EagleBelfour
Registered User
I agree with the statement. Obviously every draft we are eager to make selection, but the time-clock is present for a reason. I also like the bolded proposition.
Trading rules discussion (see post 50)
- Thread starter TheDevilMadeMe
- Start date
- Status
I agree with the statement. Obviously every draft we are eager to make selection, but the time-clock is present for a reason. I also like the bolded proposition.
Bourque
It's clobberin time!
Agreed, because only then can you and your trading partner be 100% sure of who is available and it doesn't really hold up the draft if you are only 25% in.
Who is going to keep track of where a GM is on his clock when he trades on the clock? I know it sounds easy, and by itself it is easy, but every little thing we have to administer adds up.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,174
- 14,833
Wrote my propositions in the wrong thread here it is:
- 8 trades maximum
- 4 assets per trade maximum
- Vetoed trades counts toward the max
- Trade on the clock allowed in the first hour , else you lose an extra trade
- Swapping positions before the draft isn't a trade
The reason for letting an hour for a GM to make a trade on his clock is if the GM has only one player he's interested in and he's waiting for the GM before him to pick to see if his player is going to get picked.If that's the case , he should already have a trade in the making with another GM and he's entitled to do it in the first hour of his clock.
- 8 trades maximum
- 4 assets per trade maximum
- Vetoed trades counts toward the max
- Trade on the clock allowed in the first hour , else you lose an extra trade
- Swapping positions before the draft isn't a trade
The reason for letting an hour for a GM to make a trade on his clock is if the GM has only one player he's interested in and he's waiting for the GM before him to pick to see if his player is going to get picked.If that's the case , he should already have a trade in the making with another GM and he's entitled to do it in the first hour of his clock.
Last edited:
EagleBelfour
Registered User
I understand. Although I believe it's quite easy to look it up. There's so many GM's lurking the ATD at all time of the day, impatient to speed up the draft, that I'm pretty certain people will be eager to point out how many time there's left for the GM to trade.
Maybe a better alternative is a fix time, less than 25%. On every selection, you can trade without penalty on the first hour on your clock. Anyway, discussion should already be on the way when it's your time to select.
vecens24
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2009
- 5,002
- 1
Outside of losing an extra trade if you trade in the first hour, I'm okay with this. The clock should be yours to do with what you please.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,174
- 14,833
you don't lose anything if you trade in the first hour , it's after that that you would lose a trade in my proposal , though I think this is what you meant you were disagreeing with.
vecens24
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2009
- 5,002
- 1
Yeah I just disagree with the whole concept.
It's your time on the clock. Do with it what you please, even if it takes the full time.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,174
- 14,833
I'm not strongly in favor of penalizing trades on the clock either , I would prefer if a certain penalty would be there , like clock reduction in the very least , but I wouldn't be pissed if nothing was done to prevent them.It's not a big deal to me.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I think we need a poll on whether there will be penalties for trading on the clock. Probably the last rules issue that needs to be put to a vote.
If there is a penalty, I think Sturm's idea of an on-the-clock trade counting as 2 trades against your limit makes a lot more sense than taking time off the clock.
If there is a penalty, I think Sturm's idea of an on-the-clock trade counting as 2 trades against your limit makes a lot more sense than taking time off the clock.
EagleBelfour
Registered User
Although I voiced my opinion, I really don't care which way we're going. Fine if we people want a poll, but the most important aspect of the draft's rule has been resolve.
I don't think it's a big deal to most people, but a quick 24-48 hour poll can't hurt. Meanwhile, we can finalize the other trading rules.
Last edited:
I'd say the following are basically agreed on:
- 8 Trades Maximum
- 4 assets per trade maximum
- Swapping all positions before the draft isn't a trade
Does anyone else support the proposed idea of a 2 strikes and you're out rule for vetoed trades? Too harsh? The other option is that vetoed trades count towards the clock.
We have a poll on whether to allow trading on the clock. If we don't allow them, I agree with your suggested penalty - no penalty for a trade in the first hour, trading on the clock afterwards counts as 2 trades.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I think I like not having a rule at all.
But if there's going to be a rule, give it some teeth.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
How about just a vetoed trade counts as two, plus of course you don't get to make the deal? That's a pretty good deterrent.
Works for me. Anyone think it's too harsh? Anyone care at all?
Also, anyone have a problem with continuing to use a trading committee to determine trades?
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,174
- 14,833
too harsh , just make it count as 1 trade even though it doesn't happen.
I won't fight it to death though , no need to make a poll for this.Just toss a coin
What about this:
A vetoed trade counts as a trade against your limit (and you don't get to make the trade).
If a vetoed trade involves a rookie GM and a veteran GM, the rookie is not penalized and the vet loses two trades.
vecens24
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2009
- 5,002
- 1
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,174
- 14,833
I edited , again
Agreed with the first statement , completely disagree with the second.I don't like the whole double standard of it.
I edited , again
Agreed with the first statement , completely disagree with the second.I don't like the whole double standard of it.
You really think you should have been punished when 1 day into your first draft, a vet tried to take advantage of you?
Even if you don't want to give a vet an extra penalty for taking advantage of a rookie, I'm against rookie GMs being penalized for vetoed trades.
New idea:
Any GM who has been in a previous ATD who has a trade vetoed loses 2 trades from his limit (and can't make the trade).
A rookie GM doesn't lose anything off his limit (but can't make the trade).
Actually, now that I think about it more, I think it should just be one lost trade per veto. If the penalty is too harsh, you make the trading committee reluctant to veto questionable trades
So I'd prefer 1 lost trade per veto, no lost trades for a rookie.
Any GM who has been in a previous ATD who has a trade vetoed loses 2 trades from his limit (and can't make the trade).
A rookie GM doesn't lose anything off his limit (but can't make the trade).
Actually, now that I think about it more, I think it should just be one lost trade per veto. If the penalty is too harsh, you make the trading committee reluctant to veto questionable trades
So I'd prefer 1 lost trade per veto, no lost trades for a rookie.
Last edited:
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,174
- 14,833
It wasn't the same thing , we only had 3 trades and no rules were in place to warn me.
And looking at the list of GMs there isn't a lot of rookie GM that are alone.
A vet co-gm could use his rookie GM to trade witrhout risking penalty , and if it's only for rookie gms that are alone , we are talking about 1-3 team maximum , which is so few that I don't like to make exception for rules.
Hawkey Town 18
Registered User
- Status
