1/27/2012 9:02 AM
I'm not sure it is really needed.
1/27/2012 9:11 AM
Could be.  You and I are close to a deal.    I'm giving you Player A, you're giving me Player B.   I want one more piece and I like the RP you picked in the 3rd round this season.    This is nothing else comparable and I'm not doing it without getting something else.
1/27/2012 9:28 AM
I guess the truth is if people are going to collude they are going to regardless.  And having a ban on "draft pick trading" probably wont stop the behaviour.  However making it official makes getting people kicked out a little easier.  So I am definately for banning draft pick trading.
1/27/2012 9:32 AM
I think the question is how you play it out from there.  When the trade for Players A & B is accepted, do you tell the world that the 3rd round RP is also part of the deal, and he will get shipped over after budgets are set the next season?  I think if you keep everything above board, and if it's a good league where you don't have to worry about one of the two parties leaving before the whole trade is finished, then it's a viable option. 
1/27/2012 9:35 AM
Yeah, I think saying "Jimmy Bob will be sent to me after rollover for a scrub" has to be part of a PTBNL.

FWIW, I'm not selling the idea.  I'm just curious.   I don't think it's a very good idea if the PTBNL is a super stud.  Obviously the value discrepancy between the two players being traded this year would be huge and, if one owner leaves after the season, there's no way to complete the deal.    That's why I used a 3rd round RP in my example.
1/27/2012 9:36 AM
Yeah, I'd be fine with PTBNL as long as there were clear rules about how you have to do it, and that would ensure that if one owner leaves, the replacement owner has to make good on the deal.  With a PBTNL, you're dealing with known quantities.  With trading draft picks, there's either going to be collusion, or the draft picks are basically lottery tickets that make it impossible to judge the deal.
1/27/2012 9:44 AM
The bottom line is any rule against any of this is unenforceable anyway.  People can do it now without there ever being knowledge of it.  As Mike says, as long as the original and future trades stand up to scrutiny on their own, it can happen.  You can't police it.  Obviously whoever engages in it is risking a veto on the second unannounced deal, but if a private world wants to do it, nothing Admin does or tries to do will help.

As far as PTBNL, that's an interesting concept, since it's done in RL quite a bit.  Sometimes it deals with a player who may be currently on the DL or a is selection from a list of players, where a GM says, if I make deal X, I'll take player 1 and if I make deal Y, I'll take player 2.
1/27/2012 9:45 AM
I think it would have to be done this way.

1) PTBNL deals can only happen after the draft takes place so no you still can not trade picks. (of course you could still collude but the official stance would be you can not trade picks)

2) The PTBNL can only be someone in their 1st season who can not be added to a trade in the traditional way.

3) A PTBNL spot is added to the trade menu so everyone can see who it is.
1/27/2012 9:59 AM
As long as the rules are clear, I would be fine with any of this as part of a theme league. As I've said, Moneyball's rules (no trade veto allowed, MWR) basically allows this if 2 owners trust each other enough, and that's far from a tard world.
1/27/2012 10:00 AM
Posted by silentpadna on 1/27/2012 9:44:00 AM (view original):
The bottom line is any rule against any of this is unenforceable anyway.  People can do it now without there ever being knowledge of it.  As Mike says, as long as the original and future trades stand up to scrutiny on their own, it can happen.  You can't police it.  Obviously whoever engages in it is risking a veto on the second unannounced deal, but if a private world wants to do it, nothing Admin does or tries to do will help.

As far as PTBNL, that's an interesting concept, since it's done in RL quite a bit.  Sometimes it deals with a player who may be currently on the DL or a is selection from a list of players, where a GM says, if I make deal X, I'll take player 1 and if I make deal Y, I'll take player 2.
It'd really be no less enforceable than any of the other collusion rules.  You're correct that if everyone in a private world agrees to it and no one says anything about it, it will continue, but that's not really the situation you put the rule in place for.
1/27/2012 10:07 AM

PTBNL seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

1)  As AlCheez pointed out, what if the owner who owes the PTBNL leaves?  How does a world enfoce that the replacement owner carries through with the deal?

2)  What if the designated PTBNL suffers a devastating injury, and the receiving owner no longer wants him but demands a comparable replacement?  And the other owner desn't want to move the replacement, and they cannot come to a mutual agreement?

I'll stick by my "trades should be able to stand up on their own merits" statement from earlier.

1/27/2012 10:14 AM
agreed with tec2
1/27/2012 10:16 AM
Posted by tecwrg2 on 1/27/2012 10:07:00 AM (view original):

PTBNL seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

1)  As AlCheez pointed out, what if the owner who owes the PTBNL leaves?  How does a world enfoce that the replacement owner carries through with the deal?

2)  What if the designated PTBNL suffers a devastating injury, and the receiving owner no longer wants him but demands a comparable replacement?  And the other owner desn't want to move the replacement, and they cannot come to a mutual agreement?

I'll stick by my "trades should be able to stand up on their own merits" statement from earlier.

You make it a private world rule that if you take over for a franchise that did one of these deals, they have to make good on the deal and handle it in recruitment.  Obviously will have implications on recruitment, but a world thinks it's worth it, I don't see a problem.

As for #2, this is why you'd have clear rules about it.  If I was doing this in a world, the rule would be that the deal is the deal unless they can come to an agreement, and again, you'd have to have rules that would document the PTBNL part of the deal in the first place.
1/27/2012 10:23 AM
1,  Pretty much what AC says.  If it were allowed in one of the worlds I commish, I'd make note of it and tell the incoming owner that he is getting/losing a PTBNL.

2.  That's a risk.   If the two teams wanted a contingency plan to cover it, they should make it and announce it.   A 2nd choice, if you will.  I'd ask my trade partner to put my PTBNL on inactive.
1/27/2012 2:02 PM (edited)
Posted by tecwrg2 on 1/27/2012 10:07:00 AM (view original):

PTBNL seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

1)  As AlCheez pointed out, what if the owner who owes the PTBNL leaves?  How does a world enfoce that the replacement owner carries through with the deal?

2)  What if the designated PTBNL suffers a devastating injury, and the receiving owner no longer wants him but demands a comparable replacement?  And the other owner desn't want to move the replacement, and they cannot come to a mutual agreement?

I'll stick by my "trades should be able to stand up on their own merits" statement from earlier.

All of this is moot if the PTBNL is made part of the trade menu. In that case the player is already named and already traded he just remains on the original teams roster untill the world rolls he is then automaticly placed on the roster of the team that traded for him. This would allow you to trade players who have just been drafted.

 As far as just allowing it as a verbal agreement like you would have to trade draft picks then you have all the same problems that we already hashed over in this thread.
of 32

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.