LEAGUE VOTE: Draft Pick Trading

[recte44]

Would need 75% to pass.

[recte44]

KEEP "Vote Publicly" enabled- so that I can track it.

[Lane]

Would there be restrictions?

e.g. May only trade picks for the next draft; May only trade picks for next two drafts?

[recte44]

Yes, but let's get through the overall idea of it first.

[bigmike13]

This is a tough topic.

Not sure how much headache it creates for the commish, and there is no doubt that used recklessly would create a nightmare for some people down the road.

I have actually been struggling with this since Ted posted it in suggestions.

[Fat Nige]

My vote against is for all the teams I have taken over full of over the hill nobody and no top draft picks which were traded away for the nobodies previously mentioned that obviously some former GM once fancied

[indiansfan]

I voted no. In every league I've been in the new guys always get fleeced out of draft picks. I think our drafts have gotten better so I think there is a viable path to rebuild without doing this. Lane proved it last season.

[aaronweiner]

We only need two more votes for this to be immediately a fail.

[JimBob2232]

I voted yes, but I think there are too many hurdles/rules that would need to happen to make it viable. Can compensetory picks be traded? If you dont sign your pick, can you trade the pick next year? etc.

[recte44]

Yeah, it's a mess in the makings, IMO.

[felipe]

I'd love too; but it wouldn't work

A lot of teams would be left without picks or a manager

[aaronweiner]

It's officially defeated. Not much to talk about.

[recte44]

Yup, nothing to see here.

[Bumstead]

It's a year too late anyway...

[agrudez]

/shrug

It was clearly set up to fail from the first posting between the commish speaking out against it and there being no discussion prior to voting to help alleviate irrational fears.

I look forward to hearing the good ideas other people have for helping the bad teams in the league to stop getting screwed on the trade market. Consider my breath held.

[Ted]

/shrug

It was clearly set up to fail from the first posting between the commish speaking out against it and there being no discussion prior to voting to help alleviate irrational fears.

I look forward to hearing the good ideas other people have for helping the bad teams in the league to stop getting screwed on the trade market. Consider my breath held.

You know, I really don't think the "bad teams" have been getting screwed as much as you think. I'm not sure how much more you can get for Chapel Jr. He's lost 2 MPH of velocity in two months, is 34, and has potentially terrible years left on his deal (Frankly I'd say guaranteed to be terrible). It's not like this is the same guy in his prime. Really at this point he's an expensive (if very good) rental and a gamble on future productivity.

I also don't think there has been that big of a change. Waaaaay back in 2021 (I know, not that long ago for some of you guys) I shopped a considerably younger Gabriel Campos (who although not in Chapel's league was one of the elite) and essentially got a pre-bumped Jesus Tonche for him. (Who I believe was 8/7/7 at the time). That was in the middle of the bad draft run, but things haven't changed that much. If there has been a significant change, I just think we are a smarter bunch of GM's who aren't going to trade a bunch of top tier prospects for expensive aging superstars anymore.

[njherdfan]

My no vote was just because of potential GM turnover. It would be brutal for a new GM to come into a situation and be without picks/prospects because of trades a past GM made.

[Bumstead]

It is harder to trade in this league. Almost every offer is a lowball offer. At some point, you either decide to just trade the player or you don't make trades. If I had known that Twin Cities was going to go 0-9 and have basically no chance now to make the playoffs I would have just kept Eugene Russell. He was a cancer, so I gave away a decent relief prospect to get rid of him. I don't regret it, but I finally gave up and traded him.

There are a lot of long time owners in this league and any mention of a change is generally met with negativity, so it's not surprising. As much complaining as there is about the drafts, I'm not sure why y'all wouldn't want to throw late 1st round draft picks at the bottom feeders...heck, this year almost every decent draft pick was a corner outfielder/1B/DH with a couple of decent starting pitchers thrown in....Even if somebody trades away a bunch of picks and leaves, what are they really losing? Relief prospects and corner outfield prospects? I've been in many leagues that allow draft pick trading, and I can tell you that most of the problems with team turnover is the bad contracts that the new guys hand out, then they don't win immediately, and then they leave; the next guy gets stuck with their contract problems. Then you can't keep an owner on that team until you find the right person that really wants to wait out or eat those contracts.

But, that's my opinion. I'm happy either way.

Dug

[JimBob2232]

My no vote was just because of potential GM turnover. It would be brutal for a new GM to come into a situation and be without picks/prospects because of trades a past GM made.

I guess I have always been one of those guys who looked for an awful situation when taking over the team. The worse the better. No farm system...check. Salary cap issues...check. 30 wins last year. Check. No draft picks...check. I actually get more satisfaction out of turning around those teams than being at the top every year.

But that's just me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RonCo]

Late to the party, but I am generally against trading of draft picks.