Discussion re. conditions

[JiriHrdina]

Let's re-start this conversation more formerly. We are giving some though to changing the allowance of conditions. In short - we are concerned about GMs being able to trade assets they don't have. It feels unfair to those GMs that do have those assets - and if you need them to make a deal - go get them.

Really what's happening is GMs are borrowing against the future - and it is hard to define where that line is. This past season we saw more conditions than ever.

We do want to retain the ability for GMs to have some conditional trades where certain events and what not happen (e.g. if this player retires - this happens), but is that too complicated? Should make it more black and white?

Basically looking for input here.

[TurdFerguson]

I have no issues with the condition system. Ultimately, it comes down to each GMs ability to manage and obtain assets. It increases trade activity and facilitates complex deals with extenuating circumstances (eg i want to do a deal where i send a 1st but both GMs agree that value is a late1st. Early in the season its pretty risky to try and peg a team as being a top team..enter conditions).

Mind you, if the condition system ever does blow up and someone defaults on something meaningful then its going to be a mess to sort out. Especially in scenarios like this last season where you would see 1st round picks move through 4 teams based on linked connections. If that daisy chain doesn't get started then people get screwed...but this has always been the danger and as far as i know there has not been a problem like this.

Conditions allow GMs (buying and selling conditions) to leverage themselves on them. Sometimes this works out and you get increased value, sometimes you get screwed on value...but it helps to enable trading so that has to be a good thing.

I say keep them as is.

[droopydrew19]

If a nhl team trades for a player I don't think they can say "I'll get you a pick before the draft"

They do often trade for conditional picks.

I don't mind deals that involve conditions like "If Joe Schmo retires before the start of the season then X team will send a specific pick as compensation."

I do not like the deals where GM's treat them like a line of credit. aka the I will get you a 3rd round pick next year because you can be sure that you are going to get the worst 3rd round pick possible.

If you don't have the asset. Then don't allow the condition

[Cheese]

The one item to bear in mind here is the transient nature of the game. With open conditions a new GM is beholden to a past GM's decisions or non decisions.

[JiriHrdina]

Yeah I think that's exactly it Drew. Frankly teams that have the asset are being punished right now. I almost never trade conditional picks - so if I'm trading a pick, it has a value associated to the likely finish of that team. Teams trading conditional picks have the advantage of trading the latest possible pick. If you owe someone a 2nd - just go get pick #60 in the off-season.

To put it another way, if conditions stay, then rather than trade picks I have I'll simply always trade conditional picks (even if I have picks already) so I can do the same thing. Heck if the pick I have ends up being say #50 - I'll trade it for #60 and a 4th and then trade the 60th pick to fulfill the condition.

Slippery slope but my feeling (as a GM, not a commish) is that right now it's not fair.

[Da_Chief]

I say everyone fulfill your current conditions before the season starts and then abolist the conditions. Its a mess.

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah I think that's exactly it Drew. Frankly teams that have the asset are being punished right now. I almost never trade conditional picks - so if I'm trading a pick, it has a value associated to the likely finish of that team. Teams trading conditional picks have the advantage of trading the latest possible pick. If you owe someone a 2nd - just go get pick #60 in the off-season.

To put it another way, if conditions stay, then rather than trade picks I have I'll simply always trade conditional picks (even if I have picks already) so I can do the same thing. Heck if the pick I have ends up being say #50 - I'll trade it for #60 and a 4th and then trade the 60th pick to fulfill the condition.

Slippery slope but my feeling (as a GM, not a commish) is that right now it's not fair.

That has long been my expectation when trading a condition. If I am promised a 2nd...i expect to get 60 and value that condition as such when i negotiate it. Typically, that is why i put ranges on conditions when i use them. No better or worse then X to X.

I Don't see how it punishes the teams with assets. If they hold those assets then someone will come to get them at somepoint...perfect time to jack the price. Happened to me this year...great deal for LA at the time. so it goes...

[Swayze11]

Keep conditions. I don't see how it is broken so why change it?

What does need to change is GMs expectations of the condition they are receiving. I know some GMs when they accept a condition are under the impression that it will be the last pick in that round, so base your trade offer around expecting the 30th overall pick, or 60th, etc. If you don't like that, then you can always make a condition like the ones we started seeing near the end of the year. ie: "Team X owes Team Y a pick between 15-25.

[dsavillian]

I don't think it punishes the team that has the assets already. If anything, I think it makes their assets more valuable.

There's a cost to "borrowing" picks, and it's usually that you have to pay a premium on that pick... unless you find someone selling for less than market value - but that's a different issue entirely.


I'd be more worried about GMs that don't like drafting selling their draft picks on the cheap than I would be over conditions devaluing the picks that I have.

[dsavillian]

Also, like I said in the other thread, the whole system could be vastly improved if the conditions had a standard format and there was a way to better display the picks that were owed

[JiriHrdina]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

That has long been my expectation when trading a condition. If I am promised a 2nd...i expect to get 60 and value that condition as such when i negotiate it. Typically, that is why i put ranges on conditions when i use them. No better or worse then X to X.

I Don't see how it punishes the teams with assets. If they hold those assets then someone will come to get them at somepoint...perfect time to jack the price. Happened to me this year...great deal for LA at the time. so it goes...

So again, why would I trade any picks that I have when I can wait - make them all conditional and then look for a late pick in the off-season.

All of a sudden every trade includes conditional picks because there's no advantage to trading picks you actually do have.

[TurdFerguson]

If you can find a partner, then that's fine isn't it?

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So again, why would I trade any picks that I have when I can wait - make them all conditional and then look for a late pick in the off-season.

All of a sudden every trade includes conditional picks because there's no advantage to trading picks you actually do have.

Speculation.

I've found that some teams like to gamble while others would prefer a known commodity.



I think, without conditions, you'd end up with a lot fewer trades overall. Once someone had traded away their first, they'd probably lose a lot of trade potential.

I'd actually prefer fewer trades, but I know that most of the other GMs would disagree with me

[RT14]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

So again, why would I trade any picks that I have when I can wait - make them all conditional and then look for a late pick in the off-season.

All of a sudden every trade includes conditional picks because there's no advantage to trading picks you actually do have.

I don't think that's really a problem here though as an opposing GM would rarely, if ever, accept an owed pick when the other team has one right now, unless its looking like a top 10 1st and you really only need a late 1st to close the gap on a deal.

Example:
If I had what's looking like a top 10 2nd and a deal cam down to the other team needing a 2nd, there's no way I would offer him an owed 2nd. I would always just make the deal with what I have, and I doubt any GM's would accept it if I did offer them that.

I would only owe picks if I don't have them at the time or the value gap was going to be huge on a 1st.

[dsavillian]

Originally Posted by RT14

I don't think that's really a problem here though as an opposing GM would rarely, if ever, accept an owed pick when the other team has one right now, unless its looking like a top 10 1st and you really only need a late 1st to close the gap on a deal.

Example:
If I had what's looking like a top 10 2nd and a deal cam down to the other team needing a 2nd, there's no way I would offer him an owed 2nd. I would always just make the deal with what I have, and I doubt any GM's would accept it if I did offer them that.

I would only owe picks if I don't have them at the time or the value gap was going to be huge on a 1st.

An excellent point. I've never traded for a conditional pick if the other GM had a pick that was a reasonable guestimate of where I wanted the pick to be.

I think I was involved in a trade where someone had what was clearly a top 5 pick and something in the 20-30 was a better fit for the deal... in that case, a condition makes sense.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by JiriHrdina

Yeah I think that's exactly it Drew. Frankly teams that have the asset are being punished right now. I almost never trade conditional picks - so if I'm trading a pick, it has a value associated to the likely finish of that team. Teams trading conditional picks have the advantage of trading the latest possible pick. If you owe someone a 2nd - just go get pick #60 in the off-season.

To put it another way, if conditions stay, then rather than trade picks I have I'll simply always trade conditional picks (even if I have picks already) so I can do the same thing. Heck if the pick I have ends up being say #50 - I'll trade it for #60 and a 4th and then trade the 60th pick to fulfill the condition.

Slippery slope but my feeling (as a GM, not a commish) is that right now it's not fair.

I've heard of exactly that happening, and it is a bit sleazy. However, there is no reason the person receiving the pick can't close the deal with clarification on the condition saying 'I will except no 3rd worse than 75th' etc. Or, no, I won't take a conditional pick, I want the one you have now.

It takes two people to make a trade. That's part of the gamesmanship in it.

I don't mind the way it is right now, I think as traders become more aware of what other GM's are doing they will or will not trade with them or make very specific conditions when they do. Kinda like the real NHL. Screw me over and it may be hard to deal with me or others again, Mr. Lowe.

If conditions cannot be met though, I think the penalties should be very harsh.

On the other side of the coin, if the league wants to tighten things up, that's fine with me too.

[TurdFerguson]

How is trading no more then you negotiated sleezy? If you are expecting a GM to pay you more then they have to then you're not giving this league enough credit. You get exactly what you negotiate for. If I owe you a 2nd and I have #40 you better believe I'm trying to get value for moving down to late 50s or 60. If not, I'm not being a good GM.

Again, expectations are the issue perhaps.

[GreenLantern]

When I took over the Sharks they had a lot of conditions, I have since cleared every single one up and do not plan to make any trades involving conditions in the future.

I am all for some severe restrictions on the conditions that are allowed to be made.

[silentsim]

When I deal with conditionals I 100% expect to get the latest pick possible. If that is not acceptable to me, I make sure I get a top 20 or top 25 pick in the condition- to get the value that I wanted.

As a GM who had lots of conditions- I find the system helps trade activity 100%. When a condition wasn't accepted- I attempted to get a pick, and several gm's were not willing to move a pick due to the uncertainty where that specific pick would end up. I had several "closer to the end of the season the pick can be moved". Thus, it held back some trades. If trading activity is encouraged, removing conditions would significantly lower activity IMO. Teams would be hand-cuffed trying to get the pick right away, and not many GM's would sell due to the uncertainty where that pick will end up (IMO).

TL;DR
If you are negotiating a deal and expect a top 15 pick of that round, get it in the condition; else expect the latest pick possible. Limiting the amount of conditions is definitely an option, but I think trading around the league will slow down. As per having a lot of outgoing conditions- if the GM isn't addressing these throughout the year they will probably end up paying more for those picks at the end of the season.

[devo22]

I'm not a huge fan of conditions and I believe it got out of hands this year ... some teams had huge lists and if it forces you to stop the draft two or three times because of that (like it happened this year), it's time to talk about it. I don't think getting rid of conditions completely is the answer, instead I'd prefer a limit of conditions, like 5 per team or something like that. Don't know how we could implement something like that though.

FWIW if I make a trade for a conditional pick, I always expect the worst pick in the round ... don't know how anyone can be surprised by this, it's something that was just logical to me from the beginning and I factor that accordingly when I make the deal.