ATD2025 Trade Thread

[Habsfan18]

That would be better and more in line with previous deals. I would be ok with that.

His second pick moves back 7 slots and suddenly it's fine and in line with other trades? That's essentially still the same exact trade. A tad bit better I suppose.

Again, I'm just calling it for what it is. Horrible value (IMO) for an OTC pick where someone moves up 41 slots. A clear winner. But as HT18 said, that doesn't necessarily mean veto worthy. I just don't like it.

If anyone wants to make a similar trade, shoot me a PM lol.

 

[Hitru]

Lets say that I don't see it being different enough compared to some other trades accepted and more in line with general 2-1 structure. I still would not do it myself, but that's not reason to veto it or hold out the draft IMO.

 

[ImporterExporter]

BB, love you bud, but that's really slanted in your favor for an OTC pick. Moving up 2 entire rounds, now, vs dropping say a 3rd liner to a 4th liner or #4D to a bottom pairing player is just too much of a win for you vs Dr. Pepper.

I'm not against moving up this far, people should be allowed to make whatever kind of jump/drop they want, but to move up that far, now, requires more give on your end.

If this was say a 20 spot jump, the return would be ok, doable.

Any chance you can re-work it? I think it would make everyone across the board feel better about the situation.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm giving up a massive drop from 240s to the 320s on a core player. My Top 6 F and Top 4 D are all drafted already, and I am neither drafting a G or a coach here. I am drafting a 3rd liner, in exchange for sacrificing another 3rd liner. This is enough as far as I am concerned, if you guys veto it, then live with the precedent.

This "OTC" thing is largely irrelevant here, I offered the same deal to other people.

So no, I am not reworking this trade and giving more. If the deal is vetoed, so be it.

 

[nabby12]

Veto.

It's very clear enough people don't like the trade as it sits right now.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Delete corrected below

 

[ImporterExporter]

This shouldn’t be overlooked. This trade will allow DP to draft his entire 3rd line at once if he so chooses.

I think this is relevant as well now that I have had a few moments to think it over. While I definitely think BB is getting the better "value" because players drafted now are going to certainly be, in almost any case, better, than those drafted a few rounds from now, it would be a larger problem if we we're doing this kind of deal 4-5 rounds ago.

And this isn't Dr. Pepper's first draft and his mindset should be taken into account. He gets to clump 3 picks near one another to address multiple spots, whereas BB gets his guy here but also sacrifices a very long wait to continue building.

I'll allow it, though I will say, we should be using this kind of a deal as a benchmark for where the line in the sand might be moving forward.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Delete corrected below

 

[BenchBrawl]

Let's face it, all this shit stirred up is because it was me doing this deal.

This is not close to be draft-breaking.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Delete corrected below

 

[BenchBrawl]

Correction, the initial trade was 73%, the re-worked trade is 90%

Yeah, but I give 90% of my next pick in this one, whereas yesterday I diluted it to my next two picks.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

PS: This is a large reason why I always vote for No Trades

 

[ImporterExporter]

Let's face it, all this shit stirred up is because it was me doing this deal.

This is not close to be draft-breaking.

I think that's unfair. I know I've been raked over the coals multiple times over the years when trading has been allowed.

Plenty of red flags have gone up in the years we've had trading and many of those red flags didn't involve you as a GM. It could have been any 2 GM's making this kind of deal and I do believe the same response would have transpired. Just trying to be as genuine as I can my friend.

As HT said, it's unfortunately the nature of the beast when trading is green lit. There are always a few moments that end up boiling over to one degree or another.

I'm ok with this trade. I would veto it if it were being done say 3, 4, 5 rounds ago when 2nd lines and 2nd pairings were still being largely ironed out. I do think we're getting close to the line in the sand but it's not draft breaking and it's not worth having a day long fight over IMHO.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Maybe it would help to look at this as a 3 piece trade?

204 (11th), 287th (15th), 324th (17th)
245 (13th), 246 (13th), 287th (15th)

+41, -41, -37

(the 287s cancel each other out)

This make my previous post incorrect, the return is coming 83 picks later here also. Similar to the trade yesterday, but a larger number of picks and slightly smaller return

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Looking at it from a Roster perspective:

Last piece of a 2nd Line or #4 D + 4th Liner or Bottom Pair D

for

Second piece of a 3rd Line + Second piece of a 3rd Line

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

To be clear, I don't care whether this trade goes through or not, just trying to post some things to help us analyze it

 

[BenchBrawl]

Nvm, yep this is how it would look.

 

[ImporterExporter]

So where are we officially lol?

I said let it go through. We have a definite veto from nabby and a handful of non-committals.

I wager we still need at least 2 more folks to yay/nay this so we can move onward.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I respect the people in BB's division abstaining. Agree, more feedback would be helpful.

GMs that voted for trading, please chime in

 

[BenchBrawl]

I do apologize for the delay, I wasn't expecting it to turn out like this when I made the deal.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Let's face it, all this shit stirred up is because it was me doing this deal.

This is not close to be draft-breaking.

This made me think of something. First, to be clear, I don’t think anyone has anything against you or would veto a trade because of the GM involved, but I do wonder if this has anything to do with the trade from yesterday. To most people that was clearly in your favor and so is this one. Maybe subconsciously it was the fact that this was the second one that made people more resistant? And honestly, I’m not even sure how something like that should be handled.

Just speaking in general terms and not about these trades specifically, the easy first thought is that each trade should be evaluated individually, but I also think that it’s possible for one trade not to be draft breaking but 2 or 3 similar trades with the same GM being a clear winner could be draft breaking. How are we supposed to deal with that?

 

[Dr Pepper]

Still in limbo, eh?

What's the holdup

 

[Dr John Carlson]

I would say to let it go through.

 

[ImporterExporter]

If we can get 1 more yes vote from someone outside BB's division that would be enough to see this passed. Or we need more veto's.

I believe there are still a few more hours until the clock expires on this pick.

 

[BenchBrawl]

This made me think of something. First, to be clear, I don’t think anyone has anything against you or would veto a trade because of the GM involved, but I do wonder if this has anything to do with the trade from yesterday. To most people that was clearly in your favor and so is this one. Maybe subconsciously it was the fact that this was the second one that made people more resistant? And honestly, I’m not even sure how something like that should be handled.

Just speaking in general terms and not about these trades specifically, the easy first thought is that each trade should be evaluated individually, but I also think that it’s possible for one trade not to be draft breaking but 2 or 3 similar trades with the same GM being a clear winner could be draft breaking. How are we supposed to deal with that?

We deal with that by limiting the number of trades, as we did, but yeah, we'd need to check if someone made 3 trades say inside the Top 100 just trying to extract numerical value. My guess is, if someone does that, it's within the bounds of the game but this concern could be raised.

Either way, my trade yesterday was pretty bad for me, good chance Pulford would have made it to my pick (based on where he went last year at 226th) but I wanted to make sure because I want to push for old-time players to rise since the pre-merger project.