I know that we have already closed the trading draft picks vote and thread, but I thought I would give in my 2 cents even if it means nothing. I had some major issues with my restaurant (yes during Super Bowl week, which is not good for a wing restaurant), and did not have any time to make a post about why I think that we should have enacted the ban on trading first round picks.
First, I do agree with many of the points that Mack made in his well put together post. I do think this is being paternalistic, I do think this hampers some teams ability to put together a team and to a lesser extent, it will delay trades (which I do not think is a big deal at all).
I think the bigger point above all of these is for the betterment of the league. In this game, more than most other types of games out there, it is so very easy for the experienced owner to take advantage of new owners, and I think that the ban of first round picks would have helped curb this just a little bit.
Mack (and I am just using him as an example, not trying to single him out) knows more about this game than someone who just rolled up and fired up the game for the first time. Therefore, he knows that sometimes you need to give up on this season so you can get to win 9 Cecil Cups in the following 15 seasons.
A new owner might think how can I get this 120 loss team into the playoffs next season, which is next to impossible. He might trade away his next 3 first round picks (probably going to be in the top 5 or better) to get that aging superstar who is signed for the next 6 seasons for loads of money, but most of the rest of the league that has been around knows that there is only 1 season max of usefulness. Or, we might get someone in the league who does not care. And therefore he is going to trade everything off because he/she does not care and leave the league in a worst place, but they don't care they stopped checking or updating their team seasons ago.
Now I know, you are thinking that this does not happen that often, but it does, over and over and over again. I know I have benefited from this and so have others in the league. So while I do agree with some of what Mack said in his post. I think that the better interest of league and just to give new owners time to get up to speed before they trade all of their draft picks away we should have enacted the rule. It takes a while to get up to speed and this rule would have helped that.
Ok, I know I am late to the party, but I thought I would give my thoughts anyways and you guys can ignore it or read it if you like.
Cheers,
Jeremy
what you say Jeremy makes sense how about just give the new owner a 2 or 3 month time to get used to the game and have Zev and Michael keep a eye on that to help out any new owners unless they have or are playing the game already
ReplyDeleteYep, I know they do, they do a great job that is for sure. I just think that sometimes our need to get on to the next season or sim trumps that learning curve.
ReplyDeleteJust to throw a half-baked (nay, quarter-baked) idea out there, what about a first-season advisory period for new owners? The first game year that somebody joins the league, all trades are subject, in the discretion of Zev and Michael, to a one-sim delay. During that sim, the prospective trade will be posted to the blog and other owners can offer their comments or thoughts to the new owner.
ReplyDeleteIf, at the end of the comment period, the new owner still wants to go through with the deal, such is life. But, it would give the league a chance to convince the new owner that he shouldn't trade his first-round pick or best prospect to a more established team.
It's not a permanent league veto (which is far more paternalistic than the rule that was just voted down). All it does is put the brakes on a proposed deal, if Zev and Michael think it's problematic, long enough for the other owners to try to change the new owners' mind.
This may be a terrible idea, as it could certainly lead to hard feelings between teams, but maybe it protects against what some owners perceive as a serious problem.
Mack, I think that might work. I would be worried about how the comments on the blog are though. Would not want to run someone off because of the way they are treated in a blog post, not matter how horrible their trade would have been.
ReplyDeleteI also agree, I am very against a veto option.
Good idea, Mack, but how about this?
ReplyDeleteHow about something like, when a new owner makes a trade, both owners in the deal should explain their justification of the deal in their confirmation emails to Zev and me. Then, if Zev and I have any doubts or suspicions, we can post it publicly and ask for feedback from owners via email (to protect privacy) before a deal is rejected.
Michael that makes total sense...i think that makes a good idea
ReplyDeleteI think I can agree with that Michael
ReplyDeleteCan I add this point to that suggestion Michael commented about. Last year I made trades I knew were bad... I had a team with either high priced vets who were either always hurt or not living up to there contracts and I knew that the only way most teams would take those players was taking less talent. I don't think other owners should have a say in trades just like I don't think the comish's should either. Owners should get a crash course by themselves, cause thats the only way they will learn not to do it again.
ReplyDeleteJohn, I agree with you. But the fact is, the league is in this mess because Mack has always been the first to contact the new owners and has always ended up with their first round pick or best prospects for the following season for one reason or another. He can always take on salary or trade 10 mediocre players that he does not need for the one stud, and he is there to make the trade. Some of the rest of us cannot do that so we keep puttering along. Mack is very good at this game and has taken loads of time to get that good. There is no issue with that, but just sitting by and keep allowing him to rack up the best prospects and draft picks from new owners that don't know any better, we just can't sit by anymore and let that happen. It is not because we want to penalize the new owners, or Mack, because anyone can do this, we just want to make it an even playing field, which is not easy.
ReplyDelete