FanGM

Not for official rule change purposes, but just wanting to see how much interest there is on expanding no-trade situations. Currently we only have no-trade clauses on some of the LTC choices (2- and 3-year shorter LTCs have a 1-year no-trade but longer 4- and 5-year choices do not).

Otherwise, we allow teams to pretty much trade as they choose. Although there are less NFL trades, there are some examples of NFL trades happening in the past involving tagged-and-traded (once that 1-year tag signed) as well as rare cases of a team signing a free agent then trading that player later that off-season when their circumstances changed. Some of those are very rare, though, in reality but happen frequently here.

So just wanting to take the temperature on if people want more restrictions on trades or not. Thanks for your feedback.

I voted for a one year no-trade clause after LTC.

The biggest contention I have with the current rules someone brought up in the LTC thread. Teams with a lot of cap room signing their guys to long contracts and then eating the SB to gain extra picks, while lowering the annual cost to the team receiving the player.

I'd be okay with a one year NTC for LTCs, but in no way would be onboard with NTC for every single one year deal, or FA deals signed.

There have been examples of players moving in their first year via trade, and while we try to make this as comparable to the NFL as possible, we probably have 50 times the trades that the NFL does. I wouldn't like a league that limited that freedom to build your team the way you choose, and trades are a big part of that.

sportznut wrote:I'd be okay with a one year NTC for LTCs, but in no way would be onboard with NTC for every single one year deal, or FA deals signed.

There have been examples of players moving in their first year via trade, and while we try to make this as comparable to the NFL as possible, we probably have 50 times the trades that the NFL does. I wouldn't like a league that limited that freedom to build your team the way you choose, and trades are a big part of that.

Trades are a huge part of building a franchise the way you would like, but something needs to be done to limit the options to essentially bump another team's salary cap by millions of dollars. LTC only is the most reasonable option, IMO, and it's the one I voted for, but I'm really tired of seeing teams with $100 MM in cap space sign a guy to a deal with a huge signing bonus and promptly put him on the trade block for draft picks. That's not in any way realistic.

Thinking "out loud" here: What if we make it so that if a player is traded within X years of signing a new contract, the remaining signing bonus moves with the trade? This would still allow for trading but may lower the frequency of teams paying a huge signing bonus and then trading, as the receiving team won't be as thrilled to take on the bonus.

Lets face it, trading is what makes 99% of the people in this league active. If we start limited on who can be traded at what time and so on the league won't be fun anymore and alot of people will just become inactive...I don't see any reason AT ALl to put more rules in place to stop trading.

Onyxgem wrote:Lets face it, trading is what makes 99% of the people in this league active. If we start limited on who can be traded at what time and so on the league won't be fun anymore and alot of people will just become inactive...I don't see any reason AT ALl to put more rules in place to stop trading.

Trading does make the league active, but I find a complete lack of competitiveness from half the league to be basically the same as inactivity. When teams are essentially posting trade blocks of, "I'm going to go 0-16 next year on purpose, I want draft picks and I'll eat huge signing bonuses", that's not good for the league as a whole.

Ben C. wrote:Thinking "out loud" here: What if we make it so that if a player is traded within X years of signing a new contract, the remaining signing bonus moves with the trade? This would still allow for trading but may lower the frequency of teams paying a huge signing bonus and then trading, as the receiving team won't be as thrilled to take on the bonus.

I don't hate this idea at all.

JonC wrote:

Onyxgem wrote:Lets face it, trading is what makes 99% of the people in this league active. If we start limited on who can be traded at what time and so on the league won't be fun anymore and alot of people will just become inactive...I don't see any reason AT ALl to put more rules in place to stop trading.

Trading does make the league active, but I find a complete lack of competitiveness from half the league to be basically the same as inactivity. When teams are essentially posting trade blocks of, "I'm going to go 0-16 next year on purpose, I want draft picks and I'll eat huge signing bonuses", that's not good for the league as a whole.

It is better than those teams doing that going 5-11 getting a worse draft pick and still not being very good the next year either

Onyxgem wrote:

JonC wrote:

Onyxgem wrote:Lets face it, trading is what makes 99% of the people in this league active. If we start limited on who can be traded at what time and so on the league won't be fun anymore and alot of people will just become inactive...I don't see any reason AT ALl to put more rules in place to stop trading.

Trading does make the league active, but I find a complete lack of competitiveness from half the league to be basically the same as inactivity. When teams are essentially posting trade blocks of, "I'm going to go 0-16 next year on purpose, I want draft picks and I'll eat huge signing bonuses", that's not good for the league as a whole.

It is better than those teams doing that going 5-11 getting a worse draft pick and still not being very good the next year either

This is just going to be a difference of opinion between the two of us, IMO, but I disagree completely.

I think teams tanking artificially drives up FA prices for the B/B+ rated guys in the system. You can tank by signing all the C rated players you want and get your #1 pick. The only reason to want to allow trading in this way is so you can accumulate 9 of the 32 1st round picks in a draft because people are willing to send them to you. That isn't a condemnation of the team taking the picks, because if someone's willing to pay the price, then so be it, but it certainly changes the way we have to look at the playing field. The NFL is predicated on everyone having the same salary cap, and yes, people will always find a way to make the rules work to their advantage, but how many real life NFL teams are trading away all their talent in an obvious effort to get as many 1st round picks as possible?

I'd even be in favor of making the signing bonus all be applied to the following year rather than the current year if everyone is hell bent on letting the cap manipulation continue. I just think the tanking team should see a penalty at some point when they care about having all their money, OR they shouldn't be able to move a player they just signed to a multi-year deal for the first season.