[EricH]

Originally Posted by TDav540

With a screening panel, we do not believe in the idea of a hard cap on trades via a tier system. We think that limits activity between teams in a way that unreasonably restricts talks. However, we also have no problem with one or more of the members of the veto committee using it as a basis for their veto/acceptance, if they think that is the best way to evaluate a trade.

I would argue that there is nothing saying that you cannot trade multiple slots--but as has been pointed out, there is a significant difference between moving up in round 1 vs moving up in round 2, or round 3. Round 1, there's a pretty fair chance you move up into picking one of the top teams at the event. Round 2, you might get lucky. Round 3? Hopefully it's a deep event.

What if... We could agree (somewhat) on an equivalence system? Just as a thought, let a Round 1 pick be worth 3 points/slot moved, round 2 be 2 points, and Round 3 be 1 point. Up/down are +/-. So if you trade earlier, you get + points. Then just set an overall cap on allowable points spread--just to pick a number, -3 to +3--and any trade that ends up with all teams within that cap is fair game by default. (And if we were really sneaky, there would be another number, say -10 overall, that would signal that it was time for an intervention.)

Just an idea, I don't think it'll be too popular.