In the offseason or in the regular season?

Regular

Is it the amount or the way that it is structured? Meaning, you agree with the 4 per month, but would rather have it on a weekly basis or do you completely disagree with the idea of having a trade limit in the first place?

I don't like a trade limit at all but would be ok with 2 per week It will keep the game interesting.

Dangles - I think that we would need to see what everyone else thinks too, but I wouldn't mind compromising and having the option of either or (2 per week or 4 per month)

Everyone else - Recently spoke to the Moderators, specifically Banks, about some possible coding to enhance v2. Unfortunately, the coding wouldn't be done within the time constraints that we have, with the game ideally launching in under a month. The coding changes weren't a deal breaker of whether or not v2 is possible. Please anticipate a start date of September 15th.

I would also like to propose these key dates for v2:

August 27th - last day to announce candidacy for BOE (must have 3 people running; see plan for details on what the BOE is); appropriate thread TBA
August 28th - BOE elections (All day)
August 29th - team claiming (All day)
September 15th - v2 launch

This is basically why I want to see a restriction of some sort. In order to grow the game and have more people show interest, it has to be more realistic.
Trading all of your players for different ones, then trading those players for other different ones, then trading those players for picks and prospects, then trading those picks and prospects for another group of players, it's just too much. As I've stated, the goal should be that an observer can look at a team at the end of the season and identify it without knowing which team it was starting out.

The two ways I see to achieve that:
1. Limit the quantity of trades a GM can make.
2. Limit the number of players a GM can trade away (ensure a percentage/fraction of current roster players are kept).

I'm open to other suggestions to achieve such a goal, but I don't believe this is something that will self-regulate. If a GM is permitted to make unlimited trades, there are definitely several that will do it.

Yeah when I joined, I found it very strange to see so many key and in real life untradeable players were moving teams so often. I thought it was going to be a bit more realistic. The addition of a trade limit will encourage teams to make smarter trades and those trades will more likely than not be more realistic.

I am all for a trade limit, however if a GM where to reach the limit then leave the new GM would have nothing to do since they cant make trades. I think the 2nd option is more reasonable.

I don't like the idea of limiting who they can and can't trade. This forces GMs to operate under roster conditions, meaning they cannot trade certain players because we want to prevent complete turnover, rather than the trade limit, which forces the GM to make smarter trades.

Most teams have players with NMC or NTC so they are already forced to keep them. I'd rather not force them to keep, for example, 25% (6 out of 23), of the original players on the team.

I think that teams can have these options to stick with, to suppress immediate roster turnover:

Maximum of (2) trades per week or 4 trades per month. Once you pick one, you are to abide by it for a month, or 4 weeks since the time you make your first trade.

The weekly/monthly limits would prevent a new GM from making trades for a period of 2 weeks at most. I feel it's the better option myself.
I think 4 is a suitable number. I don't know how many others would like a higher amount. I did suggest there be "extra" trades permitted in the 2 weeks prior to the deadline and during the off-season.
Whether we've reached any kind of agreement on changes, I don't know.



Again, I prefer the trade limits. It doesn't prevent what I'm concerned about, as it's still possible to trade away your entire team, but it should at least mitigate it.
Think we can agree to the 4/month and add more for the 2 weeks prior to the deadline?

I prefer trade limits also. The deadline can be be discussed at a later time as we have yet to see if the 4 per month is going to work. I'd rather not set an amount for the deadline until we can properly assess the trade limit. That being said, I am all for having an increased limit as the deadline grows closer, I just think we are better off making that change further into the season.

So basically we aren't going to actually have a discussion about raising the limit to 2 per week from 4 per month. Seems like you 2 have made the decision for the group.

We have had discussions about the trade limit and the proposed plan is that each GM can utilize these options:
2 trades per week or 4 trades per month. Once you pick one, you have to stick with it for a month, so that you cannot circumvent the trade limit. Nobody has explicitly objected to the option thus far.

The next thing to do is test the waters in v2 on what method works better, so that the BOE can come up with a higher trade limit approximately two weeks from the regular season deadline.

So you can either do 2 trades a week for 2 weeks or 4 trades in a month or you can do 2 trades x 4 weeks for a total of 8 trades?

GMs can do either of the following in regards to trade limits *tentative plan

2 trades per week for 4 weeks
or
4 trades per month (4 weeks)

Ok so i could make 8 trades in a month if I wanted to. I am good with that.

correct

Does that mean me and Philly? We were having a discussion.

As I said before, I'd even prefer lower (3/month) during the regular season, with extra trades in the 2 weeks prior to the deadline and during the off-season.
I can agree to 4 but I wanted less, so I actually came up from what I wanted.
I haven't seen enough dissenting opinion to warrant more yet. I understand you would like more, but others haven't been as vocal about that aspect.

That said, it is something flexible. If it proves to be detrimental it can be adjusted. The main thing is to start off slow rather than go full steam. Get the GM's used to making fewer and hopefully smarter trades. If everyone is making good trades and it is going smoothly, perhaps the limit can be increased.

Edit: NM Apparently that's not what he was saying.

Double? Too much in my opinion. Around 40 trades over the course of the regular season.
I think that will encourage people to make more trades. If you don't make 2/week, you're missing out. Puts pressure on GM's to meet that limit rather than avoid hitting the limit.

And it helps to make more realistic trades for a more realistic GM game

What if we did it that team can only make 2 trades a week for 8 weeks? You have (2) months that you can make two trades a week, and you must notify the BOE that you are doing this, prior to making a transaction that would count against the limit.

What if we put a limit on roster players but have no limit on draft picks/AHL/overseas players? I think that would garner more attention and attraction.

draft picks do not count against the limit, as long as they are the sole asset being used in a transaction. I don't think that a simple rule modification from a modified rule with bring more attention. The issue is that the game is hidden in the forums section, places that regular Arm-Chair GMs never visit

Hmm. How about:

4/Month standard
4 "Extra" trades
an additional 4 "Extra" trades added 2 weeks prior to the deadline
an additional 4 "Extra" trades added 2 weeks prior to the draft

So if you stick to the 4/month restriction, you can accumulate 8 extra trades to use at the deadline or up to 12 extra trades to use for the draft/free agency period.
Or something similar. At least by meting them out in intervals there is some control over trades in excess of the monthly restriction.