FanGM

Troy, if this is in the wrong place, apologies. I'm not sure where would be better.

In the comparatively short time I've been here, I think I've been noticing a pattern that is probably not ideal. It may be that those of you who have been here longer can tell me it's not an issue, in which case I'll forget it and go back to studying the draft

Often when a new GM is appointed, there's an immediate decision to move large parts of the team for draft ammunition. New GM then posts something indicating that offers will be considered. A more experienced GM makes an offer which is quickly accepted because the new GM still isn't sure what players are worth. Maybe it is market value, but it seems to me that quite often it's not. The new GM is then left in a worse position than before, and the experienced GM either has a discount piece or can on-sell the player for a quick profit.

I think this is bad in two ways. It's bad for the new GM, and likely to make the rebuilding/re-modelling process considerably slower. It's bad for the rest of the league, as the 'sharp' GM has just gained a boost in a way that most of us (I think) wouldn't really consider open to us.

If you think it doesn't happen enough to be worth worrying about, or you think it's just part of the learning process, then fair enough. I'm willing to be convinced.

One approach might be to provide some form of welcome message with advice on trading (and any other relevant matters) to new GMs. I'm not talking about trade advice about that team's specific players, but rather a general suggestion to take time before accepting offers, to publicly ask for better offers before accepting, etc. Basically the mechanics of not getting ripped off. Do you think this would be worth doing? Is there any other advice you think would be particularly useful?

As one of the new GM's you are speaking of, I think this is a great idea. I'm reluctant to pull the trigger on anything because although I like to think I have a pretty good idea of what a given player's trade value might be in the NFL, Its hard to be confident about what that same player's relative trade value would be for the purposes of this game..

A few GM's have been rather helpful already, but I think that informing new GM's up front what the relative trade value of the different positions are. You don't want to simply spell out everything about positional value or 'who's good and who isn't' to new GM's (because that takes away some of the strategy involved with building a team), but I think if some of the more experienced members could provide new GM's with a basic approach to how much importance/value/draft equity is assigned to the skill position players as opposed to the OL or DL groups for example, would be a good idea.

This is of course my first season, but I would assume that just like in the NFL, different GM's have different philosophies and approaches to the draft, which is why I think for the long-term success of the leagues, it should be important to any of you more-experienced GM's who might want to help out - to just be careful not to disclose too much information about your own views or approach.

So, if one or a few of the more experienced GM's could provide us new GM's with the "tools" or "formula" to use in figuring out on our own what we think a player is worth, that would be much appreciated and would hopefully help to negate some of the issues you are concerned about. Great idea, I think it might be a good idea to include with that information to new GM's, a simple message about how grossly ripping off a new GM is harmful to the long-term viability of the league.

Thanks for any help!

Any new guys looking for some advice/help, feel free to shoot me a PM.

Yeah, thanks for the thoughts there. I do send out a league reference message that they can use as a guide to figure out what's going on that has various pieces of advise through it. I'll have to check or revise perhaps where it mentions trades. I know it talks about sending me a PM if unsure about anything or even need some advise on player value within the game to get started, and some have sent me some questions this off-season.

At one point in the past I was considering adding some feedback mechanisms on trades such as protesting/flagging them or possibly comments or voting on fairness or trade victor, as well as different treatment for new GMs on probation through that process where it might require an extra step beyond proven GMs to go through. As I recall, some ideas discussed about that a couple off seasons ago, but didn't get too decisive plus would have had to implement some new scripts there.

For a lot of new guys, I think probably a natural tendency to rebuild their own thing versus going down a path created by previous GM, and try to get themselves some first rounder(s) to rebuild around new.

I'll try to add some of those thoughts into the welcome message if not there or highlight that more, and we can always think about other ways into the future. Thanks

Im with Soxfan... any new guys have any questions at all, shoot me a message. More than happy to offer advice

we've talked about this w/ some of the forum topics also but what about establishing like a Trade Committee. Say 1 member from each division or 3 from each league. I'd also say you may rotate it say yearly. Maybe even have some of the newest members in that so they get up to speed quicker. Wouldn't take much, just basically a "noted" title that when a member of the league emails a member of the TC then they convene in a group convo to discuss, forward to Goodell what the conclusion and ruling is done.

If there's a trade committee done, they shouldn't even be in the league. They should have zero connection. AFFL trade committee would have only GM's from CFFL or DFFL.


Either way, once we start messing with trades, we open a can of worms. Look at some of the horrid real NFL trades.


Bears give up 2 firsts, a third, and Kyle Orton for Jay Cutler



Bad trades happen. Never know until they work out. Unless it's obviously collusion or something against the rules... no need to get involved.

I agree with Jared on this one. I'm against a trade committee. Trades should only be reversed if collusion can be proven.

Thanks all for the input.

Goodell wrote:At one point in the past I was considering adding some feedback mechanisms on trades such as protesting/flagging them or possibly comments or voting on fairness or trade victor, as well as different treatment for new GMs on probation through that process where it might require an extra step beyond proven GMs to go through

I think that could work, but I think the need for it could possibly be avoided by encouraging new GMs to let the market work for them. For example, in CFFL CIN's new GM has posted a list of available players and is updating the post with offers as they come in. He's pretty much removed the risk that someone is going to severely under-pay for one of his players. Whether there might be a more streamlined way to do this (maybe an option to send the trade to a page similar to the Trade Block page?) I don't know.

Thanks to the guys who've offered to answer questions.

Jared A wrote:Bad trades happen. Never know until they work out. Unless it's obviously collusion or something against the rules... no need to get involved.

Sure, bad trades happen, but there's 'bad trades' and 'BAD trades'. Let me give you a couple of examples of a well-established GM trading with a new GM where I think a little more publicity would have got the new guy a considerably better deal:

• TRADE ANNOUCEMENT: NE receives: | Ridley, Stevan | Harvin, Percy |
CHI receives: | | 2013o 225 | 2013o 1 (2013-04-06) »

So, the first pick of the draft (which is nice, but not exactly earth-shattering in this class) plus a seventh-rounder for a fairly good, young starting RB plus Harvin? That looks like some pretty good value to me!

Still, maybe that trade is just this side of being unbalanced. How about this one:

• TRADE ANNOUCEMENT: TB receives: | | 2013o 42
NE receives: | Jones, Chandler | (2013-04-06) »

Jones was drafted at 13 last year; I guess he's lost a lot of value since then if he's going for a second-rounder. But maybe not, according to the acquiring team's trade block updated shortly after the trade:

Chandler Jones is on the market, I'll be asking for a mid/early first for him.

Now, I have no axe to grind with you in particular. I picked these two trades because they're in my league and seem to me to be the some of the clearest examples of what I'm talking about (new GM, apparently lowball offers, no publicity for better trade). I agree that they were not the result of collusion and did not break the rules. However, I can't agree that lack of collusion and rule-breaking = everything ok.

In the NFL, bad trades do happen. But at least those GMs have some experience beforehand in some area, they have a team of people around them, and there's generally some process of feeling out the market first. Here we have people GMing who don't yet have the experience in the league to properly value players, and they often don't have people around them to fall back on.

It seems to me that we should make an effort to assist new GMs until they can understand the market. Whether that's by mentoring, having a trade review panel, allowing for easier publication of offers or some other method I don't know, but I do think it necessary to do something.

Otherwise, there's nothing to stop a steady drain of talent from new GMs to established GMs willing to lowball them. That's bad for new GMs and for established GMs who don't take part.

Both of those trades look acceptable to me, particularly the Harvin deal.