Unfair trades

***danpac47*** · (This post was last modified: 09-30-2010, 01:21 PM by danpac47.)

I'm not a believer of unfair trades. With this talk of veto of the Ubaldo trade and now the Gallardo trade, I've come to realize that if BOTH teams want the deal, then why not give it to them. All trades won't be fair (not saying they aren't), but to veto a trade that both teams want is ridiculous in my opinion. I mean, FCM strives to be like real life, but in real life, trades don't get vetoed because of unfairness. You can't really base your decision between an established player and a prospect. Anything can happen to a player with a different team. And in top of that, sometimes talent is half the game. You can't do much without maintaining a healthy budget, and I think that's the biggest thing with Gallardo right now.

As much as I don't favor having trade mods in the league, I think as long as both teams know all the circumstances, but still want to do the deal, then who are we to tell them that they can't do the trade. After all, a trade only affects two teams. If the league is afraid of a team ruining their farm system and then forces the GM to leave, we should be more confident that FCM is full of dedicated players.

Bottomline is, if two teams agree to a trade, and after trade mods / admins vote to it, and both teams STILL agree to the trade - i think it should get approved.

On a less serious note, I just noticed that 63% of the trades in the veto forum contain either the Cincinnatti Reds AND OR New York Yankees.

I think it's time we give these teams a break and stop picking on them. :P

ezpkns34 · 09-30-2010, 01:31 PM

Yeh, I'm tired of getting held down by "the man"

dejota · (This post was last modified: 09-30-2010, 03:17 PM by dejota.)

The other side of that coin is the talent system in mogul is so random that "bad" trades will happen inevitably. And I don't think dedication and capability as a GM go hand-in-hand. Part of why FCM is entering it's 5th season so strongly is the dedication level we've had to date.

It's in the leagues best interest to allow for vetoes. Many GM's lose interest and quit if their team goes to the crapper. Every GM who has taken over WSH has asked "what happened to Strasburgh" despite FCM attempting to prevent that multiple times. To respect that dedication and the amount of hours we've all invested we can't have two or three guys drag down the entire league.

GoIrish · 09-30-2010, 03:39 PM

I am going to implement a new plan of action. It is called the "The Go Irish kicks you in the shin" plan. I am in the process of buying a short yellow school bus along with a monthly supply of depends (it will make the process go faster). Whenver I see a trade that I do not like, I will drive out to the destination of the team making the trade (I am looking at you Nick). When I get to my destitination, I will confirm the identity and then kick you in the shins. Repeat offenders will get a kick in both shins.

'PR' · 09-30-2010, 03:53 PM

I am a strong believer in the trade mod system. Even the real MLB looks over every trade when it goes through. Only thing is that the real MLB doesn't have vitals, so talent is harder to find, which makes all trades fair until the players ultimately pan out. What it comes down to is trade modding is a way to keep GMs in check, make sure their doing what's best for their team, which in turn is what's best for the league. I agree that having those freedoms would be great, and I think I've established how strongly I feel about an overpowering "government". (In this case the Trade Mods and Admins). But the trade mod system is something we need to make sure that teams are keeping their teams either competitive or in the right direction, because if teams are making deals they think will pan out eventually, the chances of the league having super powers and teams at the bottom of the well are very high, too high.

GoIrish · (This post was last modified: 09-30-2010, 04:25 PM by GoIrish.)

My opinion on a serious not of this, I understand and agree with why the process is in place. My only issue is that at times there is a lot of nitpicking involved in the process. It almost seems on some of the rejections or people that bring up issues that they are grinding an axe or have an agenda with their actions. I am not saying that on every rejection that is the case, I feel some rejections are warranted.

In regards to these latest two transactions, I am Switzerland. I can understand both sides of the coin.

mike · 09-30-2010, 05:33 PM

(09-30-2010, 03:53 PM)Mstrpr626 Wrote: I am a strong believer in the trade mod system. Even the real MLB looks over every trade when it goes through. Only thing is that the real MLB doesn't have vitals, so talent is harder to find, which makes all trades fair until the players ultimately pan out. What it comes down to is trade modding is a way to keep GMs in check, make sure their doing what's best for their team, which in turn is what's best for the league. I agree that having those freedoms would be great, and I think I've established how strongly I feel about an overpowering "government". (In this case the Trade Mods and Admins). But the trade mod system is something we need to make sure that teams are keeping their teams either competitive or in the right direction, because if teams are making deals they think will pan out eventually, the chances of the league having super powers and teams at the bottom of the well are very high, too high.

Everyone knows my 2 cents but I'll add a bit more. I hate trade modding. If a team is doing a deal then by defeintion they think it is best for their team. Its not like teh mod can see into the head of the person trading his talent. I don't think anyone outside of the people doing the trading are even remotley qualified to make a decsion saying oh no you can't do that because its not fair to you or the other person. If both parties agree then liek I said by defintion they just did whats best for their respective teams. The only exception is if a guy is getting traded for WAY and I strees the WAY below market value. That exception would mostly pertain to rookie gm's who haven't played mogul much and/or are new to our league and havent figured out the market yet. I haven't seen one single deal that has warraneted a veto yet. What you think a person can get and what they can get are 2 different things. I don't mean any disrepect to the mods but only the person trading knows his bottomline. We can't trade picks so a team will always have 2-3 specs a year coming in so no ones farm is ever really in the crapper. I know I kind of grenaded my points but I'm in a hurry.

***danpac47*** · 09-30-2010, 05:57 PM

I agree with Mike.

dejota · 09-30-2010, 06:29 PM

Of approx 210 FCM trades since we moved to the new site (Late July) we've vetoed 12 (including the recent CIN & NYY vetoes). That's 5% before I even clicked and looking further 3 of the vetoes were just non agreements by other managers, 2 had to be reworked b/c it was posted too close to a sim and ratings changed, another one was a PTBNL deal Baltimore posted, and 2 more are there w/ no vetoes or explanations. In reality we're vetoing 1-2% of the deals.

I don't think it's happening frequently enough to warrant a change. We're not hosing teams when we do veto and whether or not they were "vetoable" is debatable forever. Bottom line is these points are certainly valid, but I feel the current system does serve a useful purpose and given the rate of vetoes I think we're exercising restraint and responsibility when we do veto.

mike · 09-30-2010, 07:02 PM

I never thought you guys were trying to hose anybody or werent being respnsible or anything I just dont like the system.