 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » "Untouchable" players
kalotschke
For example, "Yankees SP John Johnson is not available for trade."
"Untouchable" players
October 24, 2010 at 06:56PM View BBCode
Sometimes I'll get multiple trade offers for a player (a stud prospect, staff ace, etc.) who I just won't trade for anything. This could be in addition to the trade block on the Trade Desk page. It's a small tweak, but I think it could work.For example, "Yankees SP John Johnson is not available for trade."
tworoosters
October 24, 2010 at 08:16PM View BBCode
I have to go with dd on this one, I think it's often an annoyance to continually get inferior offers for star players but anyone should be "available" .
Hamilton2
October 25, 2010 at 02:55PM View BBCode
I'm just here to echo the sentiment expressed so eloquently by our neighbors from the north. If you have the mindset that certain players are "untouchable" than you are hurting the future of your franchise by falsely elevating the value of one player over that of the team. It is a really bad ownership strategy and I would oppose any change that would help to entrench this already overused mistake.
Kingturtle
October 25, 2010 at 05:47PM View BBCode
i'm always open to offers on any of my players. however, nearly all offers i've ever received have been low balls. and the offers for my marquee players have been insulting at best. i think the spirit of this idea is to find ways to put an end to these offers that are a waste of time.
barterer2002
October 25, 2010 at 07:49PM View BBCode
Its not a feature I would use, however there are certainly owners out there who just aren't going to trade Joe Blow. I think it would be helpful to know that I can offer my entire roster for a player and still not get him.
Kingturtle
November 01, 2010 at 06:09PM View BBCode
it is definitely frustrating when you put together an offer for a franchise player on a second division team, and the reply you get is something akin to "I am crazy not to accept this trade, it is more than fair. But McGillicutty started out on my team, and McGillicutty is going to retire on my team."
dirtdevil
November 02, 2010 at 06:53PM View BBCode
as jesse ventura once said, you can't legislate against stupidity.
barterer2002
November 02, 2010 at 09:08PM View BBCode
No one is trying to legislate against it DD, there are actually people who prefer the DH and I'd support leagues having the option to use it even though I wouldn't join one. The fact that you and I wouldn't use this feature doesn't make it a bad one
dirtdevil
November 03, 2010 at 03:12AM View BBCode
no it doesn't. the fact that it's a bad idea makes it a bad one. there are lots of things i'd never use that i'd support being added in some (usually optional) form or another. this is just not a good idea.
Kingturtle
November 03, 2010 at 03:43AM View BBCode
it *is* a good idea. would have saved me the 20 minutes it took me to put together an amazing offer. i'd rather know not to waste my time.
dirtdevil
(also bart, people want the DH because it's better :saint: )
[Edited on 11-3-2010 by dirtdevil]
November 03, 2010 at 01:10PM View BBCode
i'm sorry, but it's not. i don't know how many times i've seen or been involved in trades where an "untouchable" player has been dealt. people who feel players are untouchable are generally, in my experience, newer and/or less skilled owners. considering a player untouchable is almost always a mistake and potentially a franchise killing one. we should be helping these owners, not enabling them. i've had same experience that you had a number of times, and it is always frustrating. but sometimes i put together an even better offer and get the guy anyway and sometimes that guy ends up being dealt to someone else. the ability to make someone 'untouchable' removes the possibility that may happen and will actually damage the teams of more owners than it helps. for that reason, i don't think this is at all a good idea.(also bart, people want the DH because it's better :saint: )
[Edited on 11-3-2010 by dirtdevil]
Hamilton2
November 03, 2010 at 02:06PM View BBCode
I completely agree with DirtDevil on this one. Allowing people to tag certain players as "untouchable" merely reinforces a bad ownership strategy. I don't like any enhancements that reinforce bad ownership strategies (like the one for spring training, and this idea).
Kingturtle
November 04, 2010 at 02:54AM View BBCode
the owner i who rejected me has over 50 seasons of SimD experience and impressive prestige points. again, it would have served me better to have known not to waste my time bidding on a particular player.
tigershm1977
November 04, 2010 at 03:39AM View BBCode
i have one player on every team thats not available for a trade and thats the guy i put my real name on lol
Kingturtle
November 04, 2010 at 02:33PM View BBCode
you wouldn't even trade yourself for the right package, eh?
kippy78
This just seems like something redundant.
November 04, 2010 at 03:09PM View BBCode
I think everyone has someone that is "untouchable". Usually they post in teams nots, what they want for, "untouchable". I have players I think are cornerstones. But if it's a position player for a pitcher or catcher, it does make you think. Can't hurt to listen to offers.This just seems like something redundant.
Stros
Funny that I stumble on this thread and this quote that I actually made to you. I am a huge trade guy in every league I am in but instead of giving you my whole plan for the franchise I figured I would give you the respect of saying it was a great offer and that I was keeping him.
Should I have gone into all the reasons I am keeping the league leader in hits for the second straight year, the A+ mentoring, the fact that I am about ready to call up a ton of young guys and need two A+ mentors in my starting L/U? I guess I could have, I just didn't want to.
My bad. Sorry it made you so upset. It wasn't my intention.
Sorry but if that offer took you 20 minutes to put together then thats on you not me.
And no, I've never had a player I wouldn't trade either.. for the right pieces at the right time.
[Edited on 11-6-2010 by Stros]
November 06, 2010 at 11:34PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Kingturtle
it is definitely frustrating when you put together an offer for a franchise player on a second division team, and the reply you get is something akin to "I am crazy not to accept this trade, it is more than fair. But McGillicutty started out on my team, and McGillicutty is going to retire on my team."
Funny that I stumble on this thread and this quote that I actually made to you. I am a huge trade guy in every league I am in but instead of giving you my whole plan for the franchise I figured I would give you the respect of saying it was a great offer and that I was keeping him.
Should I have gone into all the reasons I am keeping the league leader in hits for the second straight year, the A+ mentoring, the fact that I am about ready to call up a ton of young guys and need two A+ mentors in my starting L/U? I guess I could have, I just didn't want to.
My bad. Sorry it made you so upset. It wasn't my intention.
Sorry but if that offer took you 20 minutes to put together then thats on you not me.
And no, I've never had a player I wouldn't trade either.. for the right pieces at the right time.
[Edited on 11-6-2010 by Stros]
Stros
This is the EXACT reason I won't put my kids names in the game, I would end up trading them away eventually. :D
November 06, 2010 at 11:38PM View BBCode
Originally posted by tigershm1977
i have one player on every team thats not available for a trade and thats the guy i put my real name on lol
This is the EXACT reason I won't put my kids names in the game, I would end up trading them away eventually. :D
celamantia
And I've had guys that were "untouchable" that I've traded when the right package came along. Of course, I know it's my reluctance to trade that makes my teams come in right in the middle of the pack year after year.
November 07, 2010 at 05:35PM View BBCode
I honestly think this is something adequately handled by the Team Notes and message boards; coding another way of communicating information seems counterproductive.And I've had guys that were "untouchable" that I've traded when the right package came along. Of course, I know it's my reluctance to trade that makes my teams come in right in the middle of the pack year after year.
wsoul1
How about a auto decline option for offers from owners who repeatedly send numerous ridiculous offers season after season.
EX: American owner X is no longer entertaining offers from French Canadian owner Y.
November 11, 2010 at 07:23PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Kingturtle
i'm always open to offers on any of my players. however, nearly all offers i've ever received have been low balls. and the offers for my marquee players have been insulting at best. i think the spirit of this idea is to find ways to put an end to these offers that are a waste of time.
How about a auto decline option for offers from owners who repeatedly send numerous ridiculous offers season after season.
EX: American owner X is no longer entertaining offers from French Canadian owner Y.
dirtdevil
November 11, 2010 at 07:25PM View BBCode
the thing is, ridiculous varies depending on the viewpoint of the owner involved. i think we've all made what we felt was a solid offer and had it declined only to see the player go somewhere else for what we feel to be a lesser package. there is no real way to ever define 'ridiculous' to everyone's satisfaction in order to accomplish that.
wsoul1
November 11, 2010 at 07:32PM View BBCode
Totally understand your point DD. I would see it as a "block" transmissions from... Rewriting code for this purpose would be silly considering there are other areas of SD that are more important to work on and simply declining is an option.Pages: 1