I once heard a suggestion of having "trade rumors" pop up when guys are offering or have offered players. So to your point, let's say top 5 pick gets an unsolicited offer, maybe something like "teams are showing interest in x player" or something. You see it all the time in real life. Maybe the owner could be given the option to confirm the rumor.

However, I could see this being something that would be far down the list of things to implement lol.

Admin won't do anything about trades. It's up to the Worlds to police it. I've been in a few Worlds where stinky trades not only get transacted, but also rarely got vetoed.

Guinness used to be like this every season when NickKappel, DGC and Zakelsta were there -- every season one or more of them would trade three AAAA or bottom of the mlb roster type of players for a top 5 player at his position type of player. I was so sick of it that I was ready to leave the World despite having a fantastic roster.

Then, a few seasons went by and two of them got caught colluding, but the commissioner only kicked out one of them, the one that got to stay got mad at me for crowd sourcing a veto on a lopsided trade. Then, as soon as the trade got vetoed, I purposely overpaid for the player he tried to trade for with the sole purpose that it would make him angry enough to leave. He finally left. The last owner left shortly after this. It's been better ever since. Sometimes the bullies need to get bullied.

I like #2. Hate #1. Completely unnecessary way to slow down trading that would accomplish nothing IMO. Who checks trade block daily to even notice that? I really like pray4pro's suggestion about trade rumors. That would get things stirred up and spur more offers. The have been numerous times where I've seen a trade go through and I've thought I would have easily paid more for a player getting moved had I known they might be moving.

Currently, there's a 24-hour voting period before a trade clears or is vetoed. What about a 24-hour period where the trade is posted, but others can react to it and offer more? Not advocating for that but it would make things interesting for sure.

I've always liked the idea of "unlocking" the ability to trade after one full season. I know it's unpopular, but if new owners need to wait one season to unlock advanced edit roster mode, then they can wait one season before being able to destroy their franchises for future owners.

Posted by keithjs on 3/29/2023 6:53:00 PM (view original):
I've always liked the idea of "unlocking" the ability to trade after one full season. I know it's unpopular, but if new owners need to wait one season to unlock advanced edit roster mode, then they can wait one season before being able to destroy their franchises for future owners.

No, this is not a good idea for a couple of reasons. 1) Sometimes experienced owners create new usernames to add a world or come back to the game. You gonna lock them out from trading? 2) I think this would turn off a lot of new owners and make them leave. A good world will watch out for the newbies, and the experienced owners will help them learn how to analyze a trade offer.

Except: After thinking about it for a few more minutes, your idea might be valid for public worlds.

UPDATE: Thinking on the way home, nah. Many owners who join public leagues are there for only 1 season, anyway. Let them have fun and trade. It all comes down to having a good private world with experienced owners who monitor the trades without drama (the drama is the key part of this), but who can help the new owners learn how to trade.

I havent played HBD nearly as extensively as others, but Id argue increasing the number of players in a trade and the amount of cash that could be traded is fairly likely to increase the number of lopsided trades. I foresee more offers of 4 AAAA players for all-stars

Texhick, I agree. I've played HBD many a season. The simple 1 for 1 trades are the easiest to do and be accepted for newbies. As an experienced owner, I still find when I join a new world, the experienced owners will try and swoop in to try to a 3 for 1 trade, or 3 for 2 trade with cash transfer involved, just to test me. Maybe for first year owners, limit trades to 1 for 1 with no cash involved? That might work.

The trade rumors thing is fun. I'd be all on board for that. #1 is a disaster for people who want to work hard to get results.

I've been in Riley for 50 some odd seasons now. If I know I have a chance at a run or need one more piece I'll look to the bottom teams to see who has players I need. I make fair offers but if I only looked at guys that were on the trade block the only guys I would be going after are the ones that are AAAA players that are looking for 5.6 million in arb. The ones people post in the chat about all the time.