|Tim (Zaragoza) - Wednesday 11-05-08 15:49|
At present we have the following trade bans on player movements after purchase (I couldn't find anything official, so this is from memory):
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.
|Tim (Zaragoza) - Wednesday 11-05-08 15:50|
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...