Proposal Updating SPL/SCL Trade Rules


formerly rozes
is a Top Tutoris a Super Moderatoris a Social Media Contributor Alumnusis a Community Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnusis a Past WCoP Champion
NU Leader
hey, for those not following there was quite a bit of drama this past spl regarding trades and their current state in spl. the main issue seemed to stem from the fact that a team was preforming pretty poorly going into mids, and seemed to have given up for the most part from the outside looking in. they were also just asking for/being asked to make all kinds of trades with their players, and it created unideal situations where the hosts were put in a tough spot with having to allow/veto multiple trades that were proposed. thats obviously unideal, which begs the questions, is there a better way to do it?

in the current system a team that is basically out can have players on them that still wish to compete, and can create pretty unfair and one sided trades that are obvious from the outside, but value/price wise they can add up and it just comes down to subjective reasoning more or less from the hosts on whether or not to allow certain trades, since there is no good objective metric.

the most nuclear option is to just nuke trades altogether from the tournament, as this would make it so players would not even be able to cancer early draft/right after drafts and force managers to be more careful with planning/drafting as they will not be able to "undo"/make deals in order to fix any mistakes they made during the draft. while this is the simplest solution, i still think trades are a valuable part of this tournament, and would hope this is considered a more last resort option.

a less nuclear option is to just move up the trade deadline to either before week 1, or at the end of week 1. before week 1 at least lets auction trades still occur, and can help if a player isnt the best fit in a team chat, or some issues come up that are easily resolvable by a trade prior to the season starting. having it before week 2 still allows teams to consider some options if a player isnt prepping/playing well/isnt fitting in with the team and it becomes obvious during that week, but it removes the issue of teams that are out shipping out their players.

the final option is something Eo Ut Mortus proposed in the commencement thread ill just quote:
If someone doesn't manage to push through a motion to abolish trades in their entirety, the value of assets traded or liquidated during the season should be capped. If you trade away your star 35k player or three of your 12k players, then it's not really the team you originally built, is it? Especially on these reduced-size, ten-starter rosters. A side-effect of this would be prohibiting any trades involving players whose auction value exceeds the cap, and that seems to solve another problem we're encountering this season (and have historically), which is highly priced players acting like divas in an attempt to be shipped off to winning teams.
im sure there are other solutions as well, but i just wanted to post this with the three more "obvious" ones, and want to get it up asap as this will also probably be implemented for SCL if it follows the SPL auction format.
A lot of questions came up regarding trades throughout SPL XII. The hosting team worked off of mostly precedent, but given that documentation for trades is difficult to find, it would be ideal for future SPLs and possibly SCL to come up with a solid determination on these.

1) Trading vs the team you're playing that week
Situation: The point of not allowing teams playing each other to trade is to avoid any potential conflict of interests, but it has some additional restrictions that aren't imposed on teams not playing each other (see the linked post for more info on this).​

The linked admin decision was a temporary workaround, but I don't see any problems with its implementation as a permanent solution for SPL / SCL.

2) Requiring player agreement to trades

Situation: Details of a veto'd trade were leaked, and one of the players listed in the trade was not happy to have been involved. This led to a tenuous situation where the player and managers had a falling out. Thankfully, it resolved itself, but we (hosting team) dodged a messy situation where a player doesn't want to play for the managers that just expressed interest in trading them away and the managers report an uncooperative player. If player agreement to trades was required, this situation could've been avoided or at the very least mitigated. In SPL IX, player agreement was required.​
I don't think we should require player agreement for trades. We trust managers to make the right decisions for their team to maximize competitiveness. If that includes trading a player away to patch up holes in the team, then that decision should ultimately fall on the manager, not the player. It's also a stretch to say that requiring player agreement would completely eliminate the chance of the above situation happening.

Speaking as a host, though, I would absolutely hate to deal with the above situation because there's really no good answer, and player agreement reduces the likelihood of it coming up. Furthermore, player agreement could help protect against the trades shiloh mentions in the OP.

Regardless, this is a detail we should work out and make an indefinitely permanent decision on, given the relatively recent occurrence where it was implemented. If we continue with not requiring player agreement, there should definitely be a discussion on how to handle above cases.

3) Trading a player the same week that they play

Situation: A manager approached the SPL XII hosting team about if it was legal to have a player play and then trade them afterwards. There was precedent from SPL XI about this being legal, so it was given approval. Other than it looking kind of distasteful (...), there are some implementation concerns. What if the player involved plays close to the deadline, ties, rematches, and finishes their battle after the deadline passes? Does the trade still go through for the previous week?​
It's a well known rule that once a player has been traded, they cannot play for the remainder of that week. What is not as well established is the reverse - can a player play at all the week they're traded? Precedent says yes, but there doesn't appear to be any formal ruling on it.

I think the hosting team internally disagreed on this issue (tagging Merritt for his opinion). Mine is that there's a non-negligible chance you're an asshole for squeezing out one more game + prep + maybe support out of someone you want to trade, but other than that I don't see a policy reason to not allow it.

As for the issue of timing, we told the managers to set a time that the trade goes through. If the player to be traded's game is in progress, the trade is nullified, otherwise it'll go through regardless of whether the game is completed or not. I don't believe this is good for permanent implementation.

My hope in posting these is that the TDs can make a decision on them and they'll be solidly put in the Commencement Thread for future SPLs. Hopefully posting them here doesn't split discussion into too many ways.

re: the OP
in the current system a team that is basically out can have players on them that still wish to compete, and can create pretty unfair and one sided trades that are obvious from the outside, but value/price wise they can add up and it just comes down to subjective reasoning more or less from the hosts on whether or not to allow certain trades, since there is no good objective metric.
This pretty much nails it on the head, with the added caveat that what's obvious to the public isn't always what is actually the situation either.

The trades being referred to here are the Tigers-Ruiners trade from Week 4 and the Scooters-Ruiners trade from Week 5. With the W4 trade, there were legitimate factors (see the section of "constructive criticism") motivating this trade, not Ruiners trying to donate somebody to the Tigers. I get that it's less apparent with the W5 trade, but clearly there were reasons for the Scooters to make the trade that they did too.

While everyone sees and knows the two trades that we did approve, what's much less known are the ~9 others that we vetoed. Because we don't post about vetoed trades. In all of those cases, we had reason - not even necessarily ironclad reason, as was pointed out by some of the rejected managers - to believe that those trades were not about both teams looking to strengthen themselves. So we vetoed them.

So yeah I resent the notion that any of this was at all black and white (not that the OP pushes this narrative), and I question what changes could've possibly taken place to “prevent” this without giving hosts more subjective discretion, which all of you seem to despise whenever it happens.
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 0)