|
Post by Commish on Aug 19, 2008 22:52:57 GMT -5
From what i have heard you can modify rosters and play with them in unranked games. If this is the case, we could do trades within the league. If we do that...i was thinking maybe we put some limits so it doesnt go nuts...
Couple of ideas: 1 for 1 trades Limit trades per team to 3? No trading after week 5--like the real nfl
|
|
|
Post by theunadonkey on Aug 20, 2008 2:46:24 GMT -5
The trade limit seems ok, its what we used to do in my neighborhood league, but i don't see why it has to be 1 for 1. Since every team is owned, its not like you can cheese the trades to a cpu team. Like 3 average player for one great one... I'm fine with the limit and the deadline tho... either way on the 1 for 1 tho. If someone's crazy enough to trade 3 starters then let them. What about free agents?
|
|
|
Post by pnddgg972 on Aug 20, 2008 3:51:15 GMT -5
I agree with the week 5 limit but don't think we should limit anything else.
|
|
|
Post by Tony79 on Aug 20, 2008 7:42:48 GMT -5
not a bad idea, how will it work though. Say dallas and san fran make a trade, will everyone have to update their own rosters?
|
|
|
Post by Gladiator on Aug 20, 2008 10:18:35 GMT -5
A word regarding the trades.......
What if two unscrupulous owners trade purposely making one team a powerhouse and depleting the other? A unlimited trade rule can bring a lot of starters over to one side. A one for one trade can limit that possibly of happening or at the very least keep the damage to a minimum.
Another question, what if the Dallas owner and Steelers owner make a trade, then down the road one of the owners drop out? Normally the SAPML chooses to fill vacant teams with replacement owners. Does the replacement owner have to take a team that may not have the roster of the real NFL team? Or does the original trade become null and void?
My opinion, trades may make an interesting league and probably would be fun but also muddy's the waters big time.
I'd say not to do it and save the headache but if the league moves forward with it, I think it would have to be policed by the administration/Commish to be sure that no abuse is being done.
Perhaps simply making all trades pending until the administration/Commish approves it.
Just trying to be the devils advocate here..........
|
|
|
Post by theunadonkey on Aug 20, 2008 13:29:59 GMT -5
Even worse, I suppose one person could pose as two owners. I've changed my mind, I think the 1 for 1 is a good idea.
Or no trades at all, honestly this sounds like more trouble than its worth.
|
|
|
Post by Tony79 on Aug 20, 2008 13:41:54 GMT -5
agreed!
|
|
|
Post by Commish on Aug 20, 2008 22:36:07 GMT -5
LOl..glad has always been a voice of reason.
Im not opposed to trying it..but i would want it to be simple and hopefully foolproof..if thats possible.
|
|
|
Post by Gladiator on Aug 21, 2008 5:55:29 GMT -5
Just trying to earn my paycheck for the week Commish! Now, anybody need to some advice on finances..........first send a check to Gladiator, Boardman Ohio,............ah, you getting this down............ ?
|
|
|
Post by tdogg on Aug 21, 2008 16:46:19 GMT -5
first and foremost SAN FRAN WILL NEVER TRADE WITH DALLAS WE HATE THEM.... 2nd. I like 1 for 1 trades and 3 lmit you should be able to police that pretty well personally..
|
|
|
Post by jtothed on Aug 23, 2008 13:42:17 GMT -5
I know most leagues run "open scheudle" so people can play when they can.
If this is the case, how do you determine a "week 5"? Would it be 5 games into that player's games, or 5 weeks for the total league?
Just a thought....
|
|