Trades

'PR' · 11-09-2010, 08:22 AM

(11-09-2010, 06:03 AM)KillaCal AKA JS Wrote: 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.

Well sometimes a newbie isn't always a flat out newbie. You for example would be new, however from what I hear I'm sure you can hold a team down. Newbies would be the example of Raysman1, and it's not a bad thing, we all we're once at the stage he is in (Or at least I was) so I have no problem helping him understand the game a bit better. I'm not the almighty but I can do my part to make sure he learns how to run a team, especially one as talented as the Angels.

***AndyP*** · 11-09-2010, 12:37 PM

Mods are necessary, the point is that GMs should know that deals with probationary GMs will just be subject to more review and their reasoning more finely scrutinized. I like Wash's suggestion to have new GMs state their intentions with the team at the time of hire.

Jordan · (This post was last modified: 11-09-2010, 12:38 PM by Jordan.)

So do you want me to change your tag to co-Baltimore GM & co-Angels GM? :cool:

GoIrish · 11-09-2010, 01:28 PM

I do agree that the newer owners should be watched closer but you can not treat them like the boy in the bubble either.

In regards to my trade for Bucholtz, here is how it unfolded. He said in xat that he was looking for offers on Bucholtz. I spoke to him and gave him an offer on what I was willing to pay for a 1 year rental. He was thinking about it and I told him to wait a night on it and field other offers and we will talk again tomorrow because there was no one on xat at the time. The next night I saw him spam xat (multiple owners in xat at the time), looking for offers on Bucholtz, I pm'd him on the 3rd message (that I saw) and let him know my offer was still good. He then took me up on the offer because no one else was interested. Not sure what more could have been done on my end.

I apologize if anyone thought I was trying to take advantage of the new owner, but that is not the case.

***AndyP*** · 11-09-2010, 01:41 PM

I wasn't calling anyone out in particular - anyone who claims they haven't knowingly ripped someone off in Mogul is lying - we've all done it.

My issue is just that we have it knowingly out there that we're scrutinizing the planning of new GMs much tighter than we would established GMs, so that in a situation like yours Irish, you'd know that it could be a possibility prior to trading. What I want to avoid is the "oh shit!" followed by a rant about how unfair vetos are and blah blah blah. I certainly don't want to boy in the bubble anyone...but guys have to do better than "sure, why the hell not" if they just walked in the door and the deal isn't great.

chrisveley · 11-13-2010, 02:32 PM

Alright, I'm chiming in now because I'm pissed over my last trade getting veto'd. I think there is no consistancy and people are getting WAY to involved in trades involving new GM's. I just had a trade veto'd not because it wasn't fair, but it was because a few people didn't like the new GM's reasoning behind the trade.

He was trading for a player that was considered a "rental", but crazy thing it that a "rental" can be resigned, and Brantley would resign for around the same amount he was under contract for. So our trade was veto'd because the player (along with $12M cash) I sent was on the last year of his contract. This honestly makes me think that other GM's need to take a step back and only veto trades if they are grossly unfair... not pick apart deals that they just don't like, or trades they wouldn't have done themselves.

Yes, we need to protect our new younger GM's, but we don't need to hold their hand and decide what they can or cannot trade in the process.

'PR' · 11-13-2010, 02:46 PM

(11-13-2010, 02:32 PM)chrisveley Wrote: Alright, I'm chiming in now because I'm pissed over my last trade getting veto'd. I think there is no consistancy and people are getting WAY to involved in trades involving new GM's. I just had a trade veto'd not because it wasn't fair, but it was because a few people didn't like the new GM's reasoning behind the trade.

He was trading for a player that was considered a "rental", but crazy thing it that a "rental" can be resigned, and Brantley would resign for around the same amount he was under contract for. So our trade was veto'd because the player (along with $12M cash) I sent was on the last year of his contract. This honestly makes me think that other GM's need to take a step back and only veto trades if they are grossly unfair... not pick apart deals that they just don't like, or trades they wouldn't have done themselves.

Yes, we need to protect our new younger GM's, but we don't need to hold their hand and decide what they can or cannot trade in the process.

I totally agree. Your deal was in no way disorganized and both GMs stated valid reasons. There is no way a trade should be vetoed based on a GMs reasoning when it is clearly a fair deal and a deal that will benefit both teams in a great way. LAA stated he planned to resign Brantley and stated why we dealt the prospects for 12M. Your trade wasn't even vetoed. Scott decided to put it in the veto section when there was one approval on it, and it was up for three days. It was not the mods who did the horrible job however. Scotty felt free to pass PITT/LAA even when it had the same number of approvals to vetos and even when it was closed then reopened in order to get passed, but then kicks your deal which has no vetos to the curb. Your deal was solid and should have went through whether it was yesterday's sim or tomorrow's sim.

chrisveley · 11-13-2010, 03:04 PM

Lame... pure lame

ezpkns34 · 11-13-2010, 03:07 PM

(11-13-2010, 02:46 PM)Mstrpr626 Wrote:
(11-13-2010, 02:32 PM)chrisveley Wrote: Alright, I'm chiming in now because I'm pissed over my last trade getting veto'd. I think there is no consistancy and people are getting WAY to involved in trades involving new GM's. I just had a trade veto'd not because it wasn't fair, but it was because a few people didn't like the new GM's reasoning behind the trade.

He was trading for a player that was considered a "rental", but crazy thing it that a "rental" can be resigned, and Brantley would resign for around the same amount he was under contract for. So our trade was veto'd because the player (along with $12M cash) I sent was on the last year of his contract. This honestly makes me think that other GM's need to take a step back and only veto trades if they are grossly unfair... not pick apart deals that they just don't like, or trades they wouldn't have done themselves.

Yes, we need to protect our new younger GM's, but we don't need to hold their hand and decide what they can or cannot trade in the process.

I totally agree. Your deal was in no way disorganized and both GMs stated valid reasons. There is no way a trade should be vetoed based on a GMs reasoning when it is clearly a fair deal and a deal that will benefit both teams in a great way. LAA stated he planned to resign Brantley and stated why we dealt the prospects for 12M. Your trade wasn't even vetoed. Scott decided to put it in the veto section when there was one approval on it, and it was up for three days. It was not the mods who did the horrible job however. Scotty felt free to pass PITT/LAA even when it had the same number of approvals to vetos and even when it was closed then reopened in order to get passed, but then kicks your deal which has no vetos to the curb. Your deal was solid and should have went through whether it was yesterday's sim or tomorrow's sim.

Scotty had to move that deal to the veto section after the Pit deal was approved b/c one of the players in the Cle deal was also in the Pit deal

***AndyP*** · 11-13-2010, 03:59 PM

Like I said in this thread...veteran GMs should trade at their own risk with a newbie. You dealt with a newbie who had already had one deal vetoed for poor reasoning and had a standing deal with Pitt that was still up in the air because of reasoning.

As the Yanks said - your deal ultimately got vetoed because the Angels traded the same player twice. Bitching about Scott or the mods for that is ridiculous - talk to the guy you dealt with about getting things straight before he starts accepting offers.