Player to be named later

[TheLowFatJelly]

How about you are allowed, but only with players that are 80 overall and under?

[jhc54]

How about you are allowed, but only with players that are 80 overall and under?

there should be a peak cut off here too, and whose going to keep track of all of this. We need someone just to do that full time...

[GoIrish]

The only reason I could see a 'player to be named later' situation is sims leading up to the draft. Lets say there is a situation that a team needs a player but the other team is not enamored with their prospects in the system or does not have the type of prospect they would want in return. The could set peramators that the player needs to be within a certain rating range/position/age etc etc etc. Then once that player comes about either via draft or jump they would obtain that player.

The other thing I could see is a lot of hurt feelings or fights over this as well and I am not sure it is worth it in the long run. I think the concern of a team doing multiple 'player to be named later' trades and bail the league is something that could hurt a franchise in a long run.

I think the ends do not justify the means with this suggestion.

[mattynokes]

I don't think anyone would have to keep track of it. All we would need to do is create a sub-forum for uncompleted PTBNL trades and then when they were completed, they get moved into Trades In-File (aka completed trades). These "uncompleted" PTBNL trades would get finished and entered in the file as-is, but the PTBNL forum would help confusion on which trades are still left open-ended.

As Sean said, teams should put the parameters in what type of prospect is to be the PTBNL. I personally don't think there should be limits as while usually the PTBNL is only a mid-level prospect or lower, sometimes the PTBNL is a quality prospect that the teams couldn't agree on when closing in on the deadline or maybe an injury and the receiving team wanted to make sure the injury wasn't severe before accepting the player.

[mike]

The other thing I could see is a lot of hurt feelings or fights over this as well and I am not sure it is worth it in the long run. I think the concern of a team doing multiple 'player to be named later' trades and bail the league is something that could hurt a franchise in a long run.

That same concern can be said about when gm's sign type a and b comp guys. I cant remember if we can sign 2 or 3 of them but a gm could conceivable sign 2 or 3 of these players sacrificing 2-3 picks and then bail on the league after the first sim. imo that would equally hurt a franchise but we allow it.


To help combat any possible concerns trade mods can keep tabs on the trades. If you see a new gm doing lots of PTBNL deals then you could veto until they earn their stripes.

[AndyP]

To help combat any possible concerns trade mods can keep tabs on the trades. If you see a new gm doing lots of PTBNL deals then you could veto until they earn their stripes.

No. It's far more work than it's worth. If you want to trade - have the pieces to do it at the time, if not - move on.

I'm sorry to be so blunt about this, but I just think the idea is a waste of time. It's realistic and that's swell, but it's nothing more than extra work here.

[mike]

Sure to you it might be a waste of time because you obvioulsy wouldn't want ever take that avenue when negotiating a trade. Others might find benefit to it and not see it as a waste of time. Its such a strawman arguement to say its too much work. Start providing me examples where things "are too much work" then we can talk about that aspect. Is it too much work to provide comp for players? Some would say it is extra work but you dont here anyone crying foul when it comes to that. If you think it would be too much extra work for yourself then thats all good. Maybe you should step down as a trade mod if that were the case and let someone else fullfill that role. Just because it would personally be too much work for you doesnt mean it would be for everyone else and therefore doesnt make it a bad idea. At least 10 ppl are on here everyday pretty much all day, theres no concevivable way that it would be too much work, especially when you already have people saying that even if they did use PTBNL they wouldnt do it often. So when it comes to numbers it would actually be very little of extra time simply due to the fact that people wouldnt utilise it that much. So far I havent heard one logical reason from anyone other than providing reasons that already can be related to other things like signing comp guys and player incentives, so in effect in citing those reasons then we should be looking in to abolishing those aswell. In closing, this idea wouldnt be posing any extra problems and is simply another avenue to explore when trading. Whether its gets utilise or not to its fullest extent by each and every gm doesnt make it a bad idea or thing to impliment, it simply just provides the people that would utilise it a chance to do so.

By the way I mean this in all disrespect, I realis ethat it may sound like I'm coming off as a douche but I truly am not meaning it that way.

['PR']

PTBNL give GMs the window to destroy their farm system. It really is a waste of time.

---

By the way I mean this in all disrespect, I realis ethat it may sound like I'm coming off as a douche but I truly am not meaning it that way.

Kind of hard to see where your not "meaning it that way" when you say "I mean this in all disrespect" lol.

[mike]

So does trading draft picks, signings comp guys, and just trading away most of your specs in general, giving gms a chance to destory their farms is nothing new.

['PR']

So does trading draft picks, signings comp guys, and just trading away most of your specs in general, giving gms a chance to destory their farms is nothing new.

True, but I just see this as another form of credit. What if the GM fails to produce a player that meets the criteria of the deal?