Etiquette for proposing trades

Jun 10th 2026 By San Diego Bombers

3:39 pm Today
hey
From Cincinnati RedsCAN YOU POST THIS ON F FOR ME

To All Teams,
Before I get into how I evaluate trades, I want to address trade offers themselves.
If you're going to send a trade proposal, please give the other team a reasonable amount of time to
respond. Not everyone logs in every day. Some owners are on daily, while others may only check in two or
three times a week. Sending a trade offer and then canceling it a few hours later does not give the other
owner a fair opportunity to review it.
In my opinion, a reasonable waiting period is about four days. That gives every owner a fair chance to log
in, review the proposal, and respond.
I understand that owners may shop players around. You may send an offer to one team, then another, then
another. If one of those deals gets accepted first, the remaining offers will usually become invalid
automatically because the player involved is no longer available. That's perfectly understandable. What I am
talking about is manually canceling offers after only a few hours simply because you haven't received an
immediate response.
Respect the other owners. Give them time to review the offer before pulling it back.
As for the trades themselves, this is how I, the Cincinnati Reds, look at them.
I do not believe every trade has to be perfectly equal on paper. If I contact you about one of your players, it
means I want something you have. Because I am the team seeking the deal, I expect to pay a reasonable
premium to get the player I want.
That does not mean I want to get ripped off, and it does not mean I am trying to rip anyone else off. It
simply means I believe the team giving up the player being targeted should come out slightly ahead in
overall value. The team seeking the player gets the fit they need, while the other team gets a little extra
value for giving up an asset they may not have wanted to move.
I also do not believe trades should be judged solely by the number of players involved.
A one-for-two trade is not unfair just because one team gets two players. Sometimes the best player in the
deal is worth more than two good players. Likewise, a two-for-three trade is not automatically unfair
because one side receives more players. Quality matters more than quantity.
The same applies to pitchers and hitters. A trade should not be judged by whether it is pitcher-for-pitcher or
hitter-for-hitter. Teams have different needs. One team may need an ace. Another may need speed. Another
may need defense. Another may be rebuilding and looking for younger players. A trade should be
evaluated based on whether both teams improve their situation, not whether the positions match.
Age also matters. A 24-year-old player and a 34-year-old player may have similar ratings today, but they do
not have the same long-term value. A rebuilding team may prefer the younger player, while a contender
may prefer the veteran. Both can be correct depending on the team's goals

News Conversation

Betelgeuse :

me then a 75/90/70/90 player with a consistent track record. I don’t think there is one true way to trade except what you value. I won’t trade for aged players 31 and up. That’s when I start trading players away. Yes trading not giving players away.

15 hours ago

My time here taught me one thing. Don’t trade with most teams. I value player stats while others value scouting stats. I could care less is a guy is a triple 90/80 player if he has no career stats or has struggled. That player holds far less value to

Tennessee Tigers :

I was hoping based on the title that the article would be called out ridiculous and unfair trades and saying not to bother sending them.

3 days ago

Reds :

That's why I think every trade has to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. There isn't one formula that works for every team or every situation.

5 days ago

A contender may want one star player. A rebuilding team may want several good players. Most teams seem to have more pitching depth than position-player depth anyway.

I think it comes down to value, roster construction, and what each team is trying to accomplish. Some teams value quality over quantity, while others prefer depth across the roster.

I agree with that. I don't think trades need to be hitter for hitter or pitcher for pitcher. Every team has different needs, so matching positions doesn't matter much to me.

Marvols :

Good info. I agree with the view that I may accept a trade even if it looks bad for me to others. It only depends on what I need. 4 days is a little long, but at least give 4 games.

Bobcats :

I don't really agree teams trade by hitter for hitter or pitcher for pitcher. I think teams understand their needs it's more of what does that team hold quality over quantity and most teams have better pitching then position depth

Picks because they pay more but at the same time I agree with Storm I don't think was needed for an article I think if this were to be in article format it should be more like a guideline to trading.

Page of 3