Trade Deadline!

[Rob]

Whats the point in increasing trades at the deadline just to increase them? I feel like we are all competent GMs who can weigh the pros and cons of making a trade and make that decision. I do agree that some GMs could be more active and at least respond to messages but those owners may have already decided they intent to stand pat this year with what they have.

I guess my issue is that I see teams that wanted to deal "rental" type players and couldn't find buyers.  And I see teams that should have dealt these types of players that didn't even try.  I feel like their should be a market for that first group and I feel like many didn't even try to sell these types of players because the market for them isn't great (due to the other issues we were mentioning). 

Also in general I'm always in favor of changes that inject energy and promote activity, so as to keep the league healthy and members engaged. 

[shooter47]

But the market for rental players is going to be what the other GMs are willing to trade for. In real like Colorado wanted to trade Matt Duchene for a long time but it took a while before they got a deal they liked.

I looked into a few upgrades for my team but eventually didn't make a deal because I couldn't take on that much in future salary, or I thought they wanted too much for that player and it wasn't a big enough upgrade for me. I agree that we should want owners to be active and engaged in the league. But making changes in the league to increase or decrease the value of rental players to create a market for them doesn't seem like a good solution. This sounds like the government subsidizing an industry just to make the product or service competitive. The price for something should always be what someone else is willing to pay.

[snugerud]

But the market for rental players is going to be what the other GMs are willing to trade for. In real like Colorado wanted to trade Matt Duchene for a long time but it took a while before they got a deal they liked.

Yes and no on this.  IF Colorado continued to hold Duchene his trade value was decreasing because the other GM's knew eventually Duchene is going to walk to FA
What being proposed if very similar.  It doesn't affect the value of one of your assets on a reasonable contract that is locked in for the next 3 years. By all means sit on that player and wait for the deal you want.
In fantasy we aren't dealing with player personalities or being upset that they aren't getting enough playing time.  This is simply a way of mimicking that.

 

I looked into a few upgrades for my team but eventually didn't make a deal because I couldn't take on that much in future salary, or I thought they wanted too much for that player and it wasn't a big enough upgrade for me.

This sums up the issue.  You cant rent a player,  because I would estimate about 95-98% of the players always get extended.  So you are almost never renting a player you are purchasing the them. The team letting them go has to get purchase price not rental.   If the extension rates came down to say 80%-85%

But making changes in the league to increase or decrease the value of rental players to create a market for them doesn't seem like a good solution. This sounds like the government subsidizing an industry just to make the product or service competitive. The price for something should always be what someone else is willing to pay.

I don't see this as devaluing a product but more like creating a competing product.  Leagues have been doing similar on here forever FNHL increases costs to top 20 goalies several times , that to me is far more intrusive when it comes to devaluing a group of players.  At the end of the day nobody is taking the choice to extend or not extend out of the GM's hands.  It just making that choice to extend or not extend a little harder