i5s General Discussion

[Memphistopheles]

I like the idea of trading.

However, I don't like the idea of uneven trades 1 for 3, 2 for 1.

I think we're going to see some teams

We'll just have some guys offering 10 of their spuds for one gun in order to get super teams.

1 for 1 trading (or two for two) will ensure the trades stay fairer.

Alternatively how about this for a different/interesting trading system. Kind of in the IPL Auction style, kind of a completely new system I just thought up because work is boring me.

We have the one trade thread for the competition. Then we have 5 (for example - could be more, could be less) bidding periods.

In each period every team lists one player they are willing to trade and the player is posted in the opening post under their team name.

Then in the thread people make a post with their bid for a particular player. These are public and other clubs can also make an offer for the players and this continues. There's not beating bids but coaches can up their offer if they feel their original one has been trumped.

There's a certain amount of time for people to make bids (say a week) and then it closes. Then the next week the owners of the player decide which offer they want to take for their player. They could also choose not to accept any of the offers and keep the player.

If there's no offers for their player then they keep them.

Once everyone has made up their mind we go again with another player put up for auction from each club. And so on until we've done all 5 bidding periods.

PS - To make it more interesting we could make it so that any player put up for auction must be traded. As in the owner of the player must take the best offer for them.

[RaisyDaisy]

Why is it unnecessary? Some teams have 20 players and others have 10 by trading 2 for 1. Yeah seems fun to me.

We can only field 5 players a week, so whether you have 5 or 20 sitting on the bench doing sweet FA shouldn't really matter should it? I think setting a team min and max of players is the way to go

Trade approval? Cant have 47 coaches approve/decline each trade lol

[LF]

Why is it unnecessary? Some teams have 20 players and others have 10 by trading 2 for 1. Yeah seems fun to me.

We can only field 5 players a week, so whether you have 5 or 20 sitting on the bench doing sweet FA shouldn't really matter should it? I think setting a team min and max of players is the way to go

Trade approval? Cant have 47 coaches approve/decline each trade lol

It would be Os only I assume that would yay or nay the trades
Worlds is the only comp that does trade votes through the coaches all the other comps the admin do it

[Big Mac]

On the 10 spuds for one gun deal - This would never happen. No one would ever accept 10 spuds for a gun, because only 5 players play each week - So the spuds would never play anyway.

[Pkbaldy]

On the 10 spuds for one gun deal - This would never happen. No one would ever accept 10 spuds for a gun, because only 5 players play each week - So the spuds would never play anyway.

See how many injuries came up last year? Final rounds when players start to get rested and finish the year because they're going into surgery. I reckon those spuds would come in handy, otherwise you might find yourself with stuff all available.

[ADEZ]

I think setting a team min and max of players is the way to go

+1

Perhaps instead of 2 for 2 etc. it can be +1....so 1 for 2, 4 for 5, 2 for 3...
Won't throw out the numbers too much but still leaves room to get a trade done

[Nige]

Hypothetically, if the team min was 10 and somebody decided to trade all out but 10 players and they somehow got 5 injuries/suspensions/non-selections that week, they mightn't have a team of 5 to field.

Yes, that's their fault but then I don't think it's fair if in that scenario, they have 4 vs the 5 of another team in that week.

I think it's better we keep team lists as is, because even if you have to field some KPD that scores 40 every week, that's better than being a player short in an extreme case. Plus, people in these comps are way to quick to dog and moan of the smallest things that are a non-issue and the moment something does suit them, they get pissy.

People should also remember that in this comp, teams are going to be eliminated after just 5 weeks. The drafts pools were luck of the draw. If you did well enough with the hand you were dealt along with a bit of luck, you'll go all the way. Not to mention, you only retain 3 players from these lists or something like that, so you'll get players from different clubs next year anyway.

[Mr.Craig]

Let people trade however they want I say. If someone makes a stupid decision then so be it.

[Pkbaldy]

Let people trade however they want I say. If someone makes a stupid decision then so be it.

We don't care about the person losing. More the person with a stacked team.

I think we should keep the teams we have. We only get to keep 3 players at the end of the year... Unless you do a restriction where your first 3 draft picks cannot be traded. Only from picks round 4-16 can be traded.

[SydneyRox]

yeah, no trading for mine. Long way off, but whats the plan for the reallocation next year? Will it be the same groups or something seeded by averages or ladder positions?

[Nige]

Let people trade however they want I say. If someone makes a stupid decision then so be it.

We don't care about the person losing. More the person with a stacked team.

I think we should keep the teams we have. We only get to keep 3 players at the end of the year... Unless you do a restriction where your first 3 draft picks cannot be traded. Only from picks round 4-16 can be traded.

I think if trading went ahead, the idea would be no retention of traded in players, I like the idea of not being able to trade your first few picks though.

yeah, no trading for mine. Long way off, but whats the plan for the reallocation next year? Will it be the same groups or something seeded by averages or ladder positions?

I'm currently discussing this with oss and nrich, I'm for randomly allocating pools again, it was luck of the draw the first time, I see no need for change.

[upthemaidens]

 -Firstly I really think the trading rules should have been worked out before drafting started.

-Drafting allocations next season has to be random teams again, can't just be drafting from the same three clubs every year.

-Not really a fan of trading in this comp., but if we do, I think the NO trading of your first 3 picks/or your 3 keepers should be allowed.

[Nige]

-Firstly I really think the trading rules should have been worked out before drafting started.

-Drafting allocations next season has to be random teams again, can't just be drafting from the same three clubs every year.

-Not really a fan of trading in this comp., but if we do, I think the NO trading of your first 3 picks/or your 3 keepers should be allowed.

In full agreement of this post.

[DazBurg]

-Firstly I really think the trading rules should have been worked out before drafting started.

-Drafting allocations next season has to be random teams again, can't just be drafting from the same three clubs every year.

-Not really a fan of trading in this comp., but if we do, I think the NO trading of your first 3 picks/or your 3 keepers should be allowed.

i personally like the fact it hasn't been worked out

if we had say a definite yes to trading and 1 for 1
etc i know for a fact people would already be pm'ing each other about who they should draft

i.e i pm you and say if you draft X player i will offer X,y,z etc
kind feels like draft tampering to me is all

[Ringo]

Agree with Dazz here and have seen it in drafts where coaches work in collusion to get players they want either by direct drafting or arrangement with other coaches.

If we are to trade then I would be in favour of a minimum squad of 12 and maximum of 20 which I think would be fair and allowing for multiple trades if need be.

I too would like to see what the rules will be for draft allocations next year.  Has to be random again to be fair to all.