|
Post by bjernagris (PHI) on Jun 10, 2016 8:12:42 GMT -5
Hello all GMs,
We have seen a vastly increasing amount of trades in the iNHL in recent months, to the point at which the trading market has gotten overheated. We strive to be a semi-realistic league, and players being sent around the league like cattle is not realistic. Therefore, for the good of the league, the Executive Board has felt the need to try to slow down the trading carousel a little bit by putting a limit on trading. The following rules are proposed to the league's GMs for a vote and, if accepted, will be effected from July 1st, 2017 (iDate).
- Each team is allowed to announce no more than two trades per real-life calendar week - A traded player must stay with their new team for a minimum of two full real-life weeks - Three-way trades will still be allowed, and must be posted as such in order to not count as two trades - There will be an exception for the real-life week leading up to trade deadline, and also during the entire offseason - then trades will be allowed freely and without limitations. However, the 2-week traded player quarantine period will still be in place. - Any additional exception must be specifically approved by the Exec Board, and should have a good reason behind it
This will slow down the trade market a little bit while still giving teams plenty of room to move players (two trades per week should be more than enough!)
The Exec Board stands behind this proposal.
Please vote before Sunday, June 12th at 4.00pm EST.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Jun 10, 2016 8:17:27 GMT -5
It won't let me cast a vote on my phone but put me down as a YES I support this
|
|
|
Post by agrimsley on Jun 10, 2016 8:55:25 GMT -5
I will currently vote no and suggest and amendment that the exception period run for the entire offseason (the moment a team is no longer playing competitive hockey through to the beginning of preseason).
I think it is unrealistic to expect teams to be able to turnaround their fortunes during he offseason without free rein to carry out an overhaul. What if a GM managed to sign three top free agents and then had a surplus? What if the GM found themselves over the cap limit head in into the preseason?
During the season though, I fully support the above proposal.
|
|
|
Post by Isaac on Jun 10, 2016 9:31:14 GMT -5
I vote no. To me, this unfairly handicaps teams. If I make two minor AHL-depth trades on Monday, then on Tuesday another GM comes to me with a blockbuster offer that I want to do, I don't feel like it's fair to tell him that we have to wait until next week (which is like 3 in-game weeks) to make that deal. Additionally, if I've already made two deals, then a star player goes down for the season, I'd be really handicapped for a couple of in-game weeks to fix that glaring hole. It could be the difference between making the playoffs or missing it. I agree that in the off-season the limit (which again I don't think should be implemented) should be waived. Finally, I want to point out that, for the most part, we've left even semi-realism behind in this league. We have a team back in Hartford, certain GMs (including myself) have created strategies that probably will never be seen IRL, and at any given time half the league is tanking.
While maybe a general consensus to slow down on the trading might be in order, a hard limit seems unfair and adds an unnecessary obstacle to team building.
|
|
|
Post by brentdog on Jun 10, 2016 9:34:14 GMT -5
Additionally, if I've already made two deals, then a star player goes down for the season, I'd be really handicapped for a couple of in-game weeks to fix that glaring hole. It could be the difference between making the playoffs or missing it. Already covered under this point Isaac: - Any additional exception must be specifically approved by the Exec Board, and should have a good reason behind it So if your star player goes down and you want to seek a trade on that basis, that would be considered a good enough reason
|
|
|
Post by Pulse on Jun 10, 2016 9:55:53 GMT -5
I concur with Toronto. I voted no, but would change my vote if an off-season exception was made.
I'm not a fan of the two a week limit, as it may have the unforeseen consequences of reduced trades or reduced league activity, but I do understand the reasoning behind it as processing 20 trades in a night is just crazy for the simmer.
Edit: When I say reduced trades, I mean significantly reduced, to the point of where 10 trades during the course of a season is a lot. I think that simply forcing a team to keep a player they traded for, for a minimum of two weeks, should be enough to decline trading. If not, t hen additional limits can be added.
|
|
|
Post by Pulse on Jun 10, 2016 10:07:13 GMT -5
.....and at any given time half the league is tanking. I find this to be a far bigger problem than the current trading frenzy. Certainly nothing wrong with going into rebuild mode, but I think it's been taken to excess in some cases. It is these tactics that create an environment that breeds excessive trading. As far as excessive trading goes, that's just the way it is sometimes, and a large number of trades is a good indication of a healthy league. I wonder if there is some other way though to make it easier for the leadership team to manage the large number of trades, as opposed to a hard limit.
|
|
|
Post by Rob on Jun 10, 2016 10:44:31 GMT -5
When I first joined this league in it's infancy last July(ish) and the game was finally released three months later, I envisioned a league that stayed true to it's nhl counterpart. Over the past year we have overcome enough bugs that it should have crippled and tore the league apart.. instead the league stayed strong, and as the developers worked hand in hand with us, we have proved to the entire globe we are the very best hockey league out there with over 30 actual people manning they're teams.
We fast forward a bit here now and I for one believe we are falling of this train-track of accuracy and realism in a sense and seeing the players traded 3, 4 or 5+ times in a season is becoming a bit much. The league has already forgone the No Trade Clauses and No Movement Clauses but I feel all of us are loosing the point of a real challenge and actually strategy that all real GM's tackle every day / season.
Freedom of trading anyone at anytime and having no limits is one thing, but the sheer amount of unrealistic transactions going is looking like a stock market trading system. The more we treat the players like "real" individuals and less like a herd of barnyard stock the more we can appreciate the realism and accuracy of feeling limitations / strategy and actual real life challenges. The iNHL should be based off realism and not the feelings of a gm who can't make a certain trade because of x and y.
Just my two cents of nothing to some but hopefully a few bucks to others.
Rob
|
|
|
Post by mbest (ANA) on Jun 10, 2016 11:08:45 GMT -5
I support the concept and commend the board's effort in raising the discussion but I don't think the solution is there yet. Besides my issue of not being able to move a guy twice without being part of a three-way deal, which is a small matter, I'm not crazy about the per week approach either. I think a two-week limit or monthly might be more flexible although harder to keep track of. I don't think a one time flurry of trades is a bad thing whereas a team doing a flurry every week is the issue.
I'd have no problem with a longer length of stay requirement for a traded player though. I think that is a good one.
|
|
|
Post by Joe on Jun 10, 2016 12:15:27 GMT -5
I originally voted yes, but now I'm reconsidering after reading the opinions of other GMs.
Generally speaking, I don't like any artificial rules that restricts a GM's ability to manage your team. And let's not forget this is fantasy and a big part of the enjoyment of a league like this is making deals that real GMs could only dream of making. As much as I'm a fan of realism, I'd hate to get to the point where we are actually like the real NHL and no trades of substance happen at all and the bad teams stay bad for an indefinite period of time. Can't see that being enjoyable at all.
I think 90% of GMs make a reasonable number of trades and I wonder if we need a blanket rule to police the 10% of guys who might get a little carried away.
|
|
|
Post by bjernagris (PHI) on Jun 10, 2016 12:23:11 GMT -5
I think 90% of GMs make a reasonable number of trades and I wonder if we need a blanket rule to police the 10% of guys who might get a little carried away. Yes, this rule is definitely there for the 10%, and even those GMs would not be affected that severely. 2 trades per week is still plenty, and 4 out of roughly 13 weeks per season would still have unlimited trading (except for the 2-week traded player quarantine period).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 10, 2016 12:47:11 GMT -5
While I voted yes, I do think that Isaac has a bit of a point in that sometimes the trades are very minor (AHL-depth, maybe a far-off prospect in the future) and sometimes they're HUGE (Drew Doughty I miss you ). And in the NHL there are some journeyman players, even. But guys like Patrick Kane or the like shouldn't get traded on just a whim. There should be some sort of stipulation regarding players who have played a solid amount of games in the iNHL- like if the guy has played 50+ games, 100+ games, that should be when the two week rule kicks in. And as for AHL-depth, what about expanding it to maybe two minor deals (mid-round prospects and mid-round picks) and one major deal (which would be defined as a solid iNHL player or a pick between the 1st and 3rd round - I'm not talkin blockbusters here). There definitely has to be some sort of cooling down in terms of the trades, because it is getting a little unrealistic. I just believe that there should be slightly more wiggle room for GM's to work with, while still keeping in place the initial intent of this rule change.
|
|
|
Post by Pulse on Jun 10, 2016 12:48:54 GMT -5
With unlimited trading during the off season, STL changes vote to yes.
|
|
|
Post by mbest (ANA) on Jun 10, 2016 14:19:58 GMT -5
I would change my vote if it were 4 trades over 2 weeks instead. Trades are often interconnected…even having a second option of 3 one week and none the next would be preferable.
|
|
|
Post by mattgough60 on Jun 10, 2016 15:32:40 GMT -5
Mike mentioned potential for 4 trades per week. I think moving it to three would suffice. I definitely agree that something needs to be done about trading for the sake of trading.
|
|
|
Post by brob89 (NSH) on Jun 10, 2016 15:55:54 GMT -5
Mike mentioned potential for 4 trades per week. I think moving it to three would suffice. I definitely agree that something needs to be done about trading for the sake of trading. Maybe you should re-read his post, silly Matt. He said 4 trades over two weeks. In other words, if you need to make more than two moves in quick succession, you can. But it'll mean that you can't make any moves the next week.
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 10, 2016 22:27:30 GMT -5
I always joke I can't keep up with the trades, even when I actually can. But I've been so busy the past two weeks I haven't even logged onto the trade review board forum because I don't have an hour to read through all the trades. I literally haven't been able to keep up.
I do think the idea to potentially allow unlimited trading in the offseason but place a limit on on-season trades has merit.
I'll think about the current proposal "on the floor" and vote tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by frogman210 on Jun 12, 2016 18:48:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by longshot on Aug 3, 2016 17:40:41 GMT -5
Hi Guys, I'm the new TB GM, and while I can't really speak on experience about the trading issues, what about a max number of trades in a calendar year instead of only so many in a week.. just because as someone pointed out, a really awesome deal might present itself from another team.
With a max number of trades allowed, the GM would have to be cautious and when nearing the max limit, they would REALLY have to mean something to the team. Maybe we could look up the average number of NHL trades, and then add some to that. Just my two cents.
|
|
|
Post by bjernagris (PHI) on Aug 4, 2016 2:38:18 GMT -5
Hi Guys, I'm the new TB GM, and while I can't really speak on experience about the trading issues, what about a max number of trades in a calendar year instead of only so many in a week.. just because as someone pointed out, a really awesome deal might present itself from another team. With a max number of trades allowed, the GM would have to be cautious and when nearing the max limit, they would REALLY have to mean something to the team. Maybe we could look up the average number of NHL trades, and then add some to that. Just my two cents. Hey Mike, that sounds like an interesting idea. Our trade limit has been lifted for the current season (trade deadline week and offseason allows teams to make unlimited # of trades) but definitely something we could consider for next season. Thank you for the proposal!
|
|