potentials would make trading immediately after implementation more viable. It should self-regulate after that though. I don't know, waivers are similarly about cutting a less desirable player for one you like better. In this case though, you're entirely in control of who you get while also having the roster spot/salary in the meantime. As to there only being cast-offs, if this were implemented today, the two players on my roster I'd consider trading are Andre Ellison and Fernando De La Fuente. I would go with De La Fuente because I'd expect something decent back (more so if a rating system was used instead of raw SI/Age/POT). He's not ideally built, but he's not terrible. I think somebody with less OFs than me might be happy to get him and I wouldn't have to agonize over whether to cut him or not. Instead I'd pick up a future asset that I could cash in whenever I liked. Some very good players get cut because of salary or being redundant. This would make that process a little more interesting at least once per season.

#32093	03/20/2016 11:44:53 am
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9600 Haverhill Halflings III.1	That is a perfect example of how you can abuse this system. Fernando De La Fuente is a bad player. But you're going to trick the system into thinking he is good in the hopes of getting a good player. Thus what we should do with this system is pick bad players like De La Fuente off the waivers to try and trade them for something better... Rewards the claiming of bad players. Seems broken to me. If you prepopulate the pool with decent players, then folks will participate in this bad behavior until the pool drains and gets filled up with cast-offs like De La Fuente. Like I said before. A LOT of coding to develop a capability that doesn't bring anything to the table. This is basically just an obscured version of waivers where the player is only offered to one manager at a time. Much less efficient and easier to manipulate. Updated Sunday, March 20 2016 @ 11:51:24 am PDT

#32096	03/20/2016 12:58:53 pm
Haselrig Joined: 04/13/2014 Posts: 2790 Novi Doubledays III.4	Like I said earlier, I think it was too good not to post it, but I honestly don't care if this gets added to the game. I don't expect it will be. The idea of a mechanical trade system intrigued me. It was an interesting problem that I enjoyed wrestling with when I was in a mindset to do so. I think if this system were play tested by enough people, any flaws could be worked out over time and it could be a system that provides a lot of fun for players, but it would require a considerable amount of work to add it to the game. It's here, free for anyone to use or not as they please.

#32099	03/20/2016 2:40:34 pm
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9600 Haverhill Halflings III.1	Free?! Sucker! I charge Steve $5 for each idea I post :p