FanGM

I like the idea of moving people down. But the fact they take on entirely new team just doesnt feel right. I am sure some restriction about must requiring a team to make a 1st round pick 1 time every 3 years or something like that would not be a terrible idea.

And i voted no but willing to hear ideas.

vikingfan wrote:I like the idea of moving people down. But the fact they take on entirely new team just doesnt feel right. I am sure some restriction about must requiring a team to make a 1st round pick 1 time every 3 years or something like that would not be a terrible idea.

And i voted no but willing to hear ideas.

That necessarily doesn’t make sense either. In the AFFL the last time I made a 1st round selection was for the 2014 draft when I took Blake Bortles #3 overall. Since then for 2015-2018 I have gone 42-22, been .500 or better in all 4 years, and made the playoffs twice.

I of course voted no. I'm against limiting trading. This league is supposed to be fun... not realistic. FUN.

Jared A wrote:I of course voted no. I'm against limiting trading. This league is supposed to be fun... not realistic. FUN.

I agree, it should be fun. However, we frequently strive to also be realistic.

I'm torn here, because it's not realistic for NFL teams to trade the majority of their draft, so I could see supporting trade restrictions that prevent teams from doing so. However, the NFL has no trade restrictions, so why should we either? If two willing parties agree to a trade that doesn't scream collusion, I'm usually fine with it. If they found a price agreeable to both parties, so be it.

If we decide to change anything, I would support what someone mentioned earlier similar to baseball sim leagues where you either have to keep your 1/2 or two of your 3/4/5/6/7 or something along those lines. It's a small dose of realism without overly restricting trades, IMO.

Two perhaps unintended consequences of restricting trades:
1. Less player movement, longer rebuilds, more frequent GM turnover.
2. Over-valued average players because elite players become less moveable due to deflated prices.

JonC wrote:Two perhaps unintended consequences of restricting trades:
1. Less player movement, longer rebuilds, more frequent GM turnover.
2. Over-valued average players because elite players become less moveable due to deflated prices.

This is a completely accurate depiction of what will happen in my opinion.

This got out of control quickly. The key word in this poll is EXTREME. Just by saying a team has a max of say 20 picks a year and 5 to 10 per round isn't going to eliminate trading. I'm looking at it as a way to rid the league of nonsense and creating a more intelligent trading environment. There was a team last year in EFFL that owned almost every pick in the fifth round. A lot of you are right that this is what makes the league fun and no one should tell us how to run our teams but what about the rookie owners? Ive seen way to many veteran owners build there dynasties on the backs of these rookie owners only to see them disappear a year later. At least by setting some sort of draft pick minimum we can protect these rookie owners, which would lead to less turnover. Im not sure about the details but I'm for some sort of maximum and minimum to protect the integrity and overall competitive balance of the league.