Lets all contribute... try to form a general consensus here.

The Standard draft value chart that goes from 3000 points for 1.1 to 2 points for 7.32
is a great starting point.

I tend to think future picks should be devalued a range of 16 places to one round per year.
Farther out the penalty should be less per year, but still cumulative. In addition a predictive valuation should be used that says a team is probably going to finish within 4-8 draft spots of this year. 8 for middle of the curve, 4 for outliers.
So far pretty easy.

Players are more difficult but can be simplified with point ranges and standard deviations for position, and age.
Perhaps roughly sort them according like the draft chart?

1st 100-78
2nd 78-70
3rd 70-65
4th 65-60
5th 60-55
6th 55-50
7th 50-

Now for positional alterations I'll volunteer rough estimates from my old fof draft stuff.
QB 1.4x
RB 1.3
FB .6
TE 1.0
WR 1.3
LT 1.1
LG .8
C .7
RG .8
RT 1.0

DE 1.2
DT .9
LB 1.0
CB 1.2
SS .9

K .4
P .3

Next is age...
Very tough to put a number to, but lets assume a 2-4th year player is prime, and each year after 4 starts to degrade the value by a growing number closly resembling the % chance likely to retire, and number of years of production.

2-4 100%
5-6 90%
7-8 75%
9-10 60%
11-12 40%
13-on 25%

Does this make sense to everyone? JDB can you make a algorithm with something like this?
Does anyone think I'm way off with certain values? Any trade "point" guidelines also must include enough latitude to allow for personal differences and league variations, but I think this is a good starting point

I'm not sure on values, you most likely have more of a handle on this than I ever will, but I do think the trade weights need evaluating.

Some of the trades I've made and received have been what I would consider to be way off the mark in terms of fair value, (and I think this is where some folks find some trades hard to swallow), if we were comparing to the NFL. Is this where you're getting your figures from btw?

One way or the other something definitely needs to be done about this.

I'm definitely in favor of adjusting whatever is needed so that the trade meter is more in line with the reality of this game (i.e. 6th and 7th round picks should be worth nearly nothing).

However, there are always going to be trades that some owners feel are ridiculous, or unbalanced, or whatever they want to call it.

I don't think we can, or should, eliminate this. In my opinion, this is part of real life football.

I keep remembering the RGIII and Herschel Walker trades. If either of these happened in MFN you would have people claiming they were "suspicious", unbalanced, etc.

Also, there is a learning curve to all aspects of this game. Trades are just one of them. I know I've made at least one trade that "if I knew then what I know now" I would not have. I don't think I should have not been allowed to make that trade just because it was a bad deal.

In my opinion, more important than any of this is that some people just need to calm down about how other people choose to run their teams. The insults and baseless accusations are very tasteless and childish.

If I were a new player and one of my first experiences with MFN was reading some of the comments that have been made, I doubt I would continue on. Thankfully for me I've been around a few months and know that this only comes from a handful of players and the majority are reasonable.

Davesgang, the algorithm that is used is actually similar to what you propose - the only part that doesn't exist is the discounting of older players, which is an interesting idea. One thought I've had to add is discounting the sum if one side offers more parts than the other, to prevent loading up a bunch of 40-rated players to snag one 100-rated player.

I am continually evaluating the algorithm and appreciate you starting the thread - and look forward to following it.

People tend to look at the trades, "ah, that looks unequal, dodgy".

Fact is, sometimes you're willing to lose a bit nominally on a trade if it benefits your squad overall.

For example, if I had a specific problem position, I'd be willing to overpay for a stopgap who could fill in for a few seasons.

Until an algorithm can factor that in, people will always complain.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to eliminate "Herschel Walker" trades or even judge any trades. Personal judgement always will take more into account than a algorithm. However I'd like to have a General consensus the "rule" before we make allowances...

There is currently a sliding graph trade guideline that I think is useful for newer players and a quick eye ball of "these 3 picks should be equal to that pick/player" situations. I also agree that a gentlemanly attitude should be present on all forums, and I'm sure It's something we can all strive for. Public forums are a tough place for any team that just lost a game much less made a unpopular trade.

JDB can you adjust the scale it operates on? Using this measurement system... Currently 2 point values are swinging the scale on 3000 point trades.

What I have seen that causes me concern, is that the value of the same trade can change drastically. I proposed a trade for the overall number one pick, and the algorithm said that the trade was too lopsided to make. Then after the draft, in which the player picked the top guy I had on my board and wanted, was rated even. By then I had gone a different way and didn't want the trade.

If there were actually a Peyton Manning (or JJ Watt) type player available, that might not be the case.

I wonder if the value of the pick takes into consideration the quality of the players that are actually in the draft pool?

He was a phenomenal player. I assume that the fact that he was not yet at his peak was now considered. I think draft picks are considered to be worth more than they should be.

Good point

Does the trade calculator consider a player's current rating, potential rating, or both?