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: 109 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.