Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 6:52:00 PM (view original):
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.

No, this is what drives real players to drop their NTC.

Now the question you need to ask yourself is "Would this open a can of worms that can't be closed?" and "Is there any way to code this that won't make it worse?" and "Does WifS give a flying **** about this issue?"

As dedelman said, this is pretty far down the list of things that need to be addressed.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/23/2016 3:30:00 PM (view original):
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.

Isn't this working as intended?

Why would the guy going to a worse team want the trade just because he's getting traded for someone else with a no trade clause?

Back in the 80s all you had to do was give em a big bag of coke

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 9:36:00 PM (view original):
As dedelman said, this is pretty far down the list of things that need to be addressed.

Of course it is. But that doesn't mean it can't be discussed. Unless, or course, you have a huge stick up your *** because of a problematic owner in one world and your ****** team in another.

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 9:30:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 6:52:00 PM (view original):
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.

No, this is what drives real players to drop their NTC.

I do like this idea.

See? Was that so hard to think outside the box for a moment or two?

Apparently I thought outside the box roughly 4 hours, half a page ago. Where were you?

This is like a re-enactment of "Who's on First".

Posted by MikeT23 on 2/23/2016 6:52:00 PM (view original):
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.

like brandon phillips!

And Phillips was being sent to a better team from a team that could lose 100 games this season and he still refused.

I think the NTC is very straight forward for this game. As MikeT asked, why would any player with a NTC want to go to a team with a worse record? So, why wouldn't one of the player's involved reject it. Very logical, straightforward and easy to understand. No ambiguities. I actually think the coding is to lenient on allowing players with no trade clauses being traded. It allows for a from Team A 20 - 30 record to trade a player to a Team B a 21 - 29 record for salary dump so Team A can sign an international FA, The player with the NTC most likely would veto a trade to another bad team and only accept the trade if he had a chance to go to a team that had a chance to make the playoffs, in the example I gave above, a team with .500 or better record. Why would the player uproot his family to go to another crappy team. I know this is sim but, we are trying to sim as close to real life as possible, aren't we?

If you don't want the player to reject a trade, don't offer a NTC. Let's face it, most of the players with an NTC that are traded are because the player is not performing up to the contract and/or is starting to decline rapidly and the contract is for a lot of money. In other words, a bad contract. Lots of those in real life and in this game. The GM wants to find someone else to take the bad contract off their hands. To avoid that don't offer the NTC and if you have to offer it to get the player, the player may not be worth it for the resources you are giving up. The game offers an easier out, than in real life to get rid of these contracts so if you offer a NTC, live with it. Just find a willing team with a better record to dump the player on.

Posted by hockey1984 on 2/23/2016 6:44:00 PM (view original):

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?"

I bet you'd be surprised how often GM's say this

Yeah, and there are a lot of dumb GM's in real life. Doesn't matter the sport.

10/5 players also implicitly have no trade clause rights. So it's not just as simple as "don't offer a NTC".

Also, in real life, the invocation of NTCs by players can be more complex than team record. In 2008, Brian Giles invoked his 10/5 NTC to block a trade from the last place Padres to the second place Red Sox, who had 22 more wins (at the time of the attempted trade) and who ended up being the AL wild card team that season. He invoked his NTC rights because he saw himself likely getting less playing time with Boston, and he also anticipated that he would only be a rental player with Boston and would be traded after the season, since his 10/5 status would have been lost by accepting a trade to Boston.

Suck it up. The NTC works as intended here and it should actually be tougher. If my Honolulu franchise wants to trade you the Iowa City, you should reject it because, well, it's Hawaii vs. Iowa. Record shouldn't matter.

Posted by tecwrg on 2/26/2016 12:18:00 PM (view original):
10/5 players also implicitly have no trade clause rights. So it's not just as simple as "don't offer a NTC".

Also, in real life, the invocation of NTCs by players can be more complex than team record. In 2008, Brian Giles invoked his 10/5 NTC to block a trade from the last place Padres to the second place Red Sox, who had 22 more wins (at the time of the attempted trade) and who ended up being the AL wild card team that season. He invoked his NTC rights because he saw himself likely getting less playing time with Boston, and he also anticipated that he would only be a rental player with Boston and would be traded after the season, since his 10/5 status would have been lost by accepting a trade to Boston.

Sure, it is that simple because that is what started your beef. The beef isn't that a 10/5 player blocked the trade it's a player with a NTC contract blocked the trade. Simple.

Not really sure though how your example supports your claim that the game is unfair with not allowing two players with NTC to be traded for each other. But if you want to talk 10/5 rights, while 10/5 rights work the same as a NTC, it is not the same as NTC contract. 10/5 players usually are older players, 35+, that are near the ends of their careers. In real life, 10/5 players have families and roots in the community that they do not want to uproot and reject trades for personal reasons. While some do, most of those players do not carry "bad" contracts. And the ones that carry "bad" contracts, usually do not get traded except to good teams for peanuts. In your example, Giles did not want to lose control of a right he earned, to choose where he plays at the end of his career, just to be a perceived part time "rental" player. Especially when that would mean he would be living away from home and family for the remainder of the season and not just on road trips. Giles, along with Phillips, are players not wanting to be traded to a better team.

There are very, very few, if any, real life examples of players with NTC clauses or 10/5 rights approving trades to losing teams. Yet, the game actually makes it easier to trade players with NTC clause contracts than in real life by just having the criteria that the team he is being traded to has a better record by just one game, even if that team has the second worse record in the league. Why would any player with a NTC want to be traded to a team with a worse record, unless the team he was being traded to was in first place in their division? Or in the case of two bad teams, a city with better weather?

Also, if you want to talk 10/5 players in the game parameters, it's true 10/5 player's having the same criteria as NTC to block trades however they are are also easier to trade because they usually do not have "bad" contracts attached them. There are exceptions but, better teams looking for help for a playoff run tend to be more interested in 10/5 players than bad teams because of where the player is in his career. In the game, you don't have to worry about the emotional aspect of a player blocking the trade like in your example.