Either way, this thread highlights weakness in the code. That is good imo . What would be better if someone could come up with an idea/ solution to help direct management decisions to better the parity .
No one is to blame except jbd. The game has five or ten percent of roster building rules/limitations that the nfl uses to keep parity and fairness. So nfl like trades are not going to happen. Just something like it .
Take the egos out and you got a broke game that is exploited to the weaknesses in the code.
I think it was 27 or 26 I checked....not one good trade. Still, an opinion , but based off our current code the fact is the team will not be any better and the benefactor will always be the more experienced owners on he other end. Simple and boring. Who want s a boring game with predictable out comes. Not me and thats not football at all.
Alot of work has to be done to make trades fair again....even for he most unexperienced of owneers. Jdb has improved this facet of the game dramatically but imo alot of work still has to be done.
I like these examples cause dead cap seems to be a problem .
I wonder if that future dead cap could be one measure to limit player trades? Once a for seen number is hit the trade / trades are blocked.
A similar option could be added to the FA section.....as a team could go nuts over spending for year to come (especially with old guys) a block could be put on.
I have to think it out more clearly but please point out the flaws in this idea.
I have suggested allocation picks before but that was shot down....still I don't see that having any effect except the other teams would have made out even better .