New Sticky Note

The new user interface is in preview!

Want to check it out? Click here! (If you don't like it, you can still switch back)

The draft is underway!

Click here to go to your war room, or visit the war room item in the draft menu.

League Forums

Main - General MFN Discussion

Re: Trade updates

By parsh
8/18/2016 1:54 pm
FWIW .. Since the update .. 2 trades have gone seamlessly ..

Either Im getting fleeced or the points are working LOL

Just curious, do both players see the same point value?

Re: Trade updates

By murderleg
8/18/2016 3:33 pm
I have a 89/91 LT with a value of 2000+ (aged 25)

I have a 87/91 QB with a value of 700+ (aged 23)

Am I missing something here? That QB should be worth SIGNIFICANTLY more.

Re: Trade updates

By King of Bling
8/18/2016 3:37 pm
murderleg wrote:
I have a 89/91 LT with a value of 2000+ (aged 25)

I have a 87/91 QB with a value of 700+ (aged 23)

Am I missing something here? That QB should be worth SIGNIFICANTLY more.


Completely agree

Re: Trade updates

By lellow2011
8/18/2016 3:52 pm
murderleg wrote:
I have a 89/91 LT with a value of 2000+ (aged 25)

I have a 87/91 QB with a value of 700+ (aged 23)

Am I missing something here? That QB should be worth SIGNIFICANTLY more.


QB performance is so random it's hard to totally agree, example:

MFN13 - 58/58 OVR - https://mfn13.myfootballnow.com/player/137
His stats this season(8 games, team is 8-0):
165/278 for 59.4% comp, 2507 yards,15 sacks taken 21TDs/12 INTs 96.31 QBR

MFN1 - 93/93 OVR - https://mfn1.myfootballnow.com/player/9923
His stats this season(11 games, team is 9-2):
173/358 for 48.3% comp, 3079 yards, 48 sacks taken 24 TDs/18 INTs 79.59 QBR

Re: Trade updates

By jdavidbakr - Site Admin
8/18/2016 3:56 pm
You're right, QB value was incorrect. I'm pushing an update now.

Re: Trade updates

By WarEagle
8/18/2016 4:28 pm
jdavidbakr wrote:
You're right, QB value was incorrect. I'm pushing an update now.


I just thought my weights were way off from the mysterious default weights.

Glad to know I'm not that far off.

Re: Trade updates

By raymattison21
8/20/2016 12:08 pm
I was wondering if the engine takes into account the value of bonus eaten by a team. Or the fact that the following season a 4 star may have to restructure for millions more. Each change the value of the player.

Say a young first is being moved. He would have his bonus eaten by the trader. Raising his value a little cause the new team wont pay a bonus for years. Same as player on the last year of his contract, but i think an expensive restructure looming would depreciate his value a little.

Re: Trade updates

By King of Bling
8/20/2016 2:29 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
I was wondering if the engine takes into account the value of bonus eaten by a team. Or the fact that the following season a 4 star may have to restructure for millions more. Each change the value of the player.

Say a young first is being moved. He would have his bonus eaten by the trader. Raising his value a little cause the new team wont pay a bonus for years. Same as player on the last year of his contract, but i think an expensive restructure looming would depreciate his value a little.


It might be too cumbersome to calculate that into the ratings, but an excellent point. Eating bonus is always a consideration I ponder when trading players.

Re: Trade updates

By dei1c3
8/20/2016 3:02 pm
raymattison21 wrote:
I was wondering if the engine takes into account the value of bonus eaten by a team. Or the fact that the following season a 4 star may have to restructure for millions more. Each change the value of the player.

Say a young first is being moved. He would have his bonus eaten by the trader. Raising his value a little cause the new team wont pay a bonus for years. Same as player on the last year of his contract, but i think an expensive restructure looming would depreciate his value a little.


From earlier in this thread:

jdavidbakr wrote:
The trade value is only based on the player's default ratings, position, and age (using default weights)


So contract (bonus or otherwise) is not considered.