shiloh
Tiering Lead
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:
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:
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.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.