Trading draft picks
Should managers be allowed to trade future draft picks at any time? Your thoughts please.
posted by Gary @ 1/14/2006 09:14:00 PM
10 comments
The Clip Joint
Everything you'd ever want to know about the Applegate Paperclips and more.
10 Comments:
Trading future draft picks at any time will only exacerbate an already bad situation with regard to league imbalance. Good teams can too easily become overwhelming teams by dealing future talent for today's talent, and if you throw in the ability to trade future draft picks, there won't be any stopping a manager who sets his mind toward building the best team to ever take the field. The impact is that this reduces the enjoyment of playing the games for many other managers when it is already obvious which teams will be in the playoffs.
I agree with Gary.
I applaud Phil for building a super team last year. And I applaud Mike and Grid for the way they systematically gutted their teams a few years ago and have now built up them into true powerhouses.
But I think it detracts from the overall enjoyment of the league when so many teams effectively declare themselves out of the race before opening day and trade away all of their strong players for draft picks and future players.
This creates a league of haves and have-nots, and virtually pre-determining who will win and who will lose. It's not as much fun playing the games over the course of a season when a majority of the series are clear mis-matches.
As Gary said, allowing the trading of future draft picks will only make this problem worse.
Regarding Steve's proposal to adjust the schedule, we can certainly make that happen if we prefer.
Thanks to Gary for the idea of using his blog for pre-draft prattle. Managers should feel free to post any proposals or anything else on their minds for pre-draft discussion.
As was the case last year, we will be drafting on Saturday night, so our pre-draft meeting will be short and sweet. This means we should try to hash our our proposals ahead of time again this year.
Thanks.
Dave
I'm in agreement with not allowing trades of draft picks while the season is in progress.
I enjoy the "pennant race" and I do believe managers might be prone to fold and attempt to gain from the "loser lottery." Thanks to all who have responded to my schedule idea...my proposal wasn't
meant to be platitudinal...I really feel it would add to the
fun...and rivalries are what sports thrives on.
It seems the anti-trading faction is strong, but I'll comment anyway. I've been in another strat league since the early 1990s. In that league, you can pretty much trade anything you want. There have been some trades that a future pick is involved, but really, all we use it for is to sweeten deals....here's a link (i think) to our league trade page:
http://home1.gte.net/res0s9q1/traded97.html
The big thing is, I think we're all adults and if people want to gut there team, let them. Everyone has a different way of building teams. This is just another avenue for the "have nots" to improve faster instead of getting worse.
But again, that's just one opinion.
The arguments against trading draft picks in season is that some managers will tank and exacerbate league equality. My question is: We didn't allow draft pick trading last year, and had the most lopsided inbalance in team history. So how exactly did draft picks do that? I am in total agreement with Major Hart (Colonel? General?) that draft picks are simply sweeteners that help equalize a trade that is trying to often balance current value with long-term worth. Since Mike R. and Grid took it in the chops the last couple of years, it will be interesting to see if their scorched earth policy pays off with contention this year. I think it will in one case; I'm not so sure in the other.
We've already put in place one rule (the roster minimums and maximums) that prevent total gutting of teams. If some teams have fallen out of viability recently, it's because of poor GM decisions ... and that isn't going to change whether draft picks are or aren't part of the league. It's a phantom fear, IMHO, and since MLB doesn't seem to have a fear of dealing, it seems like we should be adult enough to handle it as well.
I think trading draft picks in-season can make it worse. I'm already troubled by the fact that one blueprint for success is to find dance partners willing to gut their team. Winning can become predicated more on what you do off the field than on it. Some people like that, I understand; my personal joy in the game is in the challenge of trying to use managing skills to win. The thrill of decimating your team, stockpiling draft choices in the hope of winning a few years down the road, and meanwhile creating league imbalance, is lost on me. I'm not saying its wrong or immoral, I just play for a different reason.
I agree that there's a difference in philosophy for some guys in the league. Some are enthused by managing, others seem more intrigued by general managing. Without suggesting that one is better than the other, it's clear that when we moved to add retention to the league, being a GM became an important part of the skillset required to succeed.
It's my belief that allowing draft picks to be traded (even if on a limited basis) actually helps the have-nots more than the haves. If I'm a struggling team and last year's Lumberjacks come calling with an offer, I want the option of taking one of his younger players PLUS perhaps demanding a draft pick as well. After all, the pressure to trade tends to be with the "good" team ... that owner is determined to achieve success THAT year. If anything, I believe draft picks promote the chance of improving faster and resolving imbalance, instead of creating it.
Will managers make bad trades? Sure. But in a league that demands GM skills, we should allow for rules that facilitate good GM decisions.
Since it has been suggested that we try and imitate real life baseball managing in the I-75 league, and in real life GM's can trade future draft picks to facilitate trades, we should be doing the same and be able to trade draft picks during all periods of trading. This is both fun and logical.
--Mr. Spock p.s. Let's vote on it before the meeting in Florida to save time for more eating, drinking and trading at the convention. All in favor?
Gentlemen: The issue of becoming a league of haves and have nots was locked in when we went to retention. And, because of retention, I will likely never have a chance to have AROD or Pujols. So be it.
Last season, I had a chance to miss the playoffs with Jason Schmidt, arguably one of the best, if not the best pitcher card in the set. I was willing to go for some younger players and swapping picks in order to hopefully improve for the future.
The same situation has presented itself for 2006. Do I have a chance to make the playoffs? A strong maybe, at best. So, can I try to positon myself for next year or the year after? Yes, which, in my opinion, I need to do.
Will it diminish my fun? Not really. What bothered me most last year was that I thought my team underperformed the whole year. I did not envision that the 2005 Nuts were an under 70 win team.
Trading picks with an eye on the future provides me with some of the fun that I will miss out in winning 60+ games. Ask Grid if this year will be more fun than last year. Of course it will be. But being the GM provides a bit interest to me--far different from facing Littleton too many times last year!
That being said, I favor trading draft picks at any time. My caveat would be that only the next year's picks can be traded.
While we have kicked this idea around in the past, there is a groundswell of support for it or it will not keep coming up. So, just because it has been shot down in the past, does not mean it is dead.
I would ask the league to consider expanding the retention list for next year. No magic number, but I think that allows us a better chance to retain 'potential' players
Signed,
"You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore."
A Hickory Nut
To take Steve H's example one step further, let's say that Underperforming manager wants to move Tejada since Miguel had a serious chainsaw accident on April 15th and has already retired. He only wants draft picks, since JJ Hardy is undrafted and is the best thing since Robin Yount at the All Star Break. Competing team manager sees a chance to get something for nothing this year, since his team was built for this season and will stink next year.
So the competing team gets Tejada for its first three draft picks next year. The competing team breaks up a tight race for the division title and boosts himself to the World Series title with ease, leaving the other competitors grumbling about selling his soul to win. A very sweet sweetener, indeed.
Then, the World Series winner sees that his team REALLY DOES STINK going into next year, and is another year removed from rebuilding because of short-sighted trading. Seeing no hope of rebuilding in the foreseeable future, he quits, since the league is no fun anymore.
Now the rest of us are stuck trying to find a replacement manager for a team with no present AND no future. Good luck!
Play the same scenario back for the team struggling to just make the playoffs at the trading deadline, deals away his top picks for this-year help, then STILL doesn't make the playoffs, due to bad luck or bad managing, and you REALLY have a mess.
I think trading future draft picks is a Strat Pandora's Box we don't want to open.
Don't even get me started on the practical aspects of who's gonna keep track of all these future draft picks being traded around. It's hard enough keeping track during the hot-stove season, believe me.
Titan Mike
Post a Comment
<< Home