Anchorage Brooklyn trade

[RyanG]

Anchorage sends:
1.1

Brooklyn sends:
RB Lionel Benton
1.22
1.27
1.28
2042 1st (next year)
2042 2nd


Thanks for the deal, bomber. Good luck with 1.1.

[Guest]

Confirming.. Thanks.

[RyanG]

Pick moved.

[Guest]

Picked moved..

[Delandis]

Good freakin' haul Ryan.

[Guest]

Good freakin' haul Ryan.

We been building up assets for a few years to make this move. Ryan did freaking amazing. This move was short term painful but long term very positive.

[IrishGuy65]

I thought my offer was better.

I hate this division If I didn't move to another city, I would take over a different team. But, I moved the team, so it would be unfair to let another team deal with the consequences.

[RyanG]

To be honest, I was looking for quantity over quality at this time. We have had 2 bad years. really bad years. We need as many starting quality players we can get to help us start winning. So 3 first round picks is better than 2 for me this year. Plus I get a starter at RB, for 4 starting quality players this year, and 2 more next season. Perfect deal to build up my team, I think.

[irabowman]

Just wondering maybe I misread last season thought 4 picks for 1 was most allowed. I probaley misread it but seems like they redid the deal as it was deemed unfair trade. Not tring to cause trouble just trying to make sure I understand the trade rule.

[Aston]

Good call. It's 5 in-game, but I forgot to add that to the rules thread. Would you guys be able to change this?

[RyanG]

Good call. It's 5 in-game, but I forgot to add that to the rules thread. Would you guys be able to change this?

Based on the parameters given to bomber by you, I don't think this can be fixed. If I'd known you were enforcing the 5 items per trade I would have taken the Huntsville deal because that is the better trade in a 5 max deal.

[IrishGuy65]

I can see what you're saying, Irish, and I see the appeals to realism, too. There's definitely good food for thought here, and I'll think on them some more.

I guess I'd put it this way: vetoing a trade should be an extraordinary measure. It doesn't take three years' worth of 4-7s to make for a very bad deal (as you know!). However, for the most part, I'd like to leave it at that. Community feedback, and especially if a new player's involved, an "Are you sure?!" double check. Save the hammer for bad intent rather than a human mistake, for which I feel game realities (salary cap, TC, getting 7 more picks every season, etc) offer a decent amount of protection against. FWIW, this trade would have been much more beneficial to New Orleans in the old version.

In almost every case, I'd like to rely on game mechanics (or at least commonly seen rules) and not house mechanics. There's nothing more clear cut. In that vein, we *could* institute a "Max 5 items per side per trade" requirement as is the case in game, although that might be too restrictive. Thoughts?

In the current case, I'm thankful to Bridge and Dutch for both accommodating to the feedback and posting a revised trade. I think we're good to go there. Thank you, everyone.

This was Aston's last post on this subject that I am aware of. Even though I'd be happy to have Anchorage get my 2 1sts this season and 1st next, there was never more than a "we *could* institute..." mentioned. As far as I ever knew, this wasn't an official rule, only something discussed and never resolved.

To be honest, I looked around to verify, and couldn't find anything more. I WANTED to find where Aston said it was going to be a rule next season, so I could say that my offer was legal and bomber's was not, but I couldn't find it. If I found it, I'd be complaining loudly that RyanG should take my offer ;) As it is, bomber was willing to make a deal, which I feel is closer to fair than my offer, honestly, and I grudgingly think the deal should stand. It's not like the guy is getting 25 picks for one pick. As we all know, any pick can get a big jump or take a big hit, so nothing is 100% guaranteed. The other trade in question was by far a terrible trade.

Finally, if we are going to go for the 5 item max per side trade rule, I think it should have its own discussion thread so we all have a chance to put in our two cents, and it should be clear at the closure of the thread which way we are going to go. I also think that changes like this should happen at the changeover between seasons. Since this season has already begun, I prefer not to see this rule put into place this season, as it was never stated that it was going to be a new rule.

[Guest]

Based on the parameters given to bomber by you, I don't think this can be fixed. If I'd known you were enforcing the 5 items per trade I would have taken the Huntsville deal because that is the better trade in a 5 max deal.

I didnt know about the 5 items per trade limit also...

This was a pretty extreme deal given the teams (1.1 and a 12-4 team with best record in the league), the player (a QB thats the best player in the draft), and the objective of each team (ryan looking for volume while BKL is trying to clean up the cap issues -why we are giving away the RB - and trying to acquire a stud franchise QB while being a 12-4 team)