This. The trade meter works, it just needs some tinkering.

I don't think the trade meter works at all right now. It also a lot of stupid trades like the ones in question here, but then will prevent reasonable trades like trading veterans for mid-round picks because they are "too good". The best was the thread that was floating around about how it was impossible to trade a punter because the trade meter demanded at least a first round pick.

CUST35 is pretty competitive and we're in the draft right now. 1 team open:
https://cust35.myfootballnow.com/team/view/27

Like a warning label that says their coffee is SUPPOSED TO be hot?

"Inexperienced" owners making bad trades can have a significant impact on a leagues competitive balance. There doesn't seem to be a perfect solution, every change has its pros and cons. An idea that I had that wouldn't be perfect either, but may help make trades more fair, would be to increase transparency.

(Original Post)
https://mfn6.myfootballnow.com/community/thread/5/1846?page=1#11504

I propose to make trade offers public for all owners in a league to see. People can still offer lopsided trades, but under this change, other owners can send better offers to "out-bid" the original offer.

-If people are worried about "cheaters", well this would help bring them to the surface, because nothing would be a bigger "red flag" for a cheater than them declining a good trade offer to take a bad one.

-If people are worried about "uninformed" or "inexperienced" owners accepting lopsided trades and messing up a team for several seasons, then this could help that as well, because in most cases other owners would send better offers once they see that the "lopsided" trade was offered. This would be similar to JDB's idea to have trades be "peer reviewed", but this would be a much less drastic change to the current system.

[Sorry about the long post, and I welcome any feedback. Thanks]

The one thing everyone forgets in calling a bad trade bad is player weightings. Everything you see in players ratings are based on your ratings.

EXAMPLE:
If I traded a first rounder for a RB that you have rated 66 .. thats a bad trade on your end
If I traded a first rounder for that same RB but, I have rated 97 .. thats a steal for me.

That's at least how I understand weightings ..

in that case why not have every players weight in when people want to trade the players they want to trade??
Then go by a number scale like players weight for if it is a bad trade or a good trade and problem solved!!!!

Ive said for a while, I think the player details should include the default ratings (what I believe the trade bar factors)

Your Rating: 60/66
Default Rating: 72/73

I give a BIG +1 to both the idea of all trade offers being public, and to the idea of player ratings showing both the default rating, and YOUR weighted ratings.

Making offers public would be as simple as duplicating the trade notification posts and changing the word "accepted" to "proposed".

The default rating shown on player cards should be whatever default value the AI uses when evaluating a trade offer.

-1 on public trade offers.

I'm torn on making trade offers public. I mean, I can see how it could help prevent bad trade offers by allowing other people to counter and/or comment on them. But this is so far removed from how trade negotiations work in real life and that really bothers me.