gr33n's proposal sounds fine to me.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
2013 Smogon Fantasy Hockey
- Thread starter Carl
- Start date
Precisely what Gr33n said is the exact reason I wanted some form of additional compensation. I give up two players with huge upside for two older players. I want some chance at to pick up at least a middle of the road or even young guy that will allow my team to stay competitive long run.
I guess we have to have 'that' discussion once again. Are we still going to do auction drafts or are we going back to the snake draft?
Without the added compensation, it's almost like you have to give.. to get... weird, right?
Well, you would if that's the cost of "winning now." Pretty sure NHL teams do this frequently.
But anyway, I was taking a pot shot at your logic behind the trade here considering past offers to not just me but others in the group as well. I feel like you give up a lot in this deal without a good return (with or without "future considerations"), especially when you've been known to ask for a lot without giving up much. However, that's not my place to make judgement nor my decision to swap players as it's not my trade. So for that, I apologize and I'll shut my mouth.
But anyway, I was taking a pot shot at your logic behind the trade here considering past offers to not just me but others in the group as well. I feel like you give up a lot in this deal without a good return (with or without "future considerations"), especially when you've been known to ask for a lot without giving up much. However, that's not my place to make judgement nor my decision to swap players as it's not my trade. So for that, I apologize and I'll shut my mouth.
I think the auction draft with tiered money worked out pretty well this year. I expect next year it will be even more successful since people know they don't have to hoard their money anymore.
If it doesn't get the veto, it is going to be allowed as will subsequent similar trades involving future considerations. I'll say again that I very much dislike allowing this sort of things but I'm only really bitter about it because it isn't something we ever decided as a group. I suppose you forced us to decide now and I stood alone against it. I hope people realize that allowing this trade effectively results in writing a new rule. I'm also annoyed people couldn't freaking see beyond "but it is a fair trade!"
I'm a bit disappointed that nobody else felt a veto was in order and hopefully this has nothing to do with the last veto fiasco we just had. I hope this has nothing to do with people being veto-shy now and everything to do with "I actually want trades involving future considerations to be allowed".
I also wish Synre posted something about this.
Ok, SO, I decided that how I wanted to play this one was that rather than commish vetoing it(which I really should have done anyway) I would let this play out organically. I do not like that the trade essentially would have made policy for the league without us coming to a conclusion here first but since th etrade was pretty well received I let it play out. I figured that if enough people had a problem with it that they would veto it we would obviously end up discussing the policy, and if it didn't get the 1/3 veto then obviously people were OK with. My veto was conveniently the fourth, so let's talk.
I'm actually completely OK with the trade exactly as they were doing it after we get a policy on the board and I'm ok with trading money(not picks, I don't think we'll ever go back to that in this league), but with some specific stipulations that I think you guys should either agree or disagree with(or disagree with the concept entirely, obviously) that the trade they made conveniently doesn't violate:
1) We need some cap and floor on the amount of bonus money a team can get/lose. I'm thinking something like 30%.
2) We need a cap on how far ahead assets can be traded, and I'm probably not going to agree to anything longer than "next year only."
3) I agree with Vineon that trading players from bad teams that have no chance to owners in the hunt is too much of a no-brainer for both sides given the relative costs. I think that all trades involving money would need to be looked at very carefully and are maybe the one case where people should be more aggressive vetoing: specifically, trades involving money need to involve an exchange of probable keepers between both teams so that there's actually loss and risk involved. I don't want to see a bunch of brink upgrades getting traded for money, but I think a keeper downgrade for some money with some other superfluous players involved is fine. Both sides need to be giving something up, I guess is my point.
I'm actually completely OK with the trade exactly as they were doing it after we get a policy on the board and I'm ok with trading money(not picks, I don't think we'll ever go back to that in this league), but with some specific stipulations that I think you guys should either agree or disagree with(or disagree with the concept entirely, obviously) that the trade they made conveniently doesn't violate:
1) We need some cap and floor on the amount of bonus money a team can get/lose. I'm thinking something like 30%.
2) We need a cap on how far ahead assets can be traded, and I'm probably not going to agree to anything longer than "next year only."
3) I agree with Vineon that trading players from bad teams that have no chance to owners in the hunt is too much of a no-brainer for both sides given the relative costs. I think that all trades involving money would need to be looked at very carefully and are maybe the one case where people should be more aggressive vetoing: specifically, trades involving money need to involve an exchange of probable keepers between both teams so that there's actually loss and risk involved. I don't want to see a bunch of brink upgrades getting traded for money, but I think a keeper downgrade for some money with some other superfluous players involved is fine. Both sides need to be giving something up, I guess is my point.
OrbitingDeath
formerly SkylarGreen
You were not alone on your view Vineon - hence my reply of letting the trade continue without the future considerations.
New rules should be agreed upon as a group before trades happen with it.
I'm fine with implementing it as a rule, but I think we should cap the amounts to -20 % and +20 %. So that everyone will still be able to play properly in the auction style.
New rules should be agreed upon as a group before trades happen with it.
I'm fine with implementing it as a rule, but I think we should cap the amounts to -20 % and +20 %. So that everyone will still be able to play properly in the auction style.
Maybe instead of using a % of their cash, we can just go with explicit dollar amount limits. This way it won't be confusing if somebody trades 15% of their cap away to one player, 5% of their cap to another, and then receives 20% of a different persons cap. Assuming $200 is the base value that we all receive, then the max amount anybody can give or receive in a season should be $30. This way no player will have a smaller base value than $170 or a higher base value than $230.
I also think that if we implement the rule of trading cash that we need to give veto power to the commish. It's going to be a pain for people to have to check this thread all of the time to see the full details of every trade and determine whether or not it needs to be vetoed. I highly doubt there is going to be an issue with any trades in our league though.
I also think that if we implement the rule of trading cash that we need to give veto power to the commish. It's going to be a pain for people to have to check this thread all of the time to see the full details of every trade and determine whether or not it needs to be vetoed. I highly doubt there is going to be an issue with any trades in our league though.
30 dollars is 15%. that is like...one trade. 30% should be the bare minimum max allowed, I am okay with allowing as much as 40%.
Chill Murray
get well soon jacoby..
It seems to me that the precedent in this league is two or three individuals coming up with the rules anyway, so I don't think this is such a huge deal. If we want to move to decisions made by committee, though, I'm all for it.
I think it would be simpler if we decided what sort of draft we were going to do before we decide how "future considerations" are defined. Sticking with a tiered auction system seems to have the most support (and is something I'd like to keep as well), so maybe we should figure out how we are going to dole out funds this year. I felt as though there wasn't a big enough difference between finishes this year, and I'd suggest maybe starting at $150 for the winners and going up to $200 for last place finishes.
Once that's figured out, I like the idea of a set amount someone can spend a year. If the max amount for spending is $200 come auction time, the limit for trading could be $25 or $30. We would also have to decide whether or not we can "get back" that portion through trades. For example, team A trades a player to Team B for another player and $10. Team A then trades another player and $5 to Team C for another player. Does Team A get $20 to spend for the rest of the season, or $25, assuming a $30 cap?
I think it would be simpler if we decided what sort of draft we were going to do before we decide how "future considerations" are defined. Sticking with a tiered auction system seems to have the most support (and is something I'd like to keep as well), so maybe we should figure out how we are going to dole out funds this year. I felt as though there wasn't a big enough difference between finishes this year, and I'd suggest maybe starting at $150 for the winners and going up to $200 for last place finishes.
Once that's figured out, I like the idea of a set amount someone can spend a year. If the max amount for spending is $200 come auction time, the limit for trading could be $25 or $30. We would also have to decide whether or not we can "get back" that portion through trades. For example, team A trades a player to Team B for another player and $10. Team A then trades another player and $5 to Team C for another player. Does Team A get $20 to spend for the rest of the season, or $25, assuming a $30 cap?
Yeah, I would actually prefer not being able to trade auction points. I'm OK if it ends up happening but not sure what it really adds, especially if we're upping keepers to 8. I'll gladly dump 30 or 40 points as an added bonus to a trade if I'm getting a fringe keeper worthy player. That cost would most likely still be cheaper than bidding for that same player next season.
pookar
Banned deucer.
yeah i dunno after last draft (i know im new and all) it seemed like there was already "too much" money leftover for everyone, if theres 8 keepers means 20 more players kept = roughly 250 auction dollars less in value still in the draft pool. not sure if im making much sense but i hope i am. of course good GMs will be able to fleece someone by offering future money that may or may not be important come draft day
I don't think it has anything to do with "fleecing." Trading player for player and cash makes the cash aspect a means of downside protection. That is specifically what I was doing with the trade with BC, I took two older guys for two younger guys and wanted a little bit of downside protection in the coming draft because of it.
I would like to take this time to laugh at some of the offers I've been proposed so far for literally the best fantasy hockey player over the past 2 years:
-Bobby Ryan, Jeff Carter, Cam Fowler for Daniel Sedin, Jeff Skinner, Sheldon Souray
-Henrik Zetterberg, PA Parenteau, Ryan Miller for Daniel Sedin, Semyon Varlamov
At this point, you guys are going to have to pretend you are trading for the Ovechkin of 3 years ago to get Daniel.
Edit: To finalize my view on the topics of interest:
1) Stick with the auction draft and tiered money.
2) A player cannot trade or receive more than a total of 15% of the base money (before tiered money is applied). If a player trades 15% of his base money, he can receive 10% of somebody else's base money in a DIFFERENT trade, and then in a THIRD trade he can trade away that same 10%. He will then end up at 85% of the base money.
-Bobby Ryan, Jeff Carter, Cam Fowler for Daniel Sedin, Jeff Skinner, Sheldon Souray
-Henrik Zetterberg, PA Parenteau, Ryan Miller for Daniel Sedin, Semyon Varlamov
At this point, you guys are going to have to pretend you are trading for the Ovechkin of 3 years ago to get Daniel.
Edit: To finalize my view on the topics of interest:
1) Stick with the auction draft and tiered money.
2) A player cannot trade or receive more than a total of 15% of the base money (before tiered money is applied). If a player trades 15% of his base money, he can receive 10% of somebody else's base money in a DIFFERENT trade, and then in a THIRD trade he can trade away that same 10%. He will then end up at 85% of the base money.
Zetterberg may be good for 50 assists per year and 300+ SOG per year, but my current lineup will most likely result with me being #1 in the league for both of those categories already. Sedin is giving me ~15 extra goals and ~10 extra PPP most likely over the course of a year (assuming Zetterberg does not play like garbage for the remainder of the season.)
Miller is certainly a good starting point for the trade, even though he isn't as valuable as he was in years past. Buffalo actually has a competent backup goalie now and Miller will not be getting 65+ starts every year. More like 55-57 starts a year. Varlamov has had a rough couple of games, but he is definitely the guy in Colorado right now and he is still quite young with a lot of potential.
Miller is certainly a good starting point for the trade, even though he isn't as valuable as he was in years past. Buffalo actually has a competent backup goalie now and Miller will not be getting 65+ starts every year. More like 55-57 starts a year. Varlamov has had a rough couple of games, but he is definitely the guy in Colorado right now and he is still quite young with a lot of potential.
OrbitingDeath
formerly SkylarGreen
I wonder when my team will start winning.
gr33n you didn't have to Fail for Nail for real, I didn't know you wanted him that badly =[