+- First Class Mogul (https://www.firstclassmogul.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: League Suggestions (https://www.firstclassmogul.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: Trades (/showthread.php?tid=2720)
Trades - AndyP - 11-08-2010
I have a serious suggestion and something that isn't a suggestion at all but a plea for sanity....
Being a trade mod means you're the jeck no matter what and this league has specifically asked me and others to be trade mods, in part, because we're willing to put our foot down if a move could hurt the league. So while it's great to hear the "everyone should just get to do whatever they want" speech - it's been heard, the league ain't doing it - quit if you want but quit bitching about it. Please.
Next, we need to stop trying to rip each other off, these leagues are successful when we're all good, competent, knowledgable GMs. We all make mistakes, but there has to be an end to the constant vulturing over stupid GMs. Make a trade in good faith and respond to the mods in good faith. If your deal is vetoed, I know I will always give my reasoning and you're welcome to disagree, ask for suggestions, or make adjustments. But too many deals have gone down lately that have caused incessant whining - show some respect to one another and show some respect to the process. No one is trying to stop you from doing what you want, but if what you want is potentially destructive to the league - tough shit.
That said, I'd like to propose a newbie probation with trading. One in which the mods are extra careful overlooking their trades. Most bad, or questioned deals, come from newbie GMs and a veteran GM. I'd just like it officially out there, as a way to help tone down the veto whining, that new GMs will get a much tougher test to their deals.
RE: Trades - mike - 11-08-2010
That would be all fine and dandy if there was some consistency on what deals get vetoed and what deals go through. It's getting harder and harder to even know what "fair" is anymore when offering a trade. Howvere I do agree with the newbie probation unless the gm is already well known.
RE: Trades - dejota - 11-08-2010
I think the issue is people can't seem to accept that what's "fair" is a moving target and it's even more unfair to judge trades based on others. I judge all trades in a vacuum and thik precedent is bogus in a situation that's obviously and intended to be fluid.
RE: Trades - 'PR' - 11-08-2010
(11-08-2010, 05:49 PM)AndyP Wrote: I have a serious suggestion and something that isn't a suggestion at all but a plea for sanity....
Being a trade mod means you're the jeck no matter what and this league has specifically asked me and others to be trade mods, in part, because we're willing to put our foot down if a move could hurt the league. So while it's great to hear the "everyone should just get to do whatever they want" speech - it's been heard, the league ain't doing it - quit if you want but quit bitching about it. Please.
Next, we need to stop trying to rip each other off, these leagues are successful when we're all good, competent, knowledgable GMs. We all make mistakes, but there has to be an end to the constant vulturing over stupid GMs. Make a trade in good faith and respond to the mods in good faith. If your deal is vetoed, I know I will always give my reasoning and you're welcome to disagree, ask for suggestions, or make adjustments. But too many deals have gone down lately that have caused incessant whining - show some respect to one another and show some respect to the process. No one is trying to stop you from doing what you want, but if what you want is potentially destructive to the league - tough shit.
That said, I'd like to propose a newbie probation with trading. One in which the mods are extra careful overlooking their trades. Most bad, or questioned deals, come from newbie GMs and a veteran GM. I'd just like it officially out there, as a way to help tone down the veto whining, that new GMs will get a much tougher test to their deals.
I have been a big part of the "whining" factor and for that I apologize. I can sometimes become too enthusiastic and forget that this is just all a game. I do agree with the newbie probation thing too. What we should also do is help mentor our new GMs, help them understand what is quality and how to manage every aspect of their team. Putting them down might not be the best way to make sure these things don't happen again. Other league's talent levels make their trading values different from ours, so learning how to deal here in FCM for a newbie might be twice as hard.
RE: Trades - hokeyrules - 11-09-2010
I like the noobie rule.
RE: Trades - Atlbravesfan27 - 11-09-2010
or, you could just be more selective as to who you let in this league.. if you dont know much about a new gm, i think they should absolutely be on a trial basis. I'm in outahere, and with our new gm's, every trade they do for the first season goes "under review" where the thread is locked and moved to an admin section only where only admins and trade moderators can discuss the trade and regular members of the board cannot see the discussion. it can be as easy as all quick approves, or it can be discussed in an orderly fashion between the admins in its own thread where they can all chime in and make the right decision about the deal. once a decision is made, an admin unlocks the thread and post the decision. pretty easy and works well. just my 2 cents though
RE: Trades - AndyP - 11-09-2010
I don't want it to have to be that elaborate...I just want a general rule that states GMs in their first season will be under more strict review.
Ideally if we do this and identify potentially problem GMs....vetos won't ever be necessary between established GMs. The difficulty is when you have established GMs that don't know what they're doing.
RE: Trades - 'PR' - 11-09-2010
(11-09-2010, 01:02 AM)AndyP Wrote: I don't want it to have to be that elaborate...I just want a general rule that states GMs in their first season will be under more strict review.
Ideally if we do this and identify potentially problem GMs....vetos won't ever be necessary between established GMs. The difficulty is when you have established GMs that don't know what they're doing.
LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
RE: Trades - mike - 11-09-2010
We couild explore the possibilty of doing away with trade mods with the exception of a new gm. This one no one can whine about a deal and new gms have a little help to make sure they are not gettng ripped off. Although I think its up to a new gm to do the research so they don't get ripped off or at least as a couple people for help if they are unsure.
RE: Trades - KillaCal AKA JS - 11-09-2010
I'm fine with having a stricter review process for new GMs.
But critiquing every thing a new GM does can be a bit of a deterrent or make the league less fun. Of course I understand you want to keep the competitiveness level of the league high, but it would probably be better to inform the GM via PM or in a more discreet manner that they should be aware of certain factors when trading or regarding a particular trade. Of course unless a trade is clearly lopsided it shouldn't be allowed, but I really like Dejota's approach regarding trades of asking about what type of strategy they plan on using or what direction they plan on taking the team.
Maybe in the future for new GMs, allow them to claim a team but before hiring them. Ask them to discuss what direction they wish to take the team and what they will do to achieve their goals, and monitor if they are actually executing what they claim to do.
For instance, I'm aware my team can't compete right now and I don't have much bargaining chips. I have two fake catchers with no defense and no positional players worth mentioning and my overall team defense is probably the worst in the league.
The first trade I made was of very little risk to me, sure he looks great because of his GG defense and solid attributes. But his ability to hit against RHP was terrible and his lack of contact was the reason that I found him expendable. Combined with his expiring contract, he would be looking for a more expensive long-term contract. Something I couldn't afford to keep and Reyes would be the much cheaper option saving me maybe 1 or 2 million dollars in budget, allowing me to acquire FA. Of course I also wanted SP Gallagher because he had great upside and high movement/control/GB ratio. After the deadsim he did increase to 85/85, even though he has reached his ceiling the risk was worth it even if he didn't pan out. Currently the only bright spot on my team is my pitching, I'm trying to build a team around SP Colley so my first order of business is acquiring a defensive Catcher which, I did in free agent. Next is trying to bolster up my staff with what little tools I have and then acquire other key players via Amateur Draft.
My current goal is to replenish my farm and acquire some positional players while my pitching prospects begin to mature. This will probably be a 2-3 year process though, which works out great because SP Dan Haren's contract will be off the books and I'll be able to utilize FA to acquire players.
But then again what do I know..I am just a newbie :P
(11-08-2010, 08:35 PM)Mstrpr626 Wrote:(11-08-2010, 05:49 PM)AndyP Wrote: I have a serious suggestion and something that isn't a suggestion at all but a plea for sanity....
Being a trade mod means you're the jeck no matter what and this league has specifically asked me and others to be trade mods, in part, because we're willing to put our foot down if a move could hurt the league. So while it's great to hear the "everyone should just get to do whatever they want" speech - it's been heard, the league ain't doing it - quit if you want but quit bitching about it. Please.
Next, we need to stop trying to rip each other off, these leagues are successful when we're all good, competent, knowledgable GMs. We all make mistakes, but there has to be an end to the constant vulturing over stupid GMs. Make a trade in good faith and respond to the mods in good faith. If your deal is vetoed, I know I will always give my reasoning and you're welcome to disagree, ask for suggestions, or make adjustments. But too many deals have gone down lately that have caused incessant whining - show some respect to one another and show some respect to the process. No one is trying to stop you from doing what you want, but if what you want is potentially destructive to the league - tough shit.
That said, I'd like to propose a newbie probation with trading. One in which the mods are extra careful overlooking their trades. Most bad, or questioned deals, come from newbie GMs and a veteran GM. I'd just like it officially out there, as a way to help tone down the veto whining, that new GMs will get a much tougher test to their deals.
I have been a big part of the "whining" factor and for that I apologize. I can sometimes become too enthusiastic and forget that this is just all a game. I do agree with the newbie probation thing too. What we should also do is help mentor our new GMs, help them understand what is quality and how to manage every aspect of their team. Putting them down might not be the best way to make sure these things don't happen again. Other league's talent levels make their trading values different from ours, so learning how to deal here in FCM for a newbie might be twice as hard.
If it takes newbie twice as hard to learn that the talent level is different in this league then they shouldn't be a GM in the first place. All one has to do is look at the league leaders to know that it is much harder for players to 100+ RBIs and ERA's or less than three compared to other leagues where you can have 8-16 players per category reach those kind of threshold.