Warrior General Games

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
You know, as much as this SHOULD have been made epic... it's now just sitting here in a different forum not-being-implemented.

Much like most of the ideas in Epic...the difference now is when we want to bring them back up we don't have to start a new thread.

This is true. But with ideas like this that are easy and uncontroversial changes, they really ought to just be implemented.

Hence my suggestion regarding a trivial-things-admin

Something the new admin could handle imo.

We've got the ability to respond to offers, now we need this.

This is a horrible idea, how did it get in epic?

Originally posted by rusher
This is a horrible idea, how did it get in epic?

no u

Originally posted by Yukon Don
Frankly if a player has a no trade clause but wants to be traded most reasonable owners will re-sign them to another contract and trade them. The unreasonable owners won't and this isn't going to really change anything for them.

This is true, and it's a simple work-around, but then you have to give them the minimum bonus when they re-sign.

AD's suggestion is how no-trade clauses work in real-life sports; it's essentially a trade veto.

Originally posted by dmfa41
Originally posted by Yukon Don

Frankly if a player has a no trade clause but wants to be traded most reasonable owners will re-sign them to another contract and trade them. The unreasonable owners won't and this isn't going to really change anything for them.

This is true, and it's a simple work-around, but then you have to give them the minimum bonus when they re-sign.

AD's suggestion is how no-trade clauses work in real-life sports; it's essentially a trade veto.

Well, yes, but that's actually not the purpose. The purpose isn't for the owners, it's the players. There are players who have no-trade clauses but would agree to be traded to a certain team. However, for that to happen they have to re-sign without a no-trade clause, which means the owner suddenly has carte blanche to trade them to whomever he pleases. I wasn't forcing the unreasonable owner to re-sign him, I was keeping the player from having to open himself up to victimization. The fact that it's also convenient to avoid needing to re-do contracts money-wise is just a nice bonus

One thing I could see problematic with this:

You offer a trade 2 days from the trade deadline, and have to wait for the player to log in and approve/deny. What if he goes on vacation, or doesn't log in for a while? Kinda sucky if you're the owner, or the player who does want to be traded but isn't available to log in.

Ideas to address?

Originally posted by Bort
One thing I could see problematic with this:

You offer a trade 2 days from the trade deadline, and have to wait for the player to log in and approve/deny. What if he goes on vacation, or doesn't log in for a while? Kinda sucky if you're the owner, or the player who does want to be traded but isn't available to log in.

Ideas to address?

If player does not approve/disapprove within 1 game day then trade goes through. Gives the player agent a set window to do it.

Originally posted by Toriq
Originally posted by Bort

One thing I could see problematic with this:

You offer a trade 2 days from the trade deadline, and have to wait for the player to log in and approve/deny. What if he goes on vacation, or doesn't log in for a while? Kinda sucky if you're the owner, or the player who does want to be traded but isn't available to log in.

Ideas to address?

If player does not approve/disapprove within 1 game day then trade goes through. Gives the player agent a set window to do it.

You think 1 day is long enough? I guess if you can't log in once in a while AND don't have a no-trade clause you probably don't care if you get traded. Maybe it should be 2 days, though, so the owners can't just accept 10 minutes before rollover and cut you out of the middle.

The one day was just arbitrary on my end. 2 days would work just as well, IMO. At least gives the player agent the option is all.

Well, keep in mind, this idea is for the players more than the owners. Most of the people who have them are probably people who would, under the current system, have a no-trade clause. So before you say that the owner gets screwed over in situations like that, take into account that usually, under the current system, they would never get the chance to trade in the first place. so the net effect is still being less screwed than now.

I'm not sure how I feel about the problem you present. Definitely not one day. If you're going by rollover determining days, then Id actually say 3 days minimum. If you're going by actual 24 hour period (I'm not sure if there's even a way to do that in GLB, though) then maybe 2. But I don't think you should be able to go away fro a weekend with one of these clauses and come back to find yourself traded. If you wouldn't mind that, you'd sign an open contract rather than one with either clause. I want to move away from the idea of it being like the owner grants the player a few hours or a day to reject the clause and make it that final say is with the player, on his timetable. And if that doesn't work out for the owner(s) then oh well, no trade occurs. Which is no net change from if there had been a no-trade clause.

That said, if a player has gone long enough, I'm not against the owner getting power back, but I'd actually rather say something like... say, if the player is inactive, he has 2 rollovers to come back and veto (or accept) the trade before it goes through. And as long as the player is active, the trade doesn't go through unless he accepts it. Or, if it does, then there's like a day 5 window before it does, or something.

Essentially, it's the conceptual difference between the player having a clause in his contract that he can veto trades and having a clause in his contract that for a trade to go through, he has to accept them. While both have merit, I'm proposing the latter. The player isn't getting the ability to pop in and veto if he has time, but rather, no trade happens unless he actively approves it.

The only issue being the trade deadline, which you brought up. For that... I tend towards saying if the trade deadline hits, the trade doesn't happen. However, I also see the merit in saying that, like, if the player is inactive 3 days when the deadline hits then the trade goes through.

So... that's where I stand on this.

Hope Bort reads taht because it's an important differentiation that I don't think he picked up on judging by his last post.

Originally posted by dmfa41
Originally posted by Yukon Don

Frankly if a player has a no trade clause but wants to be traded most reasonable owners will re-sign them to another contract and trade them. The unreasonable owners won't and this isn't going to really change anything for them.

This is true, and it's a simple work-around, but then you have to give them the minimum bonus when they re-sign.

AD's suggestion is how no-trade clauses work in real-life sports; it's essentially a trade veto.

No you don't...if a player is already on your team you can zero out the bonus. The minimum bonus only applies to signing free agents.

That is not something I knew. Thanks YD.