Rule proposal: trade disputes.

I think everyone will agree that the current trade dispute rules are a disaster. We created this league on the premis that simpler is better and having convoluted formulas to tell managers what their players are worth does not follow their simpler is better tenant.
Proposal:
There are no guidelines. If you feel a trade is unbalanced you call for a league vote. You do that by creating a post on this website saying you want a vote on the trade. You do not give reasons or arguments just create the protest page. The protestor automatically votes to overturn. The parties trading automatically vote to let it stand. All managersMUST vote yes or no no exceptions. 7 votes to overturn and it’s reversed. In the case of a 6-6 tie the 3 governor votes are the tiebreaker, there is no 2nd vote for the governors their initial vote counts for both. You must vote within 48 hours in the off season you get 7 days. You WILL be chased down to vote.

Penalties: the first time you lose a vote as either side there is no penalty. Each time after that when you lose you pay .50 of next years pool money this may drive you below the floor. E.g you protest 3 trades and then have one of your trades protested lost the 1st protest no cost, lose the 2nd protest pay .50 win the 3rd protest no cost lose your trades being protested pay 1.00

Discuss....

I'm fine with this. Should all come out clean in most circumstances.

I like your idea but the only suggestion is that the 3 managers (2 traders & protester) SHOULD not have a vote in the matter as there is bias.

The other 9 managers all need to vote thus eliminating ties and the Guvs work is reduced.

Would like this implemented for the start of next year.

I agree to this proposal with the changes by the Posse

The remaining 9 managers vote YES or NO (you must vote or be chased down to vote)
5 votes decide the fate of the trade

There will be no tie breakers needed

Tired of protests of trades. Of course there is a bias. Everyone who is being affected by the trade in a negative way is going to vote it down. Not interested in having that happen. Not interested in being pursed to vote either. You guys are just asking to have people get pissed off with this idea.

I like a 5-4 set up. It is the democratic process and it says that one person feels so strongly about something that they will put skin in the game. I also like the fact that it takes the pressure off of the governors

Ole

Killer Bs wrote:Tired of protests of trades.  Of course there is a bias. Everyone who is being affected by the trade in a negative way is going to vote it down.  Not interested in having that happen.  Not interested in being pursed to vote either.    You guys are just asking to have people get pissed off with this idea.

So what is your suggestion as it seems you don't like any existing or potential new rules on the protesting issue.

My other suggestion if nobody liked the above , is to use the revised player valuation sheet with no future values
( I think most of you got it emailed to you )

In short it converts all players 3 year averages to AHL SCORING
and assigns a value ,  all players with no 3 year average are $1 no ands ifs or buts

Valuation sheet is mailed out after the draft with drafted rosters
No trades permitted from after the draft until after game 1

All trades within $2 variance for total trade ( impossible to make a calculation error )
If the trade doesn’t add up , trade not valid , which basically should never happen
As 1 + 1 can only equal 2 lol

The $2 variance can only be used after game 20
any player acquired before this shouldn’t get a variance as you have him all year.

No other discounts

Any player over $6 traded to another manager can never be on your team again until after the next seasons DRAFT, you can draft him if he’s released.

This means ...
if I trade you a player $6 or more in the summer , that player can’t be traded back to me by any manager until after next years draft

If I trade you a player $6 or more during the season, that player can’t be traded back to me by any manager until after next years draft

I don't like this proposal at all and would/will vote no.

We created rules to try and regulate trades because the league is competitive and there are too many trades that are "close" but not really fair. The old rules were not working so we tried to improve them. Those improvements are not working so we need to go further.

Every manager has their own way to value players, none of them are identical and many are inconsistent with each other.

The current rules are a mess because they don't go far enough to define values, primarily around young players with limited experience, and the rules today are regularly interpreted differently by the governors using their own valuation system which leads to the major disputes we ran into earlier this year.

The biggest flaw with the everyone vote rule is: when a trade is overturned there is NO ability to define how much the trade was offside, assuming that the two managers involved want to amend it. We don't even have a fair comparison basis as no player has a defined value (however flawed a definition).

This is not a problem with massively lopsided trades that should be overturned. However it is, and will be, a problem for 5-10% of any close trade where one of the managers getting players is competing for the championship. The real fights over trades are always when teams trying to win feel that a competitor got a "great deal".

Like the Witch Doctors I have written a comprehensive list of trade guidelines which value every player in the NHL. This uses actual NHL points converted to AHL scoring (on a per-game basis consistent with our contracts) and would be published well before a draft. None of the governors was interested, and only the Hackers made any comments on my proposal.

Again, this is only my opinion, but going backwards to this everyone voting is the wrong way to deal with trades.

We have 2 similar alternatives that could be used, but if this everyone votes proposal is passed there is no point beating a dead horse anymore.

Idiots wrote:I don't like this proposal at all and would/will vote no.

We created rules to try and regulate trades because the league is competitive and there are too many trades that are "close" but not really fair.  The old rules were not working so we tried to improve them.  Those improvements are not working so we need to go further.

Every manager has their own way to value players, none of them are identical and many are inconsistent with each other.

The current rules are a mess because they don't go far enough to define values, primarily around young players with limited experience, and the rules today are regularly interpreted differently by the governors using their own valuation system which leads to the major disputes we ran into earlier this year.

The biggest flaw with the everyone vote rule is: when a trade is overturned there is NO ability to define how much the trade was offside, assuming that the two managers involved want to amend it.  We don't even have a fair comparison basis as no player has a defined value (however flawed a definition).

This is not a problem with massively lopsided trades that should be overturned.  However it is, and will be, a problem for 5-10% of any close trade where one of the managers getting players is competing for the championship.  The real fights over trades are always when teams trying to win feel that a competitor got a "great deal".

Like the Witch Doctors I have written a comprehensive list of trade guidelines which value every player in the NHL.  This uses actual NHL points converted to AHL scoring (on a per-game basis consistent with our contracts) and would be published well before a draft.  None of the governors was interested, and only the Hackers made any comments on my proposal.

Again, this is only my opinion, but going backwards to this everyone voting is the wrong way to deal with trades.  

We have 2 similar alternatives that could be used, but if this everyone votes proposal is passed there is no point beating a dead horse anymore.

John just email your proposal to the guvs instead of sitting on it---that what the WDs does...everyone is busy in real life so just throw it down our throats-LOL

I am glad to see my opinion hasn't really changed in the last 4 months. We have had a lot of discussion since that time about how we navigate trades. Coming out of those discussions with the different people in the pool this is the somewhat consensus we have come up with.

We appreciate all of the work Alfie has done on valuations and they should be used as a guideline when making trades ONLY GUIDELINES so people know what players values are. Most of the values are true and correct. As part of the guidelines any forward that any forward that scores fewer than 33 AHL points and any defenceman that scores lower than 13 AHL points are only worth 0. There are outliers for younger players such as Makar and Andrei Svenchnikov. One of the byproducts of the number of trade disputes is we lost two governors last season and almost two managers. This is unacceptable in my view and the governors should enjoy the pool as much as any of us. They should only be voting on situations like the Covid Cup and the Mario Lemiuex situation. It is my opinion that all of the managers in the pool should be involved in the protest process.

With all of this in mind here is what I propose.

A trade is made the two managers use the guidelines before making the trade to see if it passes the sniff test

A protest is made online to the league

The league uses the guidelines as a guideline before voting and then votes. The protester will presumably be a NO and the two people making the trade presumably will be YESES. If there is a tie 6-6 the governors posted votes break the tie.

A penalty will occur for each protest in escalation at 50c a protest will be administered to the losing protester/s eg. 50c for the first protest; $1 for the second process; $1.50 for the third etc. The protest rules can put you below your $50 floor.

This keeps it simple and the governors out of the the protest.


Ole


LikeDislike

personally if we have any trade rules I like Alfie's ideas. No voting no issues and we will only need to check a couple of managers math skills and the spread sheet makes almost impossible to mess up. We might for the outliers who generally do not get traded (there are exceptions) allow managers before the draft to make a case for an individuals value to be different but it should be limited(only one proposed value change per team). I do not remember if the following was included in what Alfie propsed but we should also either ban trading between the draft and first game because of past abuse or require that players traded during that time be frozen on your roster for the season (since you acquired those players because you wanted them)

My idea is we get rid of the trade rules entirely. I can not think of one trade made or was stopped by the protest that would have changed the outcome of the season. Maybe a team finished higher in the standings but luck can accomplish that too. All that turmoil basically for nothing.

I would say to make this amendment for “ outlier players “

We pretty much all know who these type of players are that the
Guideline can’t calculate properly there value so we use this protocol

Once our pool has Reached game 40 of the regular season
The team holding such a player can reach out to the guvs and ask
For a fair market value of such player

I’m pretty sure they can assign a fair trade value in $$$ for him

Then you make your trade , and footnote it with guvs provided value for player X