CAGLS: Madden 13 Gentlemen's League - We Finished! Thanks for Playing!

hey i was wondering what the rules were about trying to resign your own guys. is it a as long as they'll accept it sort of thing or can we only adjust the years to resign our guys?
 
[quote name='jza1218']I suck so hard at this game.[/QUOTE]
haha your really not bad, i got lucky on a few drops and that kickoff return for a td was key. i find its hard to get consistent wins in this league.
 
[quote name='billymcdugal']haha your really not bad, i got lucky on a few drops and that kickoff return for a td was key. i find its hard to get consistent wins in this league.[/QUOTE]

I'm 2-16 in this league. I suck.
 
[quote name='Docb9110']Yea, I signed my top FA for the end of the year in Week one! FReakin Cushing is costing a boat load but I def think hes worth it![/QUOTE]

I resigned Justin Smith and David Akers so far. Hoping Akers doesn't retire, bought the retirement package.

I am wondering when all these contracts are going to hit me and I have no cap space.
 
[quote name='Blade3D']I resigned Justin Smith and David Akers so far. Hoping Akers doesn't retire, bought the retirement package.

I am wondering when all these contracts are going to hit me and I have no cap space.[/QUOTE]

When Madden 14 comes out.
 
well the bengals got slaughter by the titans 28-0 couldnt get anything going agianst his defense his CBs shut mostly everything down. i expected it to be tough to pass but it was alot worse than expected. running game wasnt to bad but after a certain point u just have to pass when ur down to try and get back in it. my RT was letting people in all day which is weird becuz his numbers are great guess he just didnt want to show up today. o well i guess 1-1 start is to bad. not looking forward to 49ers game in week 3 his defense is more stacked than the titans and his offense is well going to be hard to defend. hoping my trade im trying to get helps my team get to the next level since i missed out on revis

GG n8 u might be ready for the next level
 
i do have a question involving lineman.
wut does impact blocking really do for them compared to run and pass
 
Titans - 28
Bengals - 0

I guess the Titans just needed that Music City crowd to get them amped up for the regular season. After a somewhat sluggish performance in Week 1, the Tennessee defense stepped up big time, limiting Cincinatti to 18 yards of total offense, with -12 passing yards. Honestly, this is the type of game that my offseason was crafted for. The Bengals featured some big time receivers, and I've got 4 very capable CBs. DVO tried to keep me off balance by running some draw plays, but it just wasn't his style.

The most surprising thing was that my DBs really weren't even tested that much because apparently the Bengals RT must have grown up in Nashville or something and was totally jobbing to Derrick Morgan all game long. I never rushed more than 4, and somehow Morgan finished the game with 6 sacks. It seemed like every time Andrew Luck turned around, he was right there frothing at the mouth ready to pounce. I definitely wasn't expecting that. Kamerion Wimbley also picked up a sack, giving the Tennessee defense 7 sacks for the second week in a row.

Chris Johnson had a pretty solid game, though I definitely don't expect him to put up the numbers he did last year since people are mostly ready for it this season. It's definitely forcing me to vary my offense more. GG, DVO. It's hard to do much when I can rush 3 and get pressure like that. Derrick Morgan was a man possessed in this one.

Titans
Jake Locker - 6-11, 151 yds, 2 TDs, 1 INT
Chris Johnson - 19 att, 140 yds, 1 TD, 1 rec, 53 yds, 1 TD
Danny Woodhead - 1 att, 14 yds, 1 TD
Nate Washington - 2 rec, 22 yds, 1 TD
Jared Cook - 1 rec, 53 yds
Derrick Morgan - 6 tackles, 6 TFL, 6 sacks

Bengals
Andrew Luck - 6-11, 85 yds, 0 TDs, 1 INT
David Wilson - 5 att, 20 yds
BenJarvus Green-Ellis - 3 att, 10 yds
AJ Green - 2 rec, 28 yds
Rishard Matthews - 1 rec, 24 yds
Andre Smith (the RT) - 6 sacks allowed, lol...damn
Rey Maualuga - 4 tackles, 1 sack
Taylor Mays - 3 tackles, 1 INT
 
ya i dont know what happened to my line that game it was awful its like madden wanted me to be under pressure the whole game. theres only one big stand out on ur D line that i really notice as a huge threat and he wasnt the one with all the sacks either. really confused about it is over now so on to the next one. i just want to make the playoffs thats my main goal for the season. and they have a whole season to get better. making lineman good really isnt as tough as other positions like QB and CBs.

BRING ME SOME GOOD NEWS LATER SINCE YOU ALREADY BROUGHT ME BAD NEWS N8 ;)
 
LMAO...not trying to pour salt in the wounds here. But I just looked at the tweets after the game, and Trey Wingo's made me crack up.

"Trey Wingo @WingozEA

Derrick Morgan picked up 6 --
the opposition shouldn't expect
an apology letter for it."

Those guys can really be wiseasses sometimes, lol.
 
All right, got a topic of discussion here that I want to get community feedback on. Since we've got a decent number of CPU teams right now, the idea of trading with the CPU is becoming an issue for the first time. In general, I think trading with the CPU could be ok. But I also feel like those trades need to be critiqued MUCH MORE harshly because the CPU isn't capable of speaking for itself or even expressing if it has any interest in the deal to begin with.

What further becomes a problem is when the trade hinges on draft picks. We saw this in the NHL 13 league where people would grab top players from vacant teams by offering a package that mainly consisted of draft picks (sometimes 3-4 seasons away). It became pretty obvious what people were trying to do, and it makes for a very uncomfortable position not only in the trade committee, but in the league in general.

So, I feel like we need to re-evaluate if allowing trading with CPU teams is a good idea...and how we would want to approach these deals if we do decide to allow it. The reason I'm bringing it up is because there's a proposal on the table right now (not naming teams or players involved), and I want to make sure we're all on the same page before we venture down that road. So, feel free to sound off on this subject. I feel like this goes without saying, but the more thought out your case is, the more weight it will carry.
 
well its states in the rules that it is aloud so it should be aloud. no rule was broken what so ever. i dont think it would be fair to change a rule becuz somone finally did just seems unfair to that person. since he didnt break a rule and now that he did something by following the rule people are trying to change it during the trade process. it just makes me feel uncomfortable that rules can just change in the blink of a second becuz now all of sudden we dont like the rule. in which that trade should be grandfathered in since it was before the rule change if the rule does change
 
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']All right, got a topic of discussion here that I want to get community feedback on. Since we've got a decent number of CPU teams right now, the idea of trading with the CPU is becoming an issue for the first time. In general, I think trading with the CPU could be ok. But I also feel like those trades need to be critiqued MUCH MORE harshly because the CPU isn't capable of speaking for itself or even expressing if it has any interest in the deal to begin with.

What further becomes a problem is when the trade hinges on draft picks. We saw this in the NHL 13 league where people would grab top players from vacant teams by offering a package that mainly consisted of draft picks (sometimes 3-4 seasons away). It became pretty obvious what people were trying to do, and it makes for a very uncomfortable position not only in the trade committee, but in the league in general.

So, I feel like we need to re-evaluate if allowing trading with CPU teams is a good idea...and how we would want to approach these deals if we do decide to allow it. The reason I'm bringing it up is because there's a proposal on the table right now (not naming teams or players involved), and I want to make sure we're all on the same page before we venture down that road. So, feel free to sound off on this subject. I feel like this goes without saying, but the more thought out your case is, the more weight it will carry.[/QUOTE]

Well for one I am pretty sure you can only trade picks in the upcoming 2 years. Also, the CPU seems to usually want a lot for players so getting them through is probably harder then getting them approved by the committee. So taking that all into account I am fine with CPU trades, I will now go start looking over there rosters lol.
 
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']All right, got a topic of discussion here that I want to get community feedback on. Since we've got a decent number of CPU teams right now, the idea of trading with the CPU is becoming an issue for the first time. In general, I think trading with the CPU could be ok. But I also feel like those trades need to be critiqued MUCH MORE harshly because the CPU isn't capable of speaking for itself or even expressing if it has any interest in the deal to begin with.

What further becomes a problem is when the trade hinges on draft picks. We saw this in the NHL 13 league where people would grab top players from vacant teams by offering a package that mainly consisted of draft picks (sometimes 3-4 seasons away). It became pretty obvious what people were trying to do, and it makes for a very uncomfortable position not only in the trade committee, but in the league in general.

So, I feel like we need to re-evaluate if allowing trading with CPU teams is a good idea...and how we would want to approach these deals if we do decide to allow it. The reason I'm bringing it up is because there's a proposal on the table right now (not naming teams or players involved), and I want to make sure we're all on the same page before we venture down that road. So, feel free to sound off on this subject. I feel like this goes without saying, but the more thought out your case is, the more weight it will carry.[/QUOTE]

So you mean my Tom Brady for Willis MaGahee trade won't pass? :lol:
 
well if the committee does allow computer trades i would say we get a squatter to apply the trade. if it was deemed fair by the committee. also when dealing with computer trades i think if at first the trade doesnt succeed others shouldnt be able to just jump on it right after either the person should get one extra chance before others get to try on it.
im also worried that the committee might vote no becuz they want the player and if they keep voting no so they can try and get the person instead. that is a worry of mine that i find with the committee since when trying to trade for revis i got denied then someone from the committee ended up getting him im not saying thats exactly what happened at all but im worried it could happen. im not saying we have a faulty committee who thinks of themselves but who is to say they wont do it if they really want that player badly. but like i said im not saying they do it or will do it just stating i feel like it could happen and we would never know
 
also i have no problem saying that the first person to go for a computer trade was me so its out there
and i didnt only offer picks i offered a 87 overall player and 2nd and 3rd rounder for a certain player
 
[quote name='DVO21']well if the committee does allow computer trades i would say we get a squatter to apply the trade. if it was deemed fair by the committee. also when dealing with computer trades i think if at first the trade doesnt succeed others shouldnt be able to just jump on it right after either the person should get one extra chance before others get to try on it.
im also worried that the committee mind vote no becuz they want the player and if they keep voting no so they can try and get the person instead. that is a worry of mine that i find with the committee since when trying to trade for revis i got denied then someone from the committee ended up getting him im not saying thats exactly what happened at all but im worried it could happen[/QUOTE]

I don't think the committee needs to be involved, I think if the computer accepts it then it should be fine. I also don't like the idea of a squatter putting trades through. It is going to be a lot of work on the committee if they have to go over CPU trades, if the CPU keeps denying it over and over.

[quote name='DVO21']also i have no problem saying that the first person to go for a computer trade was me so its out there
and i didnt only offer picks i offered a 87 overall player and 2nd and 3rd rounder for a certain player[/QUOTE]

I figured it was you, and I am sure others did as well lol
 
blade are u suggesting computer trades shouldnt be up for vote to just put them thru and let the computer say yes or no then after wards post it if the trade does go thru? if so i think thats a fair system as well but i would still like the first right to go after my trade atleast since i am the reason this did come up in the first place
 
[quote name='DVO21']well its states in the rules that it is aloud so it should be aloud. no rule was broken what so ever. i dont think it would be fair to change a rule becuz somone finally did just seems unfair to that person. since he didnt break a rule and now that he did something by following the rule people are trying to change it during the trade process. it just makes me feel uncomfortable that rules can just change in the blink of a second becuz now all of sudden we dont like the rule. in which that trade should be grandfathered in since it was before the rule change if the rule does change[/QUOTE]

I asked people to make good cases. There is never going to be a situation where we allow the integrity of the league to be compromised. This is not to say that a current trade proposal is doing that, and acting defensive about anything under review is never going to help someone's cause.

If it is deemed fair, it will pass. The only reason it is being brought up is because multiple members of the committee have expressed apprehension in allowing these types of deals. There is no harm in reassessing the issue to make sure that it's what is best for the league moving forward (look at the Carolina Panthers if you want an example of a gutted team that nobody will ever want). Anyone who would want something that would be a detriment to the league would be acting under a completely selfish mindset.

As Blade mentioned though, if the CPU itself doesn't accept the trade, we would never force it through...whether we think it's fair or not. The CPU rejecting would basically mean that they're not interested.

As for whether it "follows the rules", that part of the rules was never hashed out because we've never had open teams like this. If you think this issue only deserves a quick and hasty decision though, then that would be a rejection. Discussing the issue and putting some thought into it is much more likely to lead to a solution that everyone is happy with.
 
[quote name='DVO21']well if the committee does allow computer trades i would say we get a squatter to apply the trade. if it was deemed fair by the committee. also when dealing with computer trades i think if at first the trade doesnt succeed others shouldnt be able to just jump on it right after either the person should get one extra chance before others get to try on it.
im also worried that the committee might vote no becuz they want the player and if they keep voting no so they can try and get the person instead. that is a worry of mine that i find with the committee since when trying to trade for revis i got denied then someone from the committee ended up getting him im not saying thats exactly what happened at all but im worried it could happen. im not saying we have a faulty committee who thinks of themselves but who is to say they wont do it if they really want that player badly. but like i said im not saying they do it or will do it just stating i feel like it could happen and we would never know[/QUOTE]

I'm sure I speak for everyone on the committee when I say that at no point does personal desire for a player influence their view on the fairness of a trade. The Revis deal wasn't shot down because we all wanted Revis. However, we all knew Revis was available. The Jets put it out there that he was shopping him. If it hadn't been the Bears, it would've been someone else. Revis is a great corner, and it made sense for plenty of teams to make an offer. It just happened to be that a consensus fair offer was presented to us by someone on the committee.
 
[quote name='DVO21']blade are u suggesting computer trades shouldnt be up for vote to just put them thru and let the computer say yes or no then after wards post it if the trade does go thru? if so i think thats a fair system as well but i would still like the first right to go after my trade atleast since i am the reason this did come up in the first place[/QUOTE]

Yeah...your idea of how the trade should be put through would not happen. It's unreasonable and it starts to look incredibly shady. You're suggesting that the trade be forced through even if the CPU doesn't want to do it? What does that do to the CPU team and the hope that we might ever find someone who wants to take them? If they're not interested, they're not interested.
 
[quote name='DVO21']well if the committee does allow computer trades i would say we get a squatter to apply the trade. if it was deemed fair by the committee. also when dealing with computer trades i think if at first the trade doesnt succeed others shouldnt be able to just jump on it right after either the person should get one extra chance before others get to try on it.
im also worried that the committee might vote no becuz they want the player and if they keep voting no so they can try and get the person instead. that is a worry of mine that i find with the committee since when trying to trade for revis i got denied then someone from the committee ended up getting him im not saying thats exactly what happened at all but im worried it could happen. im not saying we have a faulty committee who thinks of themselves but who is to say they wont do it if they really want that player badly. but like i said im not saying they do it or will do it just stating i feel like it could happen and we would never know[/QUOTE]

Also, I'd watch what you say along these lines. This is an incredibly inflammatory post and starts treading dangerous waters. Making baseless accusations isn't going to help your case.
 
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']Yeah...your idea of how the trade should be put through would not happen. It's unreasonable and it starts to look incredibly shady. You're suggesting that the trade be forced through even if the CPU doesn't want to do it? What does that do to the CPU team and the hope that we might ever find someone who wants to take them? If they're not interested, they're not interested.[/QUOTE]

I think he is trying to explain what I was saying?

I was suggesting submitting a trade to the CPU if the CPU accepts then the deal goes through, not needing the committee to go over it. I was not in favor of someone taking control of the CPU team to force a trade through.
 
i never said i needed an answer right now and i never said the committee was fixed and i said i do at times worry about that it could be. im fine with waiting to find out wuts goes to happen the only reason i did the the computer trade was becuz when i stumbled upon it the rules that said we are allowing cup trades this year so i figured i would give it ago. even though its hard to trade with the computer and more than likely could pass the committee but not the computer. but in that situation im not sure wut would happen would the committee allow then to add more to the trade to see if the computer would allow it. stuff like that theres many questions about this type of subject.

im not at all trying to stir problems here at all just trying to help hash the issue out and i do have questions of my own.
 
[quote name='Ultimate Matt X']What kind of shape are the Browns in? I see they are open.[/QUOTE]

Pretty good. They have Tom Brady, and went to the playoffs last year.

Edit: They may or may not have Trent Richardson soon depending on a trade.
 
[quote name='Ultimate Matt X']What kind of shape are the Browns in? I see they are open.[/QUOTE]

UMX? Oh happy day! :D
 
now that my week 2 game is up im allowed to trade players that i signed thru FA and trades now correct since week 3 is when we can start but my game 2 is up so i cna make proposals
 
[quote name='DVO21']now that my week 2 game is up im allowed to trade players that i signed thru FA and trades now correct since week 3 is when we can start but my game 2 is up so i cna make proposals[/QUOTE]

Correct. Anyone that was traded/signed before the first preseason game was played anyway.
 
[quote name='Blade3D']I was suggesting submitting a trade to the CPU if the CPU accepts then the deal goes through, not needing the committee to go over it. I was not in favor of someone taking control of the CPU team to force a trade through.[/QUOTE]

Just want to say this is not a good idea. What it's going to lead to is people offering 2 72 rated players and 2 draft picks to Carolina for Jon Beason. I'm not making shit up. I saw this type of stuff happen less than a month ago.

All trades will be reviewed by the committee. Even if we decide to allow trading with the CPU, the trade would be reviewed first...and then if the CPU rejects it, people can take that to mean they're not interested. I realize that this is going to lead to people tweaking offers over and over again to try to get the CPU to take the deal. But honestly, this might be where we need to enact a real "3 proposals and then give up" rule.
 
i like the 3 tries and ur out rule but i think it should be added that if it involves a computer that person should be allowed his 3 strikes first before others try and hop on
 
I think CPU trades could be allowed but with some kind of limitation on the rating of guys involved, like it has to be within 3 OVR (a silly attribute but the only one a CPU team will care about) of the guy you're trying to trade for.

Also, limit it so that only draft picks from the upcoming season can be offered. No way it makes sense to trade picks from the 2014 season.
 
[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']Just want to say this is not a good idea. What it's going to lead to is people offering 2 72 rated players and 2 draft picks to Carolina for Jon Beason. I'm not making shit up. I saw this type of stuff happen less than a month ago.

All trades will be reviewed by the committee. Even if we decide to allow trading with the CPU, the trade would be reviewed first...and then if the CPU rejects it, people can take that to mean they're not interested. I realize that this is going to lead to people tweaking offers over and over again to try to get the CPU to take the deal. But honestly, this might be where we need to enact a real "3 proposals and then give up" rule.[/QUOTE]

The CPU would accept that? I know in the franchises I have done it was pretty stingy. Well you can't do that cause it includes 2 players and 2 picks, and max is 3.
 
i dont think the computer will take much offers to be honest i tried to the trade that the browns and pats did in this league brady for haden didnt go thru with computer so its impossible to trade with the computer teams unless we have someone squat i offered the the browns in a offline league the top three players from every team for richardson and it said no so we might need a squatter for these trades. and people cant be trying to do dirty trades either make actual fair trades that make some kind of defense other than i offered him so much why cant i get him type shit. my offer for my player is very fair a reasonable and i think i made a valid reasoning to it for n8. now how ever the computer will trade me a first rounder for a 2nd rounder and 4th rounder which makes little sense to me becuz no one here would make that trade. so we really should consider a squater possibly or else the cpu teams are pretty much dead from trades on any vaild players we may want even if we are giving them a good deal for wut there team would want or that would bring people to use that team in the future
 
[quote name='DVO21']i do have a question involving lineman.
wut does impact blocking really do for them compared to run and pass[/QUOTE]

I'm not 100% on this, but it is what I have gathered over the years. Impact Blocking relates to the players ability to potentially knock a defender down or out of the way so they can move on to the next defender. A good blocking fullback should have a high Impact Block rating. If you want to run the ball, Impact Blocking is important.

[quote name='CAGLeagueSports']All right, got a topic of discussion here that I want to get community feedback on. Since we've got a decent number of CPU teams right now, the idea of trading with the CPU is becoming an issue for the first time. In general, I think trading with the CPU could be ok. But I also feel like those trades need to be critiqued MUCH MORE harshly because the CPU isn't capable of speaking for itself or even expressing if it has any interest in the deal to begin with.

What further becomes a problem is when the trade hinges on draft picks. We saw this in the NHL 13 league where people would grab top players from vacant teams by offering a package that mainly consisted of draft picks (sometimes 3-4 seasons away). It became pretty obvious what people were trying to do, and it makes for a very uncomfortable position not only in the trade committee, but in the league in general.

So, I feel like we need to re-evaluate if allowing trading with CPU teams is a good idea...and how we would want to approach these deals if we do decide to allow it. The reason I'm bringing it up is because there's a proposal on the table right now (not naming teams or players involved), and I want to make sure we're all on the same page before we venture down that road. So, feel free to sound off on this subject. I feel like this goes without saying, but the more thought out your case is, the more weight it will carry.[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't mind being able to trade with CPU teams as long as it is approved by the committee and doesn't make the CPU team even more undesirable than it already is. It could actually help find an owner. I'm pretty sure some/most of the vacant teams lost their owner because they saw a bad salary cap situation and bailed. If they could shed some salary in trades while acquiring new and useful players, maybe new owners would show up. The trade committee would have to not only make sure the trade is fair, but make sure the player is actually useful to the CPU controlled team.
 
[quote name='Konfusion']I'm not 100% on this, but it is what I have gathered over the years. Impact Blocking relates to the players ability to potentially knock a defender down or out of the way so they can move on to the next defender. A good blocking fullback should have a high Impact Block rating. If you want to run the ball, Impact Blocking is important.



I wouldn't mind being able to trade with CPU teams as long as it is approved by the committee and doesn't make the CPU team even more undesirable than it already is. It could actually help find an owner. I'm pretty sure some/most of the vacant teams lost their owner because they saw a bad salary cap situation and bailed. If they could shed some salary in trades while acquiring new and useful players, maybe new owners would show up. The trade committee would have to not only make sure the trade is fair, but make sure the player is actually useful to the CPU controlled team.[/QUOTE]

the only problem with that is the computer pretty much refuses to trade any top name players even if it makes sense the only way to fix the cup teams is if we allow fair trades and have a squater put them thru.

computer wouldnt trade richardson for a WR 88 overall CB 88 overall and 92 ovr lineman for and 85 over RB
now i think anyone here would take that trade if the committee allowed any day of the week i would take that deal
 
[quote name='Blade3D']The CPU would accept that? I know in the franchises I have done it was pretty stingy. Well you can't do that cause it includes 2 players and 2 picks, and max is 3.[/QUOTE]

I'm curious about this also. I've had the same experiences with the CPU trade logic in this years game. I used to be able to abuse it in years past, but it can be difficult to pry away good players from the CPU this year. Not that I support the trade committee staying out of CPU trades, because I don't. They should be involved in a bigger capacity than a normal trade.
 
[quote name='DVO21']the only problem with that is the computer pretty much refuses to trade any top name players even if it makes sense the only way to fix the cup teams is if we allow fair trades and have a squater put them thru.

computer wouldnt trade richardson for a WR 88 overall CB 88 overall and 92 ovr lineman for and 85 over RB
now i think anyone here would take that trade if the committee allowed any day of the week i would take that deal[/QUOTE]

Was that really your offer for Richardson, or just testing what it would take to get him?
 
my personal thought on ruless trading with the computer would be
Rule 1 committee votes on it and squatter puts it thru
Rule 2 trade must be fair and have a vaild for why u want the trade, how it helps the cup team, how it helps bring in people to want to use the team in the future.
Rule 3 three strikes and ur out and the next person gets to try
Rule 4 committee must give the person a vaild reason of why they think the person that wants the trade why it was denied and a actual opinion on how to make the trade possibly work.
Rule 5 if 2 teams are targeting the same player which ever team first sends in there completed trade offer first via the pm box has first rights to the trade

this is something that everyone has mentioned all in one and might be a good idea to use just a suggestion if anyone likes or dislikes for any reason feel free to comment so we can get this thing hashed out

example would be like panthers need to get rid of some tops players becuz they have no cap space but will have tons of picks so they can rebuild with good younger players.
browns need real WRs for tom brady to throw to or picks to draft WRs for him to throw to
chargers im not sure wut they need really
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Konfusion']Was that really your offer for Richardson, or just testing what it would take to get him?[/QUOTE]



lol no i just tested out my offer got a high so i tried adding a little extra and they said no. so i started asking it for players like tom brady wes welker and gronk for him and still got a no. so cup trades are impossible and theres no way the committee and the cup will ever see eye to on whats fair for the team and its been tested. becu we all no the committee wouldnt allow anyone to scrap there team like that for one guy and the computer wont even say yes. which brought me to the idea of my 4 rule list that i suggest would be helpful to the committee to use for future computer trades. which i find fair and i believe others will as well
 
Here's my view. I'm not a big fan of CPU trades, because I don't always trust the logic of a CPU team. I'm sure we've all seen the ridiculous offers they make (last year when I set Victor Cruz to the trade block I was offered 4th and 7th round picks.).

In addition, the CPU teams are really open teams that we are hoping to fill. If we're letting teams strip-mine them for parts, there's not going to be anything really appealing to someone when they look to take over. We have to be the safekeepers of those teams if we want to avoid having teams devoid of talent.

That said, if others really want to trade with the CPU teams, then I think the compromise is going to have to be in limiting trades and overcompensating the CPU. If teams really want to trade with the CPU, they have to overpay. That's just my view.
 
There's another aspect we need to consider. What if two teams work on a CPU trade at the same time? How do we determine who gets priority?
 
whoever put the trade in the committee first has the right. when u get a pm it shows up in the inbox which came first so that person would have the rights to the first 3 strikes and ur out
 
[quote name='DVO21']my personal thought on ruless trading with the computer would be
Rule 1 committee votes on it and squatter puts it thru
Rule 2 trade must be fair and have a vaild for why u want the trade, how it helps the cup team, how it helps bring in people to want to use the team in the future.
Rule 3 three strikes and ur out and the next person gets to try
Rule 4 committee must give the person a vaild reason of why they think the person that wants the trade why it was denied and a actual opinion on how to make the trade possibly work.
Rule 5 if 2 teams are targeting the same player which ever team first sends in there completed trade offer first via the pm box has first rights to the trade

this is something that everyone has mentioned all in one and might be a good idea to use just a suggestion if anyone likes or dislikes for any reason feel free to comment so we can get this thing hashed out

example would be like panthers need to get rid of some tops players becuz they have no cap space but will have tons of picks so they can rebuild with good younger players.
browns need real WRs for tom brady to throw to or picks to draft WRs for him to throw to
chargers im not sure wut they need really[/QUOTE]

I am totally against a squatter putting a trade through. Honestly DVO I don't think anyone is going to agree with that one, you are the only person pushing that as a viable option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top