Broken Bat - Suggestions: Trades

Post ID	Date & Time	Game Date

#94738	08/26/2024 7:40:10 am	Oct 22nd, 2065
Fireballer34 Joined: 05/31/2023 Posts: 107 Hollywood Velociraptors V.6	It is my opinion and I think a lot of others in the game that trades should be added to the game. Clearly, there are ways for teams to exploit this, so a ruleset would be needed. Some possible rules that would balance trades and allow this to be put in the game: No trading 14 POT or above. Without being able to do this it would be harder for unfair trades to be made. Must play a year before being allowed to trade. Similar to nicknames, you must prove you aren’t a cheater and are committed to this game before you can mess with your team. Limit of 2-3 trades per season. Potential cheating teams couldn’t just ship off all their good players in one season. Bot teams can’t trade. Would take a lot more time to program it and nothing good would come from it anyways. Trade moderators. Volunteers that must make sure a trade is fair before it is processed. I think with a combination of these rules and regulations trading can happen and a fundamental part of baseball can finally be allowed.

#94744	08/26/2024 3:23:20 pm	Oct 26th, 2065
jclemen2 Joined: 11/22/2016 Posts: 189 Mount Prospect Skeletons II.1	I would love the idea of being able to trade and have thought about how to do it previously on several occasions when it is brought up. I certainly don't want to kill any conversation about it but I will throw out what the issues are that make it highly unlikely and I will throw in my idea. 1st I ran a baseball Mogul league for years, and trading was by far one of the biggest issues, and that was with only around 25 or so managers at a time. Everyone's standards for evaluating talent are incredibly different, and I will say the biggest issue is "less talented" managers are almost always on the wrong end of the deal. The # of people who made a few iffy trades and then left was pretty high. The proposal of a certain amount of time in the league helps somewhat with that, but you're also now competing against teams in your division who can make trades while you can't which is a separate issue. My overall opinion of trades was they led to a lot of team owner turnover on the bottom end of "talent". It made the best of the teams even better because it was an area where you could gain a huge edge. I don't want to speak for Steve, but I believe what he has put together is a well-run machine, designed to be enjoyed by both casual and hardcore owners. Yes, there are ways you can set yourself apart like in identifying draft or free agent talent, knowing where to develop and play players, setting lineups and rotations, and identifying good managers. These are all available to everyone but they are still somewhat depending on the luck of who gets what which limits some of the edge. A trade where if it's agreed to, approved, and goes through does give a big edge to more active/skilled managers and there is no luck factor to lower the impact of that activity. There is no genuine beef you can come up with anything currently as unfair because everything just runs smoothly and a lot of things are luck of the draw for getting players. Trades are going to bring drama and people thinking this trade went through and my trade didn't and it was more fair, etc. There is nothing not within Steve's control to move things forward, things happen automatically, I can't see him having any interest in Trade Moderators as it brings different levels of judgement into the picture and a step that has to be completed manually by people other than him. Also think how big of an advantage it becomes for people based on activity level. Right now, being super active will gain you small advantages in different areas. If you are very active and making multiple trades a year the potential advantage that could gain you over the average person is sizeable. He has to design a game that will keep 500+ managers or so involved. If I were someone checking a couple of times a week, it would make it less enjoyable in my opinion to see that. Basically, I think the upside to it is for the smaller # of top active owners, while the downside to it applies to a much larger # of just casual players of the game. I do not see a process with the opinions of two separate team owners and a couple of trade moderators and the opinions after the fact of however many other people in the same division or just Broken Bat in general being smooth and fair. Trades in my baseball mogul league back then, and even fantasy football leagues I'm in now are some of the most divisive issues. That being said, the one idea I always come back to and I've probably mentioned before with little interest is this: Right now players who are most sought-after on waivers are players who shouldn't have been dropped. These are rare and generally get 50+ claims. Most players on waivers are there because they are overpriced, aging, or have other issues. There are rarely high quality players in their prime available. The attraction of trading is filling a specific position need, giving you an edge to compete to win now as an upgrade, or to build for the future. What I think could work is a trade block where you offer players you would trade specifically for a draft pick. Why a draft pick is because a draft pick is a set value equal for everyone's team. It would all be automated, and the value of the round and or # of draft picks would be based on the # of teams who put in a claim/offer, and the winner of the trade would be random just like waivers. It could work like this: Trade Block of Players available for draft picks There is a weekly trade block deadline, let's just pick Sunday at midnight. You can put put players on that weeks deadline by then. Starting then for 72 hours there is a weekly trade block of players from every team that are available, and that would look like waivers but for players available for "trade". You can go out and click a button just like a waiver claim for all the players you are interested in. Call it the "Offer Trade" button. As people click this for a player his count of people interested starts increasing. As the number of offers increases, the trade "cost" goes up. This is just randomly thrown out but something like: 110 offers: 1st rd pick+ 2nd 100 offers: 1st rd pick +3rd 80 offers: 1st rd pick + 4th 70 offers: 1st rd pick + 5th 60 1st rd pick + 6th 50 1st rd pick +7th 45 1st rd pick + 8th 40 1st rd pick 35 2nd rd pick 30 3rd rd pick 25 4th rd pick 20 5th rd pick 15 6th rd pick 10 7th rd pick 5 8th rd pick So again, any time in this 72 hours you can click "make an offer", as the count of people interested goes up, the cost goes up, but you can take away your interest by "removing offer" at any time. After 72 hours (Wednesday Midnight) it locks, and then the owner of the player has 24 hours (Thursday midnight) to decide if they want to "accept" whatever the offer is. After that at a set deadline the winner of the trade offer processes just like waivers, it's randomly chosen who wins the trade. No matter who wins, the owner is getting the same thing, extra draft picks. This system would take 2 factors out of the trade proposal above. There is no trade moderators needed and it's automated with a cutoff for interest and a 24 hour approval window from the owner. The value of the trade from the 2nd team is set by demand and what is traded is equal across the board. My first Rounder is equal to everyone else's. So again a player is offered, demand for the player is determined, and owner can accept or reject... all automated by Steve. Why trade in this system? 2 main reasons that work together. You are either building for the future by getting draft picks or trading picks to help you out now. Can you rig the system? Not really because you can't realistically get anything of value for a player without legitimate demand for a player, and on the other end you can't get a good player from say your 2nd team without getting lucky in who gets the player if there is a lot of demand. I think this simplifies trading to bare basics with no drama or judgement to be made. Even if this were of interest and drew a lot of demand there are still a ton of issues... How many players a year can you put on the trade block? How many times can you put the same player on the trade block? What's the value based on amount of interest? What's the trade deadline? what are the windows for "offers" to be made, the owner to decide, the trade to process? We're talking about draft picks so if it's already up to the 4th round the picks become next years. If you already made a trade can you start using future years picks and if so how far out? For sure you can't just put every player on the trade block, it becomes too confusing to sort. It needs to be simplified by maybe how many times a year you can use it. many more I'm sure!!! Steve has been running this forever so I'm sure he already knows and if he doesn't want to come up with a trade option of any kind it's not going to happen. This is just my way of saying here's how it could be done, where the value is fairly determined by demand, and the winner of the trade is random so there's no collusion. I like it personally and think it's a way that would eliminate a lot of the problems that would come up with trades. Also just speaking on this I think it simplifies it to people trying to compete... avoid relegation, promote, win in the cup, etc... and those building for the future. If you're in league VI and are bad how does having a 28yo stud pitcher help you? Getting 2 or 3 or whatever draft picks is going to help you in the future. It's the trade deadline and you're definitely going to relegate and you have a 30 year old that could help several other teams enough so that you could get a 3rd round pick? You're neck and neck at the deadline competing to promote to legends, wouldn't you trade a 1st and 2nd for the above mentioned 28yo stud? So I think if the value is fair there would be interest on trading picks away and for picks. Everyone likes making draft picks, so I do think a lot of players would become available, and I think at the end it helps competitive teams now and non-competitive teams rebuild and become better faster. that's my 1000 cents on trades.

#94747	08/26/2024 7:25:13 pm	Oct 26th, 2065
lmartins6746 Joined: 06/01/2021 Posts: 71 Asheville Aces IV.6	@jclemen2 Not a bad idea but I think it is flawed in that you don't know what you are giving up when you I 'make and offer' as the interest may increase greatly after you offer. I may think a player is worth a 2nd but if he gets 100 offers and I don't check the count I am out a 1st and 2nd. I think it can be simplified. The team with the player sets the desired compensation and the winner is assigned randomly. Maybe we can set a certain interest threshold to ensure fairness when desired compensation is high (example: must have received x number of offers if asking for anything above y rd pick).

#94749	08/27/2024 12:12:08 am	Oct 26th, 2065
Frankebasta Joined: 09/15/2013 Posts: 905 Kodiak Mules III.3	@jclemen2 Well done, this is the best proposal I've heard. Doesn't allow for any shenanigans. The major issue, as already've been pointed out is that you don't know how much you're gonna pay when you make the offer to acquire. The seller has a right to refuse, the buyer doesn't. That said, a trade system like this one would definitely be beneficial to new managers who would be happy to trade 30yo players for future ones: draft picks will necessary be delivered one season after the trade, and prospects will contribute....2 to 8 years in the future (if selected a 25yo Asian or 16yo Latinos). The counterpart of such a trade will be a team on the rise, someone looking for one more bat, or arm, to be promoted. I can foresee teams mortgaging their future to reach Legends. Nothing inherently wrong with it, rather it would mimic Real Life pretty closely. In turn, such a dynamic would cause a greater turnover of teams in the upper Leagues (Legends to 3rd, eg.) Personally, I love to see my team in League 2, or 3, and I love my draft picks. Thus, even though the idea is cunning, I would vote against it because it would change the parity of game play too extensively.

#94750	08/27/2024 3:54:01 am	Oct 26th, 2065
Fireballer34 Joined: 05/31/2023 Posts: 107 Hollywood Velociraptors V.6	What if it were more of a bidding system? Then teams would have control over who they want and could make sure they don’t accidentally spend too much. Maybe you have 12 hours after the last bud to make your bid before the auction would end.

#94751	08/27/2024 7:03:45 am	Oct 26th, 2065
lmartins6746 Joined: 06/01/2021 Posts: 71 Asheville Aces IV.6	@fireballer I could see something like that working if compensation levels are predefined. If someone offers a 2nd and 6th and someone else offers a 3rd and 4th...which is more valuable? So if you had set levels then the winner could be selected randomly from the highest bidders. That does allow for shannigans though as you could use a second team to bid a 1st and 2nd rd pick for a mediocre player while all other offers and a 3rd rd pick. The original proposal doesn't have that problem because it would require a lot interest to make the price that high. Maybe a team could submit a claim/offer along with maximum compensation offered and if the interest level gets too high then they are automatically out.

#94760	08/27/2024 6:07:34 pm	Oct 30th, 2065
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9741 Haverhill Halflings II.1	This seems workable but there are still some areas that would need to be tighter. A player with two teams could still rig the system by trading between their teams (offering even low draft picks for garbage FA players, then converting those draft picks into something real). So there would need to be no trading between teams owned by the same player. Honors system can be a little tough as we have seen. In some ways, setting our own bids would be even worse, because a player could offer 5 1st round picks for a garbage player. So I think it needs to remain demand based. But maybe the winning team can choose if they want to execute the trade. If they don't it picks a new winning owner (at the same exchange rate), until someone accepts the trade. Also, to prevent low draft spamming, I would set the 0-5 trade offer exchange to "no draft picks". Meaning you need to have at least 6 teams interested to get anything in return. Otherwise the player was really only worth a waiver. That would protect against temptations for players who own 2-3 teams. Yes we have seen players take 5-6 teams and try to manipulate the waiver system, but that is rare and more easily detected.

#94761	08/27/2024 6:14:07 pm	Oct 30th, 2065
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9741 Haverhill Halflings II.1	Also if the trade system is tight, I don't think we should put a POT limitation. There are lots of garbage POT 14/15 players. I drop those guys all the time. On the other hand, there are plenty of POT 13s that are better than those guys. If its kept demand based, those POT 14s will generate a high return if they are good, but shouldn't generate a high demand if they are garbage. If teams can back-out of trades - we might see some irresponsible bidding on high POTS ("I can always back out later if I don't like the guy") - so there should probably be some cost for bidding. Even if its just a small financial cost like $1000. Just so that people only bid if they are serious. Updated Tuesday, August 27 2024 @ 9:11:27 pm PDT

#94762	08/27/2024 7:36:16 pm	Oct 30th, 2065
Simple1e Joined: 10/02/2022 Posts: 6 Wahiawa Emeralds III.4	I've heard all the arguments re: trades and I'm not sure there is workable solution. I do however wish there was a different mechanism for releasing players ... I wish I could place a player for sale. I dream of a sealed bid type system. Sure, rich teams might benefit ... for a while ... it would only take a couple of poor choices then the rich team wouldn't be so rich any more. I would totally dig the strategy involved in both selling and buy players. Is this a workable idea? Please be gentle, I don't post very often.

#94764	08/27/2024 9:09:28 pm	Oct 30th, 2065
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9741 Haverhill Halflings II.1	I think sealed bids will still be easily manipulated by nefarious players who own two teams. I think jclemen2's idea is the only thing that can really work. Making the value of the player is determined by overall interest. That's the best way to deter cheating and doesn't require trade moderators.

#94765	08/27/2024 10:06:30 pm	Oct 30th, 2065
jclemen2 Joined: 11/22/2016 Posts: 189 Mount Prospect Skeletons II.1	Again not speaking for Steve but the design of Broken Bat is just really well done. I would be interested in just hearing how things like the draft, waivers, schedules, roster size, and many other factors were determined. There may be things I wish were different like more control over draft picks, but when I really try and come up with ways to improve it it is apparent everything is designed to run smoothly, with advantages to better and more active people, but without hurting the opposite, less active people too much. He has to balance keeping a huge range of people looking for different things to be interested. I just think anything that's done has to increase interest and activity without causing a bunch of people to feel like they aren't interested. That's currently the way it works. You can enjoy a more competitive run to try and make it to the top leagues, or as someone less casual it's fun to have your players put up better numbers and have some dominant seasons at lower leagues like V.14 for example I've started or maybe even typed out some of my ideas about trades before, but finally decided to type out a little more detail. My read of the situation is he isn't going to put in a feature that can greatly swing in the favor of active/good managers in a way that's going to have any hint of collusion or one team taking advantage of another. The only way anything resembling trading would be allowed would have to fit with things like drafting and waivers. More active players may gain some advantage by spending more time looking at the trade block I proposed, but luck of the draw and limits on how and when it can be done will reduce the overall impact just like it does for drafting in waivers. A few additions or reactions to comments above... @lmartins6746 Good point, you don't know what the final cost will be when you click "make an offer". Again all this does is put you "in" to make a trade if you win the randomizer when it's all said and done and add to the count of how many are interested to determine the value. However, I assumed everyone logs in 10 times a day to check things or look around, and that's surely not the case for everyone. A feature like what you've suggested where as part of clicking "make an offer" you also click a bubble or check a box for how high you're willing to go. Again the chart I make for value is just random to start a conversation, but if you really like a player you click "make an offer" and then in some way you would indicate I'm willing to go up to "1st rd pick + 6th" or whatever you want from the options. @Frankebasta As mentioned above and brought up also by @lmartins6746 the right to withdraw your interest. Once you put in you have interest you can withdraw that anytime in whatever the window is, I just said 72 hrs as an idea. In addition, the above option allows you to set a limit where your "offer" is automatically withdrawn if the cost is too high. Just like In real life if you're in trade talks in anything, at some point they may say the offer is up to this and you might say that's to rich and drop out. Also to your point, you would vote against it because It would change things too much. I don't think that would have to be the case. If you don't want unlimited trading and think that's too wild then there are some limits. Here's several ideas for that, and by no means is this all or nothing: 1) it could be introduced as a five or ten year trial starting in 20xx 2) We could start with two trade windows, preseason and trade deadline. For preseason that could be the first week after the season turnover, or the 2nd week instead, or both so two trade weeks. For the trade deadline just the week before the deadline, so call that around 7/30. I like two windows for multiple reasons. First it reduces that concern of anything too dramatic, and two in that first week of the offseason you'd be trading the upcoming draft picks, and for the trade deadline window you could bring into play the next year batch of draft picks. 3) The number of picks you can trade can just be set in stone, as can a max value of some kind. I don't know what that would be, but going back to a 5 or 10 year trial window there could be tweaks to this each year to tune in the values. I would say if I'm just throwing this out there if it were me, i'd allow picks for the next two draft classes to be eligible. So in preseason you have your current and next year picks, and at the deadline you have the next two seasons picks. If you make a trade, those picks are gone you can no longer complete a trade that requires those picks. It would run like waivers, except the order would be based on demand. SO if you get a high cost trade for say a 1st and 3rd early, later on you are out of the running for any trades that "cost" those picks. So to @Frankebasta I'm not suggesting teams be able to make a lot of trades. The limit of what you can trade is set with only so many draft picks available, and you could also limit the number of players you could trade away. We could just start with one or two players as a max, and of course you could put a newbie rule in place where new teams can't trade. @Fireballer34 - The bidding system to me can't be anything where you can collude or run multiple teams and load up one team. What I picture is a system where it takes a lot of genuine demand to get the cost of a trade to the point it would matter. If I put a good player out there it will cause the price to go up, and there's no point in me running 2 teams with that purpose or colluding somehow because I'm unlikely to get the player to where I want him. On the other side I can't trade a bad player and inflate the value because the demand will be to low to generate a good pick in return. @lmartin6746 again - I don't think an offer system will go anyway with Steve. The cost has to be the same for everyone, and if you don't have those picks you can't trade. @Rock777 - setting your own bid just has to be out in my opinion. It has to be based on demand and it just has to be a smooth process. You say you're interested in a player up to a certain cost, demand is what determines the price, there's a way to cap what you'd pay automatically or manually at any time, once the 72 hour or whatever window closes that's locked in. You could set your limit at anytime in there or manually remove your "offer". Now the owner of the player has a window to decide if they want to accept that. If not they remove the player, if so now that player and trade is locked in and will be determined by the random process. Definitely agree there must be some minimal interest like 5 or so to even get an 8th rounder in a deal. Really you're right, if not the player was more of a waivers player. I think a lot of players on waivers wouldn't get much in trades. Maybe 95% or more? Would anyone on a 20 claim player give up more than MAYBE a mid round pick at best? I think this would bring players who aren't being released now. That would be players with prime years still to go. No potential limits, just demand based like you say. And honestly the demand thing helps the "casuals". The trade block could just literally have the current # of offers which would allow anyone to easily look and find the "best players" as opposed to clicking on every player like how waivers is. @simple1e I think theoretically in a fair system where everyone is relatively equal in the ability of running a team some sort of actual trade system or sealed bid could work. But you can't guarantee collusion, or someone running multiple teams, or dumbness just being taken advantage of. To sum up the process with some revisions. I'm going to do a hypothetical calendar for the week, the quantities of players, picks, number of days in each stage or easily adjusted. Let's say the offseason trade deadline in our current calender would be next week: Stage 1: Saturday 1am - Tuesday 1am (72 hours): You can put 2-3 players on your Trade block Stage 2: Tuesday 1am - Friday 1am (72 hours): You can make an offer on as many players as you want, and the "cost" of the trade aka draft picks goes up. You can set a limit to what he is worth to you for an "autowithrawal of offer" or manually withdraw your offer. See the chart above as far as what the cost is. THis is totally irrelevant to even consider if this never matters. If it gains traction then you have a real discussion about what certain players would be worth. Take this though, let's say the best 27 yo in the game was up for discussion, are there teams that should trade 2 1sts and 2 2nds for him? Yes!!! Are there teams that should trade them away for that (ie terrible, rebuilding teams)? Yes!!! Stage 3: Friday 1am - Sunday 1am: Owner of the player trade review. The person trading a player has a window to decide if they accept the final "offer". Same thing though, you could include a automatic minimum you'd accept type button, and still have the option to automatically decline or accept. Stage 4: Monday 1pm: Trades process!!! This could even be an event, imagine if instead of all at once the winners were revealed in some sort of slow reveal? Details though, but basically the winners are announced and trades processed!!! Stage 5: not really but now you have extra draft picks possibly!!! These could easily be late picks, so no you can't just sign in Friday morning and use both picks. The 2nd might be available Friday night for example so everyone else gets their picks. No extra picks exist though, it's just moving them so it's not going to affect the overall talent pool. The timing of that is flexible and easily adjusted, and the auto max you'd trade and minimum you'd accept would allow shorter windows. If you are going to do just two trade windows of offseasons and trade deadline it can stretch out a little bit, if you have 2 offseason weeks you'd have to have a 1 week schedule for each week so the 1st one stops and the 2nd starts. I think for a lot of reasons I prefer 2 windows only. One it defines what year of draft picks are specifically. For example offseason trade week next week would be 2066 and 2067 draft picks. And the trade deadline window would be 2067 and 2068. If you look at this, you can only really make a limited number of deals because as your picks are used up you're no longer eligible to win lower demand players. If I win a deal where I give up a 1st and 3rd, now I can't win a trade that requires those picks. Finally to Steve and everyone else, I think this fits with the current design. It is an added activity, but it's impact is limited by several factors including the # of picks you have, the ability to set a limit to how many players you can trade each trade window, 2 specific windows to do it each year, and the luck of the draw factor. I think it suits multiple peoples desires for the game. If you want to be ultra competitive, there is a definite strategy to this as far as both trading for a player and trading away players. Ultra competitive types will love it in my opinion. For casuals, honestly I think a lot of people would be glad to have extra picks. Picks are fun!!! If you take over a team and can trade away existing players and get players of your own with extra picks you make isn't that going to be more fun if that's what you want to do? You can't do too much harm because the value of the player is determined by demand. If you put a great player on the block and it actually got you 2 or more good picks back is that a bad thing if that value has been determined by demand and now you have extra fun picks to make and get more of your guys? I don't know what site traffic is like, number of visits per day, etc. Generally though people have got to come on for game results, roster/lineup moves, waivers, and draft picks. This adds multiple windows of additional activity which is a good thing. *Editing to just say when I say the 1st trade window is next week I'm really thinking 2-5 years down the road, just using the upcoming season as an example for when the offseason window would be. ** This is long and probably inconsequential, but it is a fun idea. I probably made some typos and missed some things along the way! Updated Tuesday, August 27 2024 @ 10:15:49 pm PDT

#94770	08/28/2024 4:09:14 am	Oct 30th, 2065
Fireballer34 Joined: 05/31/2023 Posts: 107 Hollywood Velociraptors V.6	Instead of having claims withdrawn, why not when you enter your claim, you set a “maximum bid” before you submit. If the player cost goes beyond your selected level, your claim is still counted towards the total number, but you are no longer eligible to win the player. Of course, the winner declining could also work. Only the people who put their maximum bid at the level or higher than the level that the player is at could receive the player. Edit: Sorry, wrote this before I read your post jclemen2. My idea differs from yours just to avoid a paradox. The offers shouldn’t be withdrawn, the number should stay just you wouldn’t be eligible to win the lottery. Or maybe to avoid people driving the price up through low bids the offer could be withdrawn if the price was 2 levels or more over the bid level. Updated Wednesday, August 28 2024 @ 4:19:01 am PDT

#94771	08/28/2024 4:24:12 am	Oct 30th, 2065
Fireballer34 Joined: 05/31/2023 Posts: 107 Hollywood Velociraptors V.6	This could also kind of merge with the waiver system since players without sufficient claims on them on the trade block would just be claimed without compensation and players without any claims would just go to free agency.

#94773	08/28/2024 6:27:50 am	Oct 30th, 2065
Rock777 Joined: 09/21/2014 Posts: 9741 Haverhill Halflings II.1	RE limitations on purchases. I think the draft picks should all come from the next year specifically. So if you already traded away your 1st round pick, you can't land another big interest guy until next season. That creates some natural controls. Might be worth allowing people to increase (only increase) their max bid if they see they are out of contention. That should still be safe since its still demand driven. But also emulates bidding frenzy better