I never thought about this before, but there's something about this that doesn't quite feel right to me.

It's virtually impossible to trade two players with "no trade" clauses for each other. Unless the teams have identical records, one team will always have a better record than the other. So one player will always invoke his NTC and reject the trade to the "worse" team.

I'm not sure if that's how things should work.

Unless I'm missing something.

What part of "no trade" is confusing you?

I'll break it down for you.

"No" is a negative. A refusal to comply. A denial of request/demand.
"Trade" is a swap. An exchange.

So, when you put them together, it's a denial of exchange. Why should either player ignore the clause that was granted to them?

"Hey, you know when we gave you that no trade clause we didn't know you wouldn't accept trades. What the hell is that all about?"

I know you're in a ****** off mood today for various reasons, so I'll give your poor attitude a mulligan for today.

But you do realize that a NTC does NOT mean "will veto all trades", right? Some trades will be accepted?

I've described a scenario in which a trade that will always be acceptable to one player will always be rejected by the other, and vice versa.

Do you think that was an intended scenario when WIS coded the NTC logic into the trade screen?

I think the intended part was that players with no-trade clauses will reject trades that send them to worse teams, including this hypothetical scenario where (unless, as you mentioned, the two teams' records are identical) two ore more players with no-trades are being swapped.

No trade clauses are included to give the PLAYER the choice of being traded. It has been coded so that players will not accept trades to teams with a poorer record.

It really is pretty simple.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 5:25:00 PM (view original):
No trade clauses are included to give the PLAYER the choice of being traded. It has been coded so that players will not accept trades to teams with a poorer record.

It really is pretty simple.

Duh. I understand that's how it's been coded.

My question is: what might be a reasonable alternative that keeps the spirit of the rule (the player won't accept some trades) in place while avoiding the "impossible trade" scenario?

"If you don't want a player to deny a trade, don't offer a NTC" seems like a reasonable alternative.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 4:21:00 PM (view original):
"Hey, you know when we gave you that no trade clause we didn't know you wouldn't accept trades. What the hell is that all about?"

FWIW, if you wanted a way to work around NTC, offer them money like teams do. "Want to trade me? 10m bonus on the spot." There's the reasonable alternative.

It would be a cool bell/whistle if players with no-trades could sometimes be bought out at the time of trade initiation, based on things like the record of the teams, the player's patience, age and how long he'd been with the franchise, etc. When you submitted the trade, you would get back one of a few possible messages saying things like, "I grew up an Ottawa Chiropractors fan, I'll never go to the Scranton Apollos," or "I'm willing to go to the Charleston Charge, but only if you give me $3M right now," or "Hey, I've always wanted to be a St. Louis Superstition, I'll waive my NTC." Then, if you got the middle message and had the $3M available in payroll, you could complete the trade.

This isn't higher than about 30th on my list of things I'd like to see them do with HBD, but it would be cool.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 6:32:00 PM (view original):
"If you don't want a player to deny a trade, don't offer a NTC" seems like a reasonable alternative.

Perhaps you've heard of 10/5 players. Or is your suggestion "don't keep veterans more that five seasons".

If you want to trade them, yeah, that's a good idea. I guess I'll ask again. What part of "no trade" is confusing you?

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 9:03:00 PM (view original):
If you want to trade them, yeah, that's a good idea. I guess I'll ask again. What part of "no trade" is confusing you?

No part of "no trade" is confusing me.

What part of "is there a better way to code when it will be invoked" is confusing you? Unless you think in real life that team records are what real MLB players solely base their NTC decisions on.