Make two separate assessments
For your team, write down the problem solved and the loss accepted. Repeat the exercise for the other squad using available information and stating uncertainties. Do not assume the other participant shares your priorities.
One squad may need cover while the other needs a starter. That difference can support a useful agreement. There is no need to force every player into the same numerical valuation; make the benefits and compromises understandable.
Worked case: different benefits
Fictional example: squad A has usable defensive cover and a weak midfield place. Squad B has a midfielder it rarely uses and no defensive replacement. Exchanging those profiles can help A’s starting lineup and B’s bench.
The benefit alone does not establish that all conditions are satisfied. Check role eligibility, availability and any credits. If B cannot use the incoming defender in its formation, the supposed need is not actually solved.
A useful offer is not an approval
Approval processes and rules against prohibited agreements depend on your league. A calculator result is not proof that a trade must be approved. Clarify rule concerns through the proper league process before registration.
Different opinions about players are not themselves evidence of wrongdoing. To discuss an offer, identify the precise issue: no useful benefit, lost cover, an undisclosed condition or a restriction that is not met. That is more useful than saying one name “is worth more.”
Frequently asked questions
Must both teams benefit in the same way?
No. They can solve different needs while understanding the compromise.
Does an equal score make a trade fair?
No. A score depends on a model and assumptions. Review the reasons behind it.
Can I use the evaluator for both teams?
Yes, through independent assessments. The method helps keep the two perspectives separate.