Going back and looking at the trade histories in this league, there needs to be some oversight please. I’m tired of watching old players getting traded for high round picks by teams that have no chance.

Agreed +2.

Newbies (mostly) always get taken advantage of. Unless you are on the cusp of competing for a championship, it's hardly ever justified to trade a high round draft choice unless you get in return (1) a very good young player or two and/or (2) a couple of very high draft picks (current or future). On top of that, newbies simply do not understand the complexities of the game in terms of game planning, etc. - which means they can't utilize their best players effectively anyway and is why the trade don't usually work out for the team trading the draft choice for a veteran.

Many players also delude themselves into thinking they are one or two players from contending for a championship. Sometimes they even think they are 4-6 players from a championship and trade many high round draft choices. And, of course, veteran GMs are more than willing to indulge them.

I think you are correct. I myself have probably done it, but I don't keep up with how long others have been playing MFN. I don't seek them out and always try to trade anyone fair regardless. There are some owners that have a win at all cost attitude though and definitely see the need for some type of oversight, especially in the case of newbies.

In addition I think many new owners come into MFN and think it is like fantasy leagues. It obviously isn't, but that appears to be what I have seen on newbies.

I want to reiterate that the Competition Committee is in place for this very topic.

Every GM in the league has the opportunity to request a trade review. Don't be afraid or feel bad to use it. And trading partners need not feel disrespected when it happens. Think of it as a way of doing business. Nothing more.

That being said the CC isn't in place for GM's to spam the system either. If you really feel that a trade needs to be reviewed, then request it. No worries. But requesting reviews in spite or any other tactics...well just sucks. Once a vote goes one way or another, we move on.

This is always a good topic of discussion. And if a GM has any questions as always fire away.

I'll preface this by saying I wouldn't mind if there were limits of trades able to be made by certain GM's. I simply don't think it's plausible. We're looking at it from the standpoint that(I'll use myself as an example) teams like the 12-4 Panthers end up with the 1.1 and 1.2 while the teams that earned those picks with their record are left with an aging player that doesn't nearly equate to the value of those 1st round picks. I mean sure it isn't fair that I have 1.1 and 1.2 after going 12-4 allowing the rich to get richer, but if you look at it, I only made those trades because of the teams(Eagles and Titans) were making moves to which I deemed "Win Now" so I made deals with them to help them in the direction they wanted to take their team. It's hard to complete deals with those teams in which you take a player worthy of players that help them win now in return in which case draft picks are generally the only valuable assets. The "Hot Seat" Rule throws a huge wrench into the equation as well. I mean I've talk to Beercloud about this but think about the teams such as the New York Giants who's now on the hot seat this year. The team needs to win at least 7 games or he gets the boot from the league. They currently have traded all their 1st rounders for the next 3 years in which they've tried to improve their team. Are we to say, "sorry you're in this position, but you can't use your draft picks to trade anymore?" Put yourself in their position... You're in a tough situation where if you don't win now, you probably won't own the team at the end of the season anyway so why hold back on deals that could help you win now? Even if it is for older players if they help your team win now that's all that really matters. That's why we can't say, "you're not allowed to trade away your draft picks" even if they are a struggling franchise. From the viewpoint of "we need to keep the integrity of the team together so that a new owner isn't left with anything". Are we to stop the League Champion Seattle Seahawks from trading away their draft picks in order to preserve the stability of their team for a next potential owner? It's nearly impossible to trade a player for player in which the team that absolutely must win now gives up an important piece of their team. It's definitely not the main reason, but I think definitely a large part of why all these early 1st rounders are ending up in the hands of teams that are already doing so well and why the teams that trade away those picks seemingly always get fleeced.

Titans have averaged 4 wins a season and the Eagles haven’t won more than 5 games in the past 6 yrs, so win now for them was never. Everything else, spot on.

I'm sorry for not clarifying when I said that I deemed them win now, I meant that I felt as though the motive of the owner was to win now. Not that I personally thought that they had a team that was actually prepared to win now.

That's what I alluded to when I said "(m)any (GMs) also delude themselves into thinking they are one or two players from contending for a championship. Sometimes they even think they are 4-6 players from a championship and trade many high round draft choices."

By allowing GMs to trade under such circumstances, we set the stage for the haves to have even more and seal the fate of the have nots. I'd prefer that the haves win by demonstrating their understanding of game play rather than fielding a team of all-stars obtained through trades of high draft choices with new and/or delusional GMs.

This all makes complete sense, but what would you do if you were on the hot seat and the only way to keep your job was to win this year? The rule of firing him’s complicates the trades.

I also think position matters to a point as well. You have to overpay if you need a CB.

Finally I wish the point values for players were either reworked or allowed you to trade under 50%. I know this is there to help and to limit one sided trades, but it also limits a GM from making trades to improve in the near future.