ProFSL: Pro Fantasy Sports Leagues

Fantasy Leagues => Title Town => Multi-Sport Leagues => Title Town: Archives => Topic started by: Anthony on February 17, 2018, 04:32:51 PM

Title: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Anthony on February 17, 2018, 04:32:51 PM
I want to get some discussion going about trading rules. There's been a lot of turnover, and some opinions about the whole league getting a vote. Wanted to see if that's the best process, or if we should go back to having a TC. There's a handful of trades on the board with almost no votes, so I'm thinking that a lot of people are unclear about the rule.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: chrisetc21 on February 17, 2018, 06:50:28 PM
I favor letting everyone vote.  When there's a TC in the past it's been an issue where certain owners try to get on simply to block trades from their competitors.  Letting everyone vote gives people ownership in their league, it shouldn't be confined to a certain few. 
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Billy on February 17, 2018, 06:56:39 PM
I honestly prefer a TC. It is nearly impossible to actually get the whole league to vote on a trade compared to a 7 person TC. If we go with whole league, at what point would we just approve the trade if it gets to be more than 2 days and not even half the league votes on a trade?
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Anthony on February 17, 2018, 06:59:55 PM
I favor letting everyone vote.  When there's a TC in the past it's been an issue where certain owners try to get on simply to block trades from their competitors.  Letting everyone vote gives people ownership in their league, it shouldn't be confined to a certain few.

Not that I disagree about the ownership part, and I don't have an opinion yet on TC, but letting everyone vote doesn't solve the problem of having people blocking trades from their competitors since 2 vetos kills a trade. Is that a rule that needs to be addressed? I do think that 2 vetos is a good number since 2 of 14 eligible voters having issue with the trade is significant, not to mention usually you only get a handful of votes on trades.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Anthony on February 17, 2018, 07:00:47 PM
I honestly prefer a TC. It is nearly impossible to actually get the whole league to vote on a trade compared to a 7 person TC. If we go with whole league, at what point would we just approve the trade if it gets to be more than 2 days and not even half the league votes on a trade?

Which is my issue with the current system. I want trades to be processes quicker, but just putting a 48 or 72 hour clock won't solve anything if people aren't voting.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: chrisetc21 on February 17, 2018, 07:10:41 PM
Not that I disagree about the ownership part, and I don't have an opinion yet on TC, but letting everyone vote doesn't solve the problem of having people blocking trades from their competitors since 2 vetos kills a trade. Is that a rule that needs to be addressed? I do think that 2 vetos is a good number since 2 of 14 eligible voters having issue with the trade is significant, not to mention usually you only get a handful of votes on trades.

Perhaps three is a better barometer.  I think when you've been in the league a long time, your not voting is just indicative of an approval.  So as long as there's enough time for everyone to see a trade posted, it should just pass unless it has vetoes.  72 hours is plenty of time.  Also, a reminder to people when trades are posted via PM is also a good policy. 
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Mets Donations Accepted on February 23, 2018, 03:29:47 PM
I have no problem with a committee as long as those on it vote. We’re all busy but there’s no reason a trade should sit up for 4-5 days with only a couple of votes
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Jonathan on February 23, 2018, 05:54:21 PM
I'm against a committee too. There is no point here, and like Chris said is creates biases. What about posting the trades as polls? Require comment for Veto.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Anthony on February 23, 2018, 07:30:27 PM
I'm against a committee too. There is no point here, and like Chris said is creates biases. What about posting the trades as polls? Require comment for Veto.

I don't think that improves anything, but I mean I guess if the person creating the trade makes it a poll, we can vote that way.

I don't think as commish I can edit a post to make it a poll if it isn't one to start with.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: blkhwkfn on March 11, 2018, 11:33:40 AM
In general political elections (Local and State) not everyone votes, some skip the process. So in that case we should run it like that if 9 vote and the result is 5 approve and 4 veto then the trade stands. 24 hours is long enough once open the trade to vote. Also when a trade is up for vote a mass pm to the league should be sent, maybe put out beer and cookies. Something simple shouldnt be difficult. Just my 2 cents
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: WestCoastExpress on March 11, 2018, 03:52:33 PM
I think when you've been in the league a long time, your not voting is just indicative of an approval.  So as long as there's enough time for everyone to see a trade posted, it should just pass unless it has vetoes.  72 hours is plenty of time.  Also, a reminder to people when trades are posted via PM is also a good policy.

I'm new here, but not new to trading and vetoes and such.

Realistically, if a trade is bad bad bad, there will be a lot of people that chime in about it.
As Chrisetc said, not voting can often be a sign of approval. If something stands out that we don't like, we'll take the time to say what's on our mind. If it's okay, we couldn't be bothered. From what I've seen on here, when a veto goes down, pretty well all of the other GM's are in agreement that the deal needs to be re-worked. If the trade is ok, sometimes only half or less of the TC actually replies with an approval.

If everyone were active, I would say half of the remaining GM's would have to veto it for it to be a vetoed trade. So in this league's case, 7 of the remaining 14 GM's would have to veto (taking out the 2 GMs making the trade of course).
That said, it seems this league isn't overly active on the voting on trades front (from my short 1-week stint here, with the 4 trades sitting on the board).

So with that said, I'm kind of with blkhwkfn in the sense of thinking bigger picture:

(1) Out of all the votes cast on a trade, majority rules. With the caveat that a tie goes to a veto.
Only problem here is that as mentioned, some people who are indifferent or think a trade is fine, sometimes just don't vote.

(2) Or a set number of of the league (a third) would have to veto. So 5 out of the 14 GM's.
2 people, or even 3 for that matter, having an issue with a trade seems like a low number.
It should be a significant portion of the league.


Perhaps a 48 hour window though instead of 24 hours, as we're all in different time zones and have varying busy schedules. 1 day could be tight, sometime I'm not on here for 20-hours at a time and I'm sure I'm not the only one... But 2 full days is plenty of time.
*And that 48-hour clock starts when one of the league mod's sends a PM out to everyone in the league that there's a trade that needs to be looked at on on the Transactions board.
(Mod could easily change the title of the thread stating expiry date/time also, so it's clear).

At the end of the day, there's really no "correct" formula in free fantasy leagues for how trades should be judged, and accepted or vetoed.

We do have to remember that it's free fantasy we're talking about here too. This isn't life or death, and we're not messing with athletes' actual lives and families here.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: blkhwkfn on March 11, 2018, 04:01:15 PM
I'm new here, but not new to trading and vetoes and such.

Realistically, if a trade is bad bad bad, there will be a lot of people that chime in about it.
As Chrisetc said, not voting can often be a sign of approval. If something stands out that we don't like, we'll take the time to say what's on our mind. If it's okay, we couldn't be bothered. From what I've seen on here, when a veto goes down, pretty well all of the other GM's are in agreement that the deal needs to be re-worked. If the trade is ok, sometimes only half or less of the TC actually replies with an approval.

If everyone were active, I would say half of the remaining GM's would have to veto it for it to be a vetoed trade. So in this league's case, 7 of the remaining 14 GM's would have to veto (taking out the 2 GMs making the trade of course).
That said, it seems this league isn't overly active on the voting on trades front (from my short 1-week stint here, with the 4 trades sitting on the board).

So with that said, I'm kind of with blkhwkfn in the sense of thinking bigger picture:

(1) Out of all the votes cast on a trade, majority rules. With the caveat that a tie goes to a veto.
Only problem here is that as mentioned, some people who are indifferent or think a trade is fine, sometimes just don't vote.

(2) Or a set number of of the league (a third) would have to veto. So 5 out of the 14 GM's.
2 people, or even 3 for that matter, having an issue with a trade seems like a low number.
It should be a significant portion of the league.


Perhaps a 48 hour window though instead of 24 hours, as we're all in different time zones and have varying busy schedules. 1 day could be tight, sometime I'm not on here for 20-hours at a time and I'm sure I'm not the only one... But 2 full days is plenty of time.
*And that 48-hour clock starts when one of the league mod's sends a PM out to everyone in the league that there's a trade that needs to be looked at on on the Transactions board.
(Mod could easily change the title of the thread stating expiry date/time also, so it's clear).

At the end of the day, there's really no "correct" formula in free fantasy leagues for how trades should be judged, and accepted or vetoed.

We do have to remember that it's free fantasy we're talking about here too. This isn't life or death, and we're not messing with athletes' actual lives and families here.
:iatp:  Dilly Dilly
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Jonathan on March 11, 2018, 11:38:36 PM
48 hours in season seems the right way to go. 

Seems like a small group (4-5) are actually voting. I'm not quite sure why its all the new GM's voting and none of the guys who have been around. Seems like it should be the other way around.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: blkhwkfn on March 12, 2018, 07:42:24 AM
48 hours in season seems the right way to go. 

Seems like a small group (4-5) are actually voting. I'm not quite sure why its all the new GM's voting and none of the guys who have been around. Seems like it should be the other way around.
:iatp:
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Anthony on March 12, 2018, 07:31:23 PM
Good discussion going. We will move forward with making a change after baseball free agency is finished. It's been a rush getting that going over the last few weeks so when it's done, I want to use that down time to make any rule/procedural changes.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: chrisetc21 on March 12, 2018, 08:20:16 PM
I think one thing is clear to me in that we need a trade deadline before the end of the regular season.  Perhaps two weeks before the end.  Teams loading up with players right at the end of the entire season is always something that has seemed like an odd way to do things.  The season should matter, not just have these huge deals happen right at the end that change the balance of the season.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: WestCoastExpress on March 12, 2018, 08:29:20 PM
I think one thing is clear to me in that we need a trade deadline before the end of the regular season.  Perhaps two weeks before the end.  Teams loading up with players right at the end of the entire season is always something that has seemed like an odd way to do things.  The season should matter, not just have these huge deals happen right at the end that change the balance of the season.

While I somewhat agree, but also kind of like that the deadline is right up until the playoffs.
Allows more teams to really figure out if they're buyers or sellers, which generally gets more trades going.

If more teams are "in the hunt" for playoffs, and the trade deadline is too early, then no one's going to make moves.
As it is there weren't really many trades, which leads me to believe that trade deadline right before playoffs is actually quite fine.

If teams want to sell young players and prospects for veterans before the playoffs, I see no reason to stop them. Getting an extra guy or two isn't going to necessarily make or break a team's playoff run. In fantasy playoffs, anything can happen.

From what I've seen, the more time to make trades in here, the better. Keeps people a little more engaged for an extra week or two at the very least.

**FYI - speaking solely for the hockey portion of this league
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: chrisetc21 on March 12, 2018, 08:41:53 PM
While I somewhat agree, but also kind of like that the deadline is right up until the playoffs.
Allows more teams to really figure out if they're buyers or sellers, which generally gets more trades going.

If more teams are "in the hunt" for playoffs, and the trade deadline is too early, then no one's going to make moves.
As it is there weren't really many trades, which leads me to believe that trade deadline right before playoffs is actually quite fine.

If teams want to sell young players and prospects for veterans before the playoffs, I see no reason to stop them. Getting an extra guy or two isn't going to necessarily make or break a team's playoff run. In fantasy playoffs, anything can happen.

From what I've seen, the more time to make trades in here, the better. Keeps people a little more engaged for an extra week or two at the very least.

**FYI - speaking solely for the hockey portion of this league

If after several months you're not "in the hunt" with two weeks left then you're not in the hunt.   :o

 :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: WestCoastExpress on March 12, 2018, 08:58:28 PM
If after several months you're not "in the hunt" with two weeks left then you're not in the hunt.

Again, just speaking for hockey in my short time, but the standings were pretty bunched up for making playoffs.

The last 2 weeks of matchups made or broke some teams making and missing the playoffs.

2 teams had the same records as me and missed the playoffs, while I'm in the 4th seed right now.

I find that if teams aren't making playoffs, they're (hopefully) trying to get as many picks and prospects as they can to rebuild their teams up (ie. NYI franchise).
If you take that away from them with a trade deadline too far away from playoffs, they have literally zero reason to be on the hockey site until the summer for the draft and FA.
That's a long time to have off ... To lose interest in the hockey team all together and forget about it.

I don't really see it being an issue in the hockey league. If anything it benefits the few active hockey managers who are making trades - more so the ones who want to rebuild up their teams gaining the young assets.

Maybe it's a bigger issue in the other sports leagues here though. But there were what, 3 trades close to the deadline in NHL, and from what I've heard, those were the first 3 trades in a really long time in the hockey portion of this league too.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Jonathan on March 13, 2018, 12:19:03 AM
I'd propose a month before playoffs. In RL its actually more than a month.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: blkhwkfn on March 13, 2018, 04:43:41 PM
Again, just speaking for hockey in my short time, but the standings were pretty bunched up for making playoffs.

The last 2 weeks of matchups made or broke some teams making and missing the playoffs.

2 teams had the same records as me and missed the playoffs, while I'm in the 4th seed right now.

I find that if teams aren't making playoffs, they're (hopefully) trying to get as many picks and prospects as they can to rebuild their teams up (ie. NYI franchise).
If you take that away from them with a trade deadline too far away from playoffs, they have literally zero reason to be on the hockey site until the summer for the draft and FA.
That's a long time to have off ... To lose interest in the hockey team all together and forget about it.

I don't really see it being an issue in the hockey league. If anything it benefits the few active hockey managers who are making trades - more so the ones who want to rebuild up their teams gaining the young assets.

Maybe it's a bigger issue in the other sports leagues here though. But there were what, 3 trades close to the deadline in NHL, and from what I've heard, those were the first 3 trades in a really long time in the hockey portion of this league too.
I agree with this. Look as I said in the Q&A section (not to be confused with T&A) NHL and MLB are similar as in player development and the NHL minor league (AHL) needs to be expanded to at least 25. In doing this you will add value to draft picks. Not only that but you can build sustained success through the draft picks you made. Other wise you will continue to wait 8 to 12 hours between picks because there is no room on the AHL roster to make a pick (Skipped picks or no shows). I agree there needs to be a deadline and a month before the end of the season sounds workable. For you MLB guys just think if you only had 10 spots in the minors..........just my 2 cents. getting pretty close to a dollar now
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Jonathan on March 13, 2018, 05:37:27 PM
I agree with this. Look as I said in the Q&A section (not to be confused with T&A) NHL and MLB are similar as in player development and the NHL minor league (AHL) needs to be expanded to at least 25. In doing this you will add value to draft picks. Not only that but you can build sustained success through the draft picks you made. Other wise you will continue to wait 8 to 12 hours between picks because there is no room on the AHL roster to make a pick (Skipped picks or no shows). I agree there needs to be a deadline and a month before the end of the season sounds workable. For you MLB guys just think if you only had 10 spots in the minors..........just my 2 cents. getting pretty close to a dollar now

MLB is a little more complex than NHL. They're similar in that they both have development leagues that lead to the pro league, but is sheer numbers, its not really that close. I'd shoot for 15-20.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: blkhwkfn on March 13, 2018, 06:01:45 PM
MLB is a little more complex than NHL. They're similar in that they both have development leagues that lead to the pro league, but is sheer numbers, its not really that close. I'd shoot for 15-20.
Complex in number of positions I agree on that, I would be happy with 20. Still focused on the value of the draft picks and prospects influence on trades
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: WestCoastExpress on March 13, 2018, 06:44:34 PM
Minors needs to be expanded, especially because we can bid on prospects through FA throughout the season with the PC bids. Makes a big difference.

In that sense draft picks aren't AS valuable though, as the only new blood that comes in is the most recent draft class. Literally any other player could be bid on for a PC up until the deadline.

Don't get me wrong though - I like minors spots as much as the next guy.
But again look at the activity in here. It's not a FNHL or DNHL where everyone or 90% of the GM's are "in the know" for hockey. There might be 25% of the GM's that really know their stuff, maybe a few more, but those are the ones that are going to be hand picking and getting solid FA's through PC's. The draft, anyone can auto-draft a 1st round draftee or 2nd round for that matter (which would be a 1st round NHL'er in here) and get lucky. The real benefit and skill is finding those NCAA gems as they progress or overage CHL kids that develop late and bidding on them with PC's.

I think 15 would be plenty. It keeps the FA crop (PC crop that is) with at least some talent left. I would LOVE to have 30, but you also have to make some hard decisions at some point. You can't just hold onto 30 guys and hope that 10 of them turn into studs.

To increase the value of draft picks....
Jon already mentioned it to me, but we should be allowing any players with 0 NHL games played to be drafted in the draft. Not just the 2018 draft class. That right there would increase the value of draft picks a ton.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: chrisetc21 on March 14, 2018, 02:56:36 AM
I agree the hockey minors should be expanded.  Going from 10 to 30 might be a bit much, 20 might be a better fit,
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: Anthony on March 14, 2018, 02:46:21 PM
My take on this league is that I want to keep everything as simple as possible. Being a 4 sport with contracts, it's already pretty complex enough. Hockey is clearly the least known of the sports so I don't want to make it more complicated, and I think that the more minor roster spots, the more complex it becomes. This favors owners who know more about hockey.

With that being said, with contraction, there's more prospects in the pool now. I would support a slight uptick in NHL minor leaguers. No more than 20 though, with my preference being 15.
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: blkhwkfn on March 14, 2018, 06:40:25 PM
My take on this league is that I want to keep everything as simple as possible. Being a 4 sport with contracts, it's already pretty complex enough. Hockey is clearly the least known of the sports so I don't want to make it more complicated, and I think that the more minor roster spots, the more complex it becomes. This favors owners who know more about hockey.

With that being said, with contraction, there's more prospects in the pool now. I would support a slight uptick in NHL minor leaguers. No more than 20 though, with my preference being 15.
HA I feel like that about MLB but I am willing to learn LMAO. I would be ecstatic with 20 spots
Title: Re: Trading rules discussion
Post by: WestCoastExpress on March 14, 2018, 06:52:22 PM
Hockey is clearly the least known of the sports so I don't want to make it more complicated, and I think that the more minor roster spots, the more complex it becomes. This favors owners who know more about hockey.

With that being said, with contraction, there's more prospects in the pool now. I would support a slight uptick in NHL minor leaguers. No more than 20 though, with my preference being 15.

I think 15 would be good for this coming year, maybe moving to 20 for the 2019-20 season.

Not sure what's going on with the whole contraction thing too - 4 teams were dropped, correct? Not sure what ones those are anymore, as the original post said Toronto was one of them.

Also as a note, yes, some of the GM's don't know hockey that well or it's the 4th out of the 4 sports that we do... But someone like me or blkhwkfn who know hockey quite well, probably don't know the other sports as well.
I'm half decent now at baseball and basketball due to being in leagues on this site the past little while, but football I know zero about, outside of Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Cam Newton, and the rest of the big names. I couldn't even tell you the #1 prospect or whatever from the NCAA.

But to be fair, the only reason I found out about baseball and basketball prospects is this thing called Google. Baseball America top-100 prospects is what I went of for Baseball, and I think just the summaries on the drafted players on the NBA website following the draft (like who they compare to in the NBA, what their strengths and weaknesses are). It's not rocket science with Google to find out prospects in sports.

For hockey, I know the players a bit more with World Juniors, and CHL hockey on TV. I imagine it's the same for you guys down south with NCAA football on TV all day every day, NCAA basketball is huge too, and maybe even college baseball on TV to a lesser extent (or major extent, who knows). In Canada it's all hockey hockey hockey.

Anyways, got a bit off topic.

Point is, just because hockey is the least known across the board for the most part, doesn't mean the minors or rules should be adjusted. That's why it's a 4-sport league, right? Everyone will have their strengths and weaknesses!

And there's zero chance you get me in this league outside of hockey. Way too much time it looks like trying to run 4 teams!