Trades

Okay...I am someone who hates to complain and dont get me wrong i appreciate all the work that the trade council puts into this league and what not, but it is hard to improve my team when 9 out of 10 trades i do get denied.

I understand that every trade cannot be let through, but it is just discouraging when I have to make every trade perfect.

I thought that trades were supposed to be getting more lenient?

It is not even like the trades are all in my favor and they are getting denied and I am mad about it. There have been a couple that I know for a fact before it went to the trade that I am not getting the better deal but I still feel that it will help my team in the long run.

The point of this post is not to get a trade through that I think should be allowed or anything like that.

The fact of the matter is that if an experienced GM knows what they are doing and wants a trade to get through even if it means giving up a little more than they should...so be it.

Now some of you guys might look at this and see think "oh this jackass only has like 50 some posts and thinks hes experienced." Well this isnt my first league like this by any means.

So now the trade council members might be thinking "so what exactly do you want us to do?"

Well before just flat out denying a trade maybe go to the GMs involved and say "you know if you added this or took out this it might be a little more even."

Another thing that needs to happen is that the council members need to take the time to look at the rosters of both teams. If a team has depth at one position that they can afford to give to improve at another position, that needs to be taken into serious consideration. For instance, if a team has three 85+ corners and no really good DEs or OLBs or whatever...they can afford to give up a 88 for an 85 or 86.

When a trade is just flat out put into the denied trades section it just kills the interest in both of the GMs involved. It is just hard to turn a crappy team into a contender when litterally 90 percent of the attempted trades are denied.

You guys on the trade council know that some of these trades take hours upon hours of time to develop.

Also I am not going to point fingers or anything put it seems that some of the people that have the power in this league have their own agenda and if another GM steps in and takes a player they want away from them in a trade...it seems to get denied. Now this has not happened to me but a couple of other GMs have talked to me about this too.

What you guys have to understand is that when you are voting on these trades you have to throw your biased opinion to the curb.

Again...I really do hate to bitch, but something needed to be said.

I am glad you took your time to post this and make sure it is well written and easy to understand.

All I can say is, we do our best, I can tell you biased opinions do not make it into our discussions

We on trade council, all have different ways of looking at trades and 1 biased opinion would never influence the entire vote on a trade

We are normal guys, like everyone else here, we don't think our opinions are superior, we just do our job, and you have to change your "trading style" to match the trade council's opinions

I know I do my best to ensure I post why a trade was denied or why it was approved if applicable, but I know some do not.

If there is anything bothering anyone, please PM me, I don't care if it is criticism towards me, I want to hear your problems and thoughts, we want to improve this league, but cannot be perfect, but I can tell you right now, we will come as close as possible.

Do you have any ideas on how to improve the council Z?, or does anyone else?, as I stated before, PM me with your questions/problems/comments, I will ensure your voice is heard

Also, I nearly forgot, if you think a denial/approval was not right, PM me and I will send you the exact text votes (the TC's members' reasoning), I will not give you the name of the voter though

well I gotta say, we dont take biased opinions into the trade.

But I do think that experienced GMs should have more leniency if their losing out, but newer GMs we should be a little harder on, so they dont get ripped off.

I appreciate your input, but at the same time, don't you think it would be easier if each GM had their players ratings posted in their depth chart, along with ages and contract lengths? That way we can accurately tell who is on each GMs' teams. Our job is to rate trades and approve / deny, not research.

wow eagles i just realized u have +1000 posts

And to those of you who think Big_Z is some inactive guy, this league never could have existed without him.

SoxNats07 wrote:

wow eagles i just realized u have +1000 posts

And to those of you who think Big_Z is some inactive guy, this league never could have existed without him.

very very true,

without BigZ, we wouldnt have made it this far.

But this post technically shouldn't have been made, because according to the league rules, you should pm someone about something like this.

Like to each of the admins or to the group "Trade Council".

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division. IDK if its true, just something that has been bothering me for a long time. Also, I think that the TC should be mixed up. For example: If there is a trade between two teams from the NFC, only TC members from the AFC can vote, and vice versa. And also, that would make the TC larger, so I believe that one person from each division should be represented in the TC. If there is a trade between people from different confrences, then only people not in their respective traders divison could vote. As always it would only take 3 votes. So, there should be 8 total members of the TC, and people cannot vote on trades in their own division, and because of only one person from each division, there will always be 6 others to vote. And for example, because there are 4 for each conference, if the vote is 2-2, then the head admin from the opposite league would make the tiebreaker. So if it was a AFC trade and the NFC guys tied at 2-2, then Sox would make the tiebreaker vote. And if there was a tie in a NFC trade, Eaglesfan or ZSirvone would make that vote. All in all it would make the TC are much more fair place.

catspajamas wrote:

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division

That is one of the most outlandish things I have heard on the site in a while

Seriously, what makes you think this?, I will show you the votes to prove there is no bias behind them, sorry if I am sounded abrasive

eaglesfan90 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division

That is one of the most outlandish things I have heard on the site in a while

Seriously, what makes you think this?, I will show you the votes to prove there is no bias behind them, sorry if I am sounded abrasive

I dont know If they are, its just my instinct to always think the worst. But I think the plan i stated above should be put in place to squash any doubts, because even though i am the only one with this fear, there are other people with other fears, and that plan would squash any.

catspajamas wrote:

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division. IDK if its true, just something that has been bothering me for a long time. Also, I think that the TC should be mixed up. For example: If there is a trade between two teams from the NFC, only TC members from the AFC can vote, and vice versa. And also, that would make the TC larger, so I believe that one person from each division should be represented in the TC. If there is a trade between people from different confrences, then only people not in their respective traders divison could vote. As always it would only take 3 votes. So, there should be 8 total members of the TC, and people cannot vote on trades in their own division, and because of only one person from each division, there will always be 6 others to vote. And for example, because there are 4 for each conference, if the vote is 2-2, then the head admin from the opposite league would make the tiebreaker. So if it was a AFC trade and the NFC guys tied at 2-2, then Sox would make the tiebreaker vote. And if there was a tie in a NFC trade, Eaglesfan or ZSirvone would make that vote. All in all it would make the TC are much more fair place.

Um the last part doesn't really make sense.

If it's an AFC trade and the NFC is tied at 2-2, I'd make the vote. But If i was an NFC trade, why would Zsirvone? He is in the NFC. Plus Zoom is the other head admin, so it makes more sense for zoom to do it.

SoxNats07 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division. IDK if its true, just something that has been bothering me for a long time. Also, I think that the TC should be mixed up. For example: If there is a trade between two teams from the NFC, only TC members from the AFC can vote, and vice versa. And also, that would make the TC larger, so I believe that one person from each division should be represented in the TC. If there is a trade between people from different confrences, then only people not in their respective traders divison could vote. As always it would only take 3 votes. So, there should be 8 total members of the TC, and people cannot vote on trades in their own division, and because of only one person from each division, there will always be 6 others to vote. And for example, because there are 4 for each conference, if the vote is 2-2, then the head admin from the opposite league would make the tiebreaker. So if it was a AFC trade and the NFC guys tied at 2-2, then Sox would make the tiebreaker vote. And if there was a tie in a NFC trade, Eaglesfan or ZSirvone would make that vote. All in all it would make the TC are much more fair place.

Um the last part doesn't really make sense.

If it's an AFC trade and the NFC is tied at 2-2, I'd make the vote. But If i was an NFC trade, why would Zsirvone? He is in the NFC. Plus Zoom is the other head admin, so it makes more sense for zoom to do it.

I forgot Z was in the NFC, in another league he was the texans, so im used to him being in th AFC. But in AFC trade u would make the final vote, and lebron in the NFC

catspajamas wrote:

SoxNats07 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division. IDK if its true, just something that has been bothering me for a long time. Also, I think that the TC should be mixed up. For example: If there is a trade between two teams from the NFC, only TC members from the AFC can vote, and vice versa. And also, that would make the TC larger, so I believe that one person from each division should be represented in the TC. If there is a trade between people from different confrences, then only people not in their respective traders divison could vote. As always it would only take 3 votes. So, there should be 8 total members of the TC, and people cannot vote on trades in their own division, and because of only one person from each division, there will always be 6 others to vote. And for example, because there are 4 for each conference, if the vote is 2-2, then the head admin from the opposite league would make the tiebreaker. So if it was a AFC trade and the NFC guys tied at 2-2, then Sox would make the tiebreaker vote. And if there was a tie in a NFC trade, Eaglesfan or ZSirvone would make that vote. All in all it would make the TC are much more fair place.

Um the last part doesn't really make sense.

If it's an AFC trade and the NFC is tied at 2-2, I'd make the vote. But If i was an NFC trade, why would Zsirvone? He is in the NFC. Plus Zoom is the other head admin, so it makes more sense for zoom to do it.

I forgot Z was in the NFC, in another league he was the texans, so im used to him being in th AFC. But in AFC trade u would make the final vote, and lebron in the NFC

What if there are two very active members in the same division: Example: Colts (MK) and Texans (Eagles). So you kick one out? Doesn't make much sense to me, it's like adding layers of bueracracy.

Ruskie89 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

SoxNats07 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division. IDK if its true, just something that has been bothering me for a long time. Also, I think that the TC should be mixed up. For example: If there is a trade between two teams from the NFC, only TC members from the AFC can vote, and vice versa. And also, that would make the TC larger, so I believe that one person from each division should be represented in the TC. If there is a trade between people from different confrences, then only people not in their respective traders divison could vote. As always it would only take 3 votes. So, there should be 8 total members of the TC, and people cannot vote on trades in their own division, and because of only one person from each division, there will always be 6 others to vote. And for example, because there are 4 for each conference, if the vote is 2-2, then the head admin from the opposite league would make the tiebreaker. So if it was a AFC trade and the NFC guys tied at 2-2, then Sox would make the tiebreaker vote. And if there was a tie in a NFC trade, Eaglesfan or ZSirvone would make that vote. All in all it would make the TC are much more fair place.

Um the last part doesn't really make sense.

If it's an AFC trade and the NFC is tied at 2-2, I'd make the vote. But If i was an NFC trade, why would Zsirvone? He is in the NFC. Plus Zoom is the other head admin, so it makes more sense for zoom to do it.

I forgot Z was in the NFC, in another league he was the texans, so im used to him being in th AFC. But in AFC trade u would make the final vote, and lebron in the NFC

What if there are two very active members in the same division: Example: Colts (MK) and Texans (Eagles). So you kick one out? Doesn't make much sense to me, it's like adding layers of bueracracy.

Then only one would be in the TC, and IMO that would be Mksadng. He has been here longer,and knows this league almost more than anyone. Having that system would leave everything on a even playing field, and even though some think there is one now, I disagree.

catspajamas wrote:

Ruskie89 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

SoxNats07 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division. IDK if its true, just something that has been bothering me for a long time. Also, I think that the TC should be mixed up. For example: If there is a trade between two teams from the NFC, only TC members from the AFC can vote, and vice versa. And also, that would make the TC larger, so I believe that one person from each division should be represented in the TC. If there is a trade between people from different confrences, then only people not in their respective traders divison could vote. As always it would only take 3 votes. So, there should be 8 total members of the TC, and people cannot vote on trades in their own division, and because of only one person from each division, there will always be 6 others to vote. And for example, because there are 4 for each conference, if the vote is 2-2, then the head admin from the opposite league would make the tiebreaker. So if it was a AFC trade and the NFC guys tied at 2-2, then Sox would make the tiebreaker vote. And if there was a tie in a NFC trade, Eaglesfan or ZSirvone would make that vote. All in all it would make the TC are much more fair place.

Um the last part doesn't really make sense.

If it's an AFC trade and the NFC is tied at 2-2, I'd make the vote. But If i was an NFC trade, why would Zsirvone? He is in the NFC. Plus Zoom is the other head admin, so it makes more sense for zoom to do it.

I forgot Z was in the NFC, in another league he was the texans, so im used to him being in th AFC. But in AFC trade u would make the final vote, and lebron in the NFC

What if there are two very active members in the same division: Example: Colts (MK) and Texans (Eagles). So you kick one out? Doesn't make much sense to me, it's like adding layers of bueracracy.

Then only one would be in the TC, and IMO that would be Mksadng. He has been here longer,and knows this league almost more than anyone. Having that system would leave everything on a even playing field, and even though some think there is one now, I disagree.

I really don't like the thought of removing one of the more knowledgable TC members and highly active member for the sake of what you believe will be "parity". I really haven't seen what you say is division trades being denied for the sake of being denied.

Ruskie89 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

Ruskie89 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

SoxNats07 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

I dont know, but i have always seemed to think that people on the TC turn down trades that really help people in their division. IDK if its true, just something that has been bothering me for a long time. Also, I think that the TC should be mixed up. For example: If there is a trade between two teams from the NFC, only TC members from the AFC can vote, and vice versa. And also, that would make the TC larger, so I believe that one person from each division should be represented in the TC. If there is a trade between people from different confrences, then only people not in their respective traders divison could vote. As always it would only take 3 votes. So, there should be 8 total members of the TC, and people cannot vote on trades in their own division, and because of only one person from each division, there will always be 6 others to vote. And for example, because there are 4 for each conference, if the vote is 2-2, then the head admin from the opposite league would make the tiebreaker. So if it was a AFC trade and the NFC guys tied at 2-2, then Sox would make the tiebreaker vote. And if there was a tie in a NFC trade, Eaglesfan or ZSirvone would make that vote. All in all it would make the TC are much more fair place.

Um the last part doesn't really make sense.

If it's an AFC trade and the NFC is tied at 2-2, I'd make the vote. But If i was an NFC trade, why would Zsirvone? He is in the NFC. Plus Zoom is the other head admin, so it makes more sense for zoom to do it.

I forgot Z was in the NFC, in another league he was the texans, so im used to him being in th AFC. But in AFC trade u would make the final vote, and lebron in the NFC

What if there are two very active members in the same division: Example: Colts (MK) and Texans (Eagles). So you kick one out? Doesn't make much sense to me, it's like adding layers of bueracracy.

Then only one would be in the TC, and IMO that would be Mksadng. He has been here longer,and knows this league almost more than anyone. Having that system would leave everything on a even playing field, and even though some think there is one now, I disagree.

I really don't like the thought of removing one of the more knowledgable TC members and highly active member for the sake of what you believe will be "parity". I really haven't seen what you say is division trades being denied for the sake of being denied.

I agree, can you blame EF90 for being a good TC member? That's like saying just because he has the Texans, he can't be on TC.

I think it would be a shame to not have EF90 on TC, he is about as good as it gets. (and it would be a shame if MK got booted off to keep him)
This is the TC that the league voted for.

If people could point to specific examples then week could look in to the issue . Still while people may think the TC members are serving their own interest, both EF90 and myself have had several trades voted down recently.

For the most part, TC is quite consistent and is good at notifying members on rule changes or adjusting trade evaluations. They have dedicated, knowlegeable GMs who are not afraid to speak their minds.

I have been in ALOT of leagues and I know that this one is the most fair, the most "democratic" and the best at giving each and every member an oppurtunity to help out. This all starts with the Trade Council, who has embodied what a well functioning league should be like. They know the NFL better than most others on the site, are experienced in Sim Leagues, and are dedicated.

I dont really know how to make the TC much better, and I think that by accusing them of cheating (almost) isnt logical. Thats just my opinion though.

I think some issues may arise, because people can't see how the votes play out.

There was a recent Brown's/ Falcons trade that was Denied 1-3.

Now not knowing who voted you could look and say there we two members of the same division on the TC with their own agenda, but in fact one didn't vote on this deal and the lone yes vote came from me.

I personally stand by all my votes. While names are not attached when the reasonings are made available, I am willing to have my name attached to mine. The TC has been working hard to be fair to all trades. If there are specific instances where someone believes the TC was forwarding its own individual agenda, refer it to the Admins, so it can be resolved.

catspajamas wrote:

Then only one would be in the TC, and IMO that would be Mksadng. He has been here longer,and knows this league almost more than anyone. Having that system would leave everything on a even playing field, and even though some think there is one now, I disagree.

You obviously don't know my background

But I guess if we do eventually go with this idea, and lose me on TC, I would have no problem with it as long as you thought it was for the betterment of the league.

If we did decide to do this plan, I think here would be our representatives:

AFC East: silva or dragon
AFC North: Ruskie
AFC South: MK or EF90
AFC West: Zoom
NFC East: SoxNats
NFC North: DC
NFC South: Simszilla
NFC West: Max

Should we poll it?

eaglesfan90 wrote:

catspajamas wrote:

Then only one would be in the TC, and IMO that would be Mksadng. He has been here longer,and knows this league almost more than anyone. Having that system would leave everything on a even playing field, and even though some think there is one now, I disagree.

You obviously don't know my background

But I guess if we do eventually go with this idea, and lose me on TC, I would have no problem with it as long as you thought it was for the betterment of the league.

Well you are right i dont know you, but I know MK, and I know he is a great member.

SoxNats07 wrote:

If we did decide to do this plan, I think here would be our representatives:

AFC East: silva or dragon
AFC North: Ruskie
AFC South: MK or EF90
AFC West: Zoom
NFC East: SoxNats
NFC North: DC
NFC South: Simszilla
NFC West: Max

Should we poll it?

Do what you do Mr. Sox

SoxNats07 wrote:

If we did decide to do this plan, I think here would be our representatives:

AFC East: silva or dragon
AFC North: Ruskie
AFC South: MK or EF90
AFC West: Zoom
NFC East: SoxNats
NFC North: DC
NFC South: Simszilla
NFC West: Max

Should we poll it?

Well actually i was thinking that You and Lebron wouldnt be on TC, you guys would be the tiebreakers, not because you would mess shit up, just because if it was tied 2-2 and you were on it who would be the tiebreaker. I would have Flashback in the AFC West and nerd in the east. nothing against you guys, dont take it personal, but hey, its up to Sox, either way i would be happy, just my opinion