MSWLUnited LeaguesThe ManagerTMBL
Match Due GMT    
BlogTablesStatsCoachesJournalsLogin Features
                        
 
 The Trade Window is currently open...
Trade ban rules
All Topics
Willy (Montevideo) - Wednesday 11-05-08 15:39
I wonder if we can make the trade ban to count matches for all players whether they are in the lineup or not.

I have a player that is my 4th GK and it is still young and somewhat "tradeable" but he is about to go a second full season in the team and his trade ban never comes down.

I really cannot afford to make him play, even 1 minute of any game...

Tim (Zaragoza) - Wednesday 11-05-08 16:07

At present we have the following trade bans on player movements after purchase (I couldn't find anything official, so this is from memory):
- between teams, 5 matches.
- auction, 15 matches.
- purchase rookie, 30 matches.

Background is that there used to be separate auctions for divisions and no limit on trading. Douglas pushed the limits too far in deliberately throwing playoffs to stay in Div 2, plundering the auction and generally pissing everyone off. Some rather draconian changes came in as a result. 1 auction for everybody, extra money for Div 1 league matches, and trading bans.

The 5 match wait when trading between teams, well, okay, but what if you wanted to trade a player with one team so you could put a package together to trade with another? Why not? Just wondering. Don't really have any problem with this one.

The 15 match auction ban. This seems too long to me. It equates in practice to an entire regular season. I don't understand why a team should have to retain an auction player for that long. Why not 5 matches? With everybody dipping in the same pool, I don't actually understand why you shouldn't be rewarded if you bothered to put in a bid and no-one else did, and you got a player super cheap that someone else is willing to offer you more for. I presently try to avoid bidding on any player I would have to keep that I can't use, even a minimal amount, as it will just be wasting my money. And I'm not the only one. It also means if you screw up, you're stuck with the purchase for the rest of the season (at least).

The 30 match ban for rookies. This means you have to retain them usually into the 2nd season. I'm often perusing age 1 players that might help me avoid the agony of training up that absolute rookie. Considering that the purchased players start at 0/0 or 0/2, and the auction players start at 0/5, there is virtually no reason for a Div 1 team to purchase a 0/0 rookie. But do you want them doing a deal with a Div 2 team to purchase a rookie through the back door, as it were? Maybe making it mandatory to season the player before trading, rather than a match ban? Or a 15 match ban?

Just some thoughts.

Graham (Barcelona) - Wednesday 11-05-08 16:38
Lengthy trade bans for rookies is a good idea. Its the one thing I dont like in SESL (i.e. it produces so-called feeder teams). However for older players I do think the long embargoes can be restrictive. A season or two ago I bought a cheap keeper as a backup (I think it was at auction). In the following season I had a new youth keeper which meant the older player had to sit on the benches for an entire season until I eventually just retired them as I couldnt trade them despite them potentially still being of use as a 2nd or third string keeper for someone else.
Dave (British Bull-Dogs) - Wednesday 11-05-08 16:54
And you have a problem with so-called 'Feeder Teams' Graham?Take a look at what Craig has done at Stirling (SESL) this season & tell me that is not good or productive for SESL
Steve (Asteria) - Wednesday 11-05-08 17:58
Stirling is unusual because Craig started with 3900k and 67 TP and such a low T11 and T17 that he had no choice. But generally I don't agree with feeder teams and have never offered to act as feeder or ask a team to provide a player for me. And they go too cheaply anyway and just make Div 1 sides even stronger.

I don't think it was good or productive for SESL.

I agree 15 matches is high - but then if you don't want a player then don't bid on him hoping to make a profit. I think the 30 match ban is so Div 2 teams don't act as feeders. Div 1 apprentices don't have any ban.

Having said all that I think Willy's idea has merit - as long as the trade bans are made higher.

Graham (Barcelona) - Wednesday 11-05-08 18:23
Craigs experience is an outlier. With that bank balance and TP balance I think he could have done wonders with the team but over a longer period, but still it could have been done.

As I expect that Rene could have if he had been left with the team.

Graham (Barcelona) - Wednesday 11-05-08 19:09
Also - in general I dont think its good for SESL.

The recent listings of how many apprentices were in the game and from which leagues/teams suggests its not been good for SESL...

Also the perverse situation of CP being worth more than TP in SESL... Where CP is the only one purchaseable pre-season.

Tim (Zaragoza) - Wednesday 11-05-08 19:39

It doesn't work for purchasing rookies, but could auction player bans be wiped at the end of the season? The last auction is just past half-way, so the player would have to remain for that season. But as one of the examples mentioned, the player's use (especially in restricted positions like GK & SW) may be superceded for next season, and yet still a useful trade? And if you haven't ended up making much use, but someone else wants them....

My concern with the "don't bid if you don't want it" is that it increases the chance of players not being bid on. We had 20 players in last season's auctions that went for less than 50% of the average price for the age & SL. 9 for less than 30%. That's an entire auction worth. The flip side is that you could have rich teams picking up multiple mid-SL players to trade for something good. But if more people are bidding, it is less likely they'd get them cheap. Sort of a circular argument. But would knowing we could send them to another home encourage us to bid?

Graham (Barcelona) - Wednesday 11-05-08 19:53
Maybe 10 games removed or the current value halved for all embargo timers at the end of the season?
Willy (Montevideo) - Wednesday 11-05-08 19:56
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a trade ban!

It's just that the trade ban matches counter should be independent of the player playing or not...

It is already bad enough that I got a player that never played. He is 2/10 now, It is a much better K backup than a 5/13 since MSA won't affect him that bad.

The thing is that my team has played over 20 matches since he came to the team and his trade ban still is 14 matches cause he only played one match...

Tim (Zaragoza) - Wednesday 11-05-08 21:14

Seems to me Willy is talking good sense here. (Did I just say that??) ;-) Making the match counter account for matches the team plays regardless of the player actually taking to the field sounds like a very useful idea.

David (Stockholm) - Thursday 11-06-08 2:57
I like Willy's idea as well "Making the match counter account for matches the team plays regardless of the player actually taking to the field".

I have a couple of lads who will not likely see action till they retire now, and somebody might have taken them off my hands.

However as this might encourage quick buying and selling, why not raise the bar a little, by raising the number of games before the player can be traded and then counting matches played regardless of whether he plays or not.

I am sure some players are brought in not to make an immediate impact but to fill gaps on the bench in cases of injuries/suspensions/low ELs etc and it would be a shame they could not be re-cycled at some point.

Phil (Missouri) - Thursday 11-06-08 21:54
When we consider a rule change, we have to keep in mind the reason the rule in the first place (and that's been done in the discussion thus far). The auctions were never intended to create a "reversal of fortune" situation for a team through predatory marketing, and a dreaded "rich get richer" scenario ensued. That's not to say that teams shouldn't get the "benefit of the bargain" when they made a wise bid, but the scenario discussed above was beyond the intention of the league office. If a change is in order, we should locate a tweak of this rule that leaves us with the same effective result that we have currently. That may mean that we increase the number of games on the ban, but allow the ban to roll in terms of "actual games" versus "actual games played." Or, that the ban is lifted in the off-season. Caveat: Another general idea is that teams should not purchase players that they do not intend to use, thus depriving another team from utilizing that player's services. If the ban is changed to "actual games played," teams could purchase players with no intention of using them and then get trade value at a later date. In the end, I vote for no change. But if there's change to be had, please see above.
Willy (Montevideo) - Friday 11-07-08 0:19
15 games is half a season. I think that is a long time as it is. At least in my case I thought I had a use for the player, was not trying to steal a bargain or get him from any other team (we all agreed with Tim's analysis that the player was crappy to start with. His age is now 2 and he will spend the rest of his career without playing cause I'm not going to play him a minute here and there just to be able to trade him...

What makes this case more rare is that this is only a bigger deal because the player is a GK. I'd not only play him but even would want to keep him had he been a DF or MF...

Willy (Montevideo) - Friday 11-07-08 0:21
Also, we don't know what players are coming in future auctions. Easily you can get players that make you change your mind.

I do think that there should be a trade ban...

Tim (Zaragoza) - Friday 11-07-08 13:38

Yup. I think we're all in favour of the bans in general, just feel that some of the specifics need addressing.

Dave (British Bull-Dogs) - Friday 11-07-08 16:39
Willy, ever thought about playing him at Sweeper or defender for 45 minutes each game. I'm in the same position with one of my 4(FOUR) keepers, but I aint moaning about it, just playing him as an outfielder to get the games!. Give it a try!
Willy (Montevideo) - Friday 11-07-08 19:12
Thanks Dave.

The spirit of all this was not to moan, was just to make this game better...

Sorry if it came across that way...

Phil (Missouri) - Saturday 11-08-08 0:00
I don't want to hear ANY moaning out of Bronco fans about ANYTHING. Not after that debacle they call a "win" (rhymes with "sin" which describes the way they snuck off with a win they didn't deserve Thursday in Cleveland).
Willy (Montevideo) - Saturday 11-08-08 6:45
He he he... and a CHIEFS fan of all people should have the right to that kind of call...???

Give me a break... ;) (I guess the Broncos got a few "breaks" this season...)

Dave (British Bull-Dogs) - Saturday 11-08-08 10:45
IMHO It wouldn't make the game better for all Willy....Sorry
Willy (Montevideo) - Saturday 11-08-08 13:03
Ok, I give up... next time I'll ask Tim before bidding on any auction players... ;)
Jackie (Liverpool) - Sunday 11-09-08 3:43
If you do not want 4 GK's, then simply do not bid on GK's at auction! ;-)

Today I traded away a good WG who was going to see no CP investment at my team: so shall I now ask for a rule change to ban all WG's? ;-)

I am joking with you ofcourse, but point is rules are there for a reason and its the same rules for all teams.

Dave (British Bull-Dogs) - Sunday 11-09-08 5:08
Nicely said Jackie!
Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 11-09-08 15:05
Hear, hear! Agree with Jackie!
Tim (Zaragoza) - Sunday 11-09-08 18:56

I think Dave, Jackie and Phil are all missing the point. The ban period is so long that the purpose for which the player was originally purchased has ceased to exist, and you are left with no option other than retiring them. If a whole season has passed, then what use is a further ban?

All rules should be constantly subject to assesment and revisement. Minor regular changes are hugely preferable to sudden drastic change because someone has just made use of a big loophole that no-one ever bothered doing anything about because rules are rules and why bother changing anything.

Phil (Missouri) - Sunday 11-09-08 21:53
Well, just because we disagree doesn't mean we've "missed the pont." Not sure I see the "major loophole" creating a problem in this situation. I've already made a posting above about the "tweaking" of this rule, but in essence I see it as a manager requesting a change because they are inconvenienced by it. No offense intended to Willy, because he has a great argument. But the rule was in place when he purchased the player. Honestly, it sounds as if you're shifting gears, Tim. I thought that we had reduced the question to "yes, there should be a ban, but the ban tick away regardless of whether the player is logging match time or not." Now, it sounds as if your argument is that the ban period is too long and should be shortened? Perhaps you were right...I am missing the point! :-)
Willy (Montevideo) - Monday 11-10-08 5:39
I don't want to change the rule! I'm not inconvenienced! I think that the ticker for the ban needs to go down whether the player plays or not. I think it just makes sense...

I can't see where Tim says that the ban should be shortened! He says that it is long enough...

The last time I made a suggestion I promised myself to never do it again because of how I was shot down... I should have kept my promise... ;)

Let's never again make a change, the game is as good as it gets as it is...

Tim (Zaragoza) - Monday 11-10-08 16:34

It's just airing opinions, Willy, and if no-one ever questioned anything then we'd all be playing Longball. ;-) Don't take it personally. Phil and I don't hate each other, no matter what it sounds like.

The question, as I understand it, is whether the trading ban format as it currently stands is as good as it can be? Dave, Jackie & Phil say yes. Willy says he can see a flaw in that there is no way his player's counter will reduce, so the only option is to retire the player, whether anyone would want him or not. I agree that is a flaw.

But going further than that, yes, I do think that 15 matches for auction players and 30 matches for rookies is too long in MSWL as the league rules currently stand. Talking about what happens in SESL is only relevant where it is adressing the same rules. I think that tieing the trading ban counter to the team rather than the player is a good option. It will reduce both auction and rookie trading bans by 1/3, and I think that is good.

While it is unlikely that I will get anybody agreeing with me on this point, I think that in regards to auction players, under the current system in MSWL, I do not see there being any need or point to a trading ban, full stop. The only way to get a cheap player is if no-one else bids on them, in which case if one of those teams then offers the lucky winner significantly more, they've only got themselves to blame, and well done to the team that bothered to bid. The trading ban stops me from bidding, and I would argue it does the same for other teams, as confirmed by the comments of those opposed to any change in the trading bans. If there were separate auctions, that would be a different matter.

Phil (Missouri) - Monday 11-10-08 22:29
"Phil and I don't hate each other, no matter what it sounds like."--Tim "THE RAT" Given

Now we really do have a disagreement! These two managers really don't like each other.

Seriously, IF any change is made I'm not in favor of shortening the ban. If the ban switches to "tick away" regardless of matches played, then the number should be bumped up to compensate for the switch. Or, how about both? 15 matches played OR "x" matches whether the player plays or not. That way a team benefits from playing the players it purchases, but shortsighted managers who can't find a purpose for players they spend good money on have an exit. (JUST KIDDING WILLY, JUST KIDDING!)

Or maybe the ban lifts at the end of the season regardless of matches played.

Well, here I am arguing with myself...
Tim (Zaragoza) - Wednesday 11-12-08 2:14

Lawyers, aye? They'll argue with themselves if there's no-one else. ;-) Not sure what my excuse is! :-P

Oh, yeah. Phil's rat comment is to do with my team in FLATNZ. Don't want Willy to get any more stressed that he already is. Actually, come to think of it, why did you call my team mascot (that you invented) "Willy" the Rat, Phil? Some Freudian thing going on there?

Allan (Memphis) - Wednesday 11-12-08 8:36
Hi guys,

Thanks for all the debate on this point. To be clear, I'm fine with all the discussion and debate about aspects of the game like this. Sometimes this sort of dialog can bring about changes...sometimes it just reminds people why rules are in place.

My feedback goes like this:

AUCTIONS
Auctions exist in MSWL (other leagues can have differing rules/principles) so that "on average" all teams have a chance to get about 3 new players each season to use on their own team. We all know its not exactly 3 per team...but that's the average (we have 72 players available).

So to be clear; auctions exist so teams have a chance to get new players to use on their own team.

Auctions do not exist in MSWL to be used as a manager's personal stock market. At one time "some" people engaged in buy low/sell high tactics. In particular for one team they gained a competitive advantage. Thus a no-trade rule was put in place to "enforce" what had been the "spirit" of the rule which was: auctions exist so teams have a chance to get new players to use on their own team.

But, you know how it is...sometimes people don't get the 'spirit' of the rule even after multiple email conversations. So the rule became such that if a team purchases a player in an auction, then that player must play on that team for 15 games before that player may be traded.

Per the concepts discussed, the auction does not exist so that people can buy a player for the purpose of immediately selling the player.

If you don't want/cannot use a player; then don't bid on the player. I would argue that with the exception of the occasional GK/SW players...almost EVERY player in the auction would have some use to an existing team.

Could we change it to "games the team played" as opposed to the current "games the player played"? I don't see the need to. Everyone is playing by the same rules: "purchase players you need and plan to use (as we have a 15-game matches played in before trading ban); don't bid on the others".

For MSWL, because we don't have minimum values/bids, I'm "okay" with players going for 1k if/when it happens. There's risk/reward in who people bid on and how much. If it results in lower costs at auction time, I'm okay with that. Again, I view auctions as a way for teams to get new players they plan to use, period. If they get a good deal, good for them (so I'm okay with the buy low part...just not the sell high part). The restrictions exist so those that consider the auctions their version of a stock market cannot take advantage of that situation to purchase players on Sunday and sell them Monday.

Willy should continue to ask "Why" some rules exist and not feel like all his ideas are getting shot down. As I said to open this...sometimes these discussions can bring changes...other times we need to revisit them to identify why they exist in the first place.

Its just that for this particular discussion area, I'm not convinced anything needs to be done in MSWL to make a change to this rule.

Al

Willy (Montevideo) - Wednesday 11-12-08 9:55
Thanks Al, I won't give up then.

I still think that I was misunderstood on this issue. I did not get the player in question as a dirt cheap bargain hunt. I got it with the full intention of coaching/using him and only after reading Tim's auction analysis I then agreed with Tim's opinion that the player wasn't a very good buy for my team. Then I got lucky and got another GK making this our 3rd GK...

It feels more like cheating the system/rules to play him out of position for a minute here and there just to make the ticker go down. I refuse to do that, I'd rather let him retire without playing a game...

If the rules are as they are because of the need to prevent managers from buying a player in an auction just to sell it at a profit even if they just have to hold the player for 15 matches then I'm not sure I'd like to share this game with people that approach the game that way...

Phil (Missouri) - Wednesday 11-12-08 22:22
Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Did Willy just leave the game?
Willy (Montevideo) - Monday 11-17-08 7:37
In the spirit of rebirth that we are on right now I think it's best to consider this thread on hold until further notice. The pending issues are that Phil hates me, I hate Dave, Dave supports Jackie, Tim hates Phil, Phil hates Steve, Steve hates Graham, Graham has no clue, Graham is funny anyway...

... Ah and something about trade bans that slips out of mind right now... ;)

Graham (Barcelona) - Wednesday 11-19-08 10:26
Wha?

huh?

eh?

Willy (Montevideo) - Wednesday 11-19-08 11:26
See...? ;)
All Topics