Warrior General Games

This has been suggested before (including by me some 2 months ago, I think) and it's really still a good idea.

When people complain that they want to be able to reject trades, others (rightfully) point out that that would be completely moronic and broken and that if they don't want to be traded against their will, they should sign a contract with a no-trade clause.

However, there is still a superior solution. People might be okay with being traded, but not with giving the owner/GM's cart blanche to send them wherever they want.

Enter the clause option (just as no-trade clause is an option, trade approval (or perhaps rejection) is as well). If they sign such a contract with this then they can be traded but they have to approve any trades.

voila.

Seems to make sense.






Bort's thoughts below:

Originally posted by
Jed Edit (Azure, feel free to move this wherever you want): Bort's comments: http://goallineblitz.com/game/forum_thread.pl?thread_id=1352650&page=11#15832627

As an owner I would never, ever offer a contract like this.

Originally posted by SwagOnLock
As an owner I would never, ever offer a contract like this.

Well, that's nice. And irrelevant.

I take it, then, that you would also never, ever offer a contract with a no-trade clause?

I'm thinking you may not have understood the topic.

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
Well, that's nice. And irrelevant.

Who, then, is the target audience for this suggestion, if not the team owners and GMs that send contract offers?

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
I take it, then, that you would also never, ever offer a contract with a no-trade clause?

It depends entirely on the player I'm trying to acquire. I don't see how me sending no-trade contracts would preclude me from sending "agent can block it for no reason" contracts.

Originally posted by Azure Dreams
I'm thinking you may not have understood the topic.

In that case, please, enhance my understanding. You want to add a third kind of contract, in addition to open trade and no-trade, in which the player is willing to be traded but only if he agrees to the trade. Right?

I would never give a player on my team veto power. I'm not sending out that contract. All this does is allow the jackass player to take off his equipment, set his tactics against what I ask of him, and then deny trades all day long. I just don't understand why anyone would ever agree to this.

This would be a waste of time IMO.

If you have a good owner/player relationship the owner will likely let the player negotiate his own trade when the time comes to leave the club anyway. It's one of the "perks" for not being a jackhole.

Well if your going for realism here than in basis it's a good idea cause this sort of thing happens in the real world of sports... most notably in basketball, Though it has happened recently in the NFL, i.e. Terrell Owens, DeAngelo Hall. But for this type of game it's probably not a good idea because it would/could be taken advantage of by the afore-mentioned jackass agent. The type of player that gets into an disagreement with the team owner because he thinks he should start, or wants more playing time for stats, even though he's getting max XP. This would basically make running a team a hassle and no owner would want to give out contracts like this.

You are right though - in reality those kinds of contracts are VERY FEW - and are generally reserved for the games elite level players.

I think the idea makes sense, especially if it is only be added to the no trade contracts.

Think about it, if you have a no trade contract up then you couldn't trade him anyways. But if you had this into his clause then you would at least have the chance to unload him if you needed to. It would just have to be to a team he agrees with.

Just change no trade to this, it's more logical. Nobody in their right mind would "really" offer or agree to a contract that neither party could feasibly get out of.

Originally posted by driftinggrifter
I think the idea makes sense, especially if it is only be added to the no trade contracts.

Think about it, if you have a no trade contract up then you couldn't trade him anyways. But if you had this into his clause then you would at least have the chance to unload him if you needed to. It would just have to be to a team he agrees with.


Now if he had put this in his OP, than it would make more sense for GLB... But his idea as it is was no good. With this modification added to it. It's more reasonable, and that kind of contract I would offer...

This is more or less the equivalent of a limited no-trade clause which is pretty common in baseball especially. I can see why teams wouldn't offer it but to not allow that because some owners would never use it is rather silly. I am sure it wouldn't be all that difficult and would make things a bit more player friendly. Sure you'd get the normal jackasses that would take advantage of the situation but that happens with anything. I don't see the harm in this kind of a clause.

It's protection for the player from the owner. If a jackass agent removes all of his equipment because he wants to start, and the owner trades him to a team where the player will be in the exact same situation, what did that really solve?

As an owner, I offer all no trade clauses to all of my players because I want them to have the security of being on my team for the long haul. I ask all my players to honor their contracts so giving them a no-trade is the least I can do to showing them I'm committed to them as well.

They actually do have the right to be traded if they want to be, though. All they have to do is ask and sign a renegotiated deal without the no-trade then they are free to be traded.

I personally feel like trading should be banned in GLB. It gives way too many teams the freedom to gut and make money off it. If you want to destroy your team, then the least you can do is release all of your players and give them the opportunity to find a new team themselves. Too many people try to take advantage of trading by offering guys whose deals end in a couple days or offer their own players with long contracts to make them more appealing then renegotiate the deal to a shorter length and screw people over that way.

Originally posted by driftinggrifter
I think the idea makes sense, especially if it is only be added to the no trade contracts.

Think about it, if you have a no trade contract up then you couldn't trade him anyways. But if you had this into his clause then you would at least have the chance to unload him if you needed to. It would just have to be to a team he agrees with.


Thank you. If people disagree, fine, but the reasons most of them are giving just don't make sense. They're saying they would be abused... wtf? That's what makes me think they didn't understand. If you would offer a no-trade clause, then this can't possible hurt you, because it's the same except there's the possibility to trade if you and the player both agree.

As an owner, I have no problem with this - it gives the player a bit of confidence they aren't going to get dumped off, while still giving the owner some flexibility.

I don't really understand why this hasn't been implemented yet.