Owners/Fans don't take into account roster depth for trades

[pretzalcoatl]

I've got 20 defensemen in the system, top 7 in the depth chart are 4-star or better current rating, next 5 are all 18-20 year old 5-star futures projected 1-2 defensemen.

I trade the bottom 8 three-star potentials for last season's last-place-team's and second-to-last-place-team's 1st round picks when a generational talent is coming up in the next draft, and my board rep drops like a stone

Why do they care so much about keeping around players who will never ever see NHL ice?

[lemming3k]

They don't take a lot into account if we're honest. If you give up anything above a certain level they get annoyed, regardless of how good the returns.

[udbacker58]

The fact that you can trade 8 mid level prospects for the 1st round picks of the two lowest teams in the standings is a bigger issue to me than the fact that your board is upset with this trade that is absurdly slanted in your favor.

It would be nice if the CPU could take into account where they are in the standings, after the halfway point; and taking into account the talent pool of the upcoming class when trading draft picks. I'm sure this is a difficult line to balance, but it always seems that it is far too easy to poach 1st round picks from bad teams in great draft years.

[lemming3k]

It would be nice if the CPU could take into account where they are in the standings, after the halfway point; and taking into account the talent pool of the upcoming class when trading draft picks. I'm sure this is a difficult line to balance, but it always seems that it is far too easy to poach 1st round picks from bad teams in great draft years.

I'm pretty sure they do take the standings into account, otherwise it'd be easy to trade up - there does seem a slight conflict with reputation/history as they have no recognition of who is declining/rebuilding and who isn't. Not sure how they'd handle draft depth though, they seem to know the PA of every prospect and get training bonuses already so I don't think I'd want them to get much tougher in that respect.

[LtBran90]

I don't know much about it yet because I haven't tried many of these types of trades, but even trading the rights for some of my draft picks can be incredibly difficult for the board and the other team to come to terms on. I like this aspect of trading. The only time I notice my board getting upset is if I trade when they say a personalized message, such as, "I don't want to trade (insert name here)." They will almost always get upset when their feedback says that. If it's more passive, "I don't think this deal would be great for us," they don't seem to get as angry. I don't know if this is just a coincidence or not, but I'll still throw it out there.

[DOCsnowman]

Does player GM rep come into account? When I first started and had just 'Good' reputation I seemed to get bigger reactions from the board. Now that I have 'Superb' rep they seem to let me have free reign over trades without butting in.

[LtBran90]

Does player GM rep come into account? When I first started and had just 'Good' reputation I seemed to get bigger reactions from the board. Now that I have 'Superb' rep they seem to let me have free reign over trades without butting in.

Not sure. I would like to know this as well. I think with the way it is programmed, they don't want you making these drastic changes so quickly. When the team does poorly and I request an extension of time to rebuild, they don't seem to come down on me as hard (assuming it's early in my time as their GM). Again, this could be a coincidence. I personally just keep my players, do a few rights trades of players I won't use, and collect some picks that my board does value.