Draft Pick Trading

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Jul 09, 2008 11:13 pm

I agree with everything Ropers said. I disagree with what JB just said

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 12:52 am

I believe that Mr. Ropers has contributed an excellent pair of pennies. Let us proceed on the route of draft pick trading with all reasonable haste.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 4:22 am

If we are gonna trade picks just make sure all the logistics are worked out. No holding picks hostage, things ropers and others have said. Also, JB should not be allowed to trade picks, I seriously think the trc should make that a rule in the fine print.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:10 am

I agree with everything here, though on the point that we would have to cut 5 players to add the 5 new draft "players" to our rosters, is it possible to have the roster number not include these "draft" spots? We technically don't have the players until they are drafted, we shouldn't have to drop anyone until the pick turns into an actual player.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:06 pm

Giants wrote:I agree with everything here, though on the point that we would have to cut 5 players to add the 5 new draft "players" to our rosters, is it possible to have the roster number not include these "draft" spots? We technically don't have the players until they are drafted, we shouldn't have to drop anyone until the pick turns into an actual player.

Bingo.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:35 pm

The only other aspect that I think is important is that we just come out with a set date for this to begin. That way somebody doesn't make a trade on say the 17th that they take a player when they could have had a pick on the 19th and end up pissed off. I mean, if you get pissed over that that'd be your fault for being a stooge, but, I think having a set date would be fantastic before we count all our eggs. I would think that August 1 would be a proper date to begin this, gives Shawn the time to do it technically with the OOPSS and gives all of us time to straighten out the rules and what have you. It doesn't seem like there's any opposition to this whatsoever, and there really shouldn't be.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 5:54 pm

Giants wrote:I agree with everything here, though on the point that we would have to cut 5 players to add the 5 new draft "players" to our rosters, is it possible to have the roster number not include these "draft" spots? We technically don't have the players until they are drafted, we shouldn't have to drop anyone until the pick turns into an actual player.

That's about enough to piss a guy off! Damn site logged me out while I was typing the message...........guess I got interupted one too many times.

Anyways, what I was saying, is that it looks like my original thought my have got lost a bit in item #2 on my last post.

Currently, we have a 50 man roster made up of regular 40 man roster and a 10 man draft roster limited to '06 and '07 picks. If you want more than 10 draft picks on your roster you have to use 40 man roster space to keep them.

We could go about this a couple of different ways.

1. We could increase the draft roster to 15, but only allow five '08 designated ghost players to be in the draft roster (as we aren't trying to increase roster size here, just trying to track trading of '08 picks). If you want to trade for more than the allotted five '08 ghost players, you'd have to use up 40 man roster space to do it. I think that makes sense, as we currently require you to use 40 man slots if you want to keep more than 10 draft picks on your roster and if you are going to trade '08 picks for active players, they are going to have to take up regular roster spots anyways.

or

2. We could create a special '08 draft roster category, include only five and limit each GM to only having 5 '08 ghost players on their roster at any one time. I guess we could have Shawn make this special roster section of '08 ghost players limitless if needed, however I personally like option #1 better, as it requires GM's to make roster decisions if they want to horde more than the alotted five picks.

Hopefully that clears up my original thoughts a bit.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 6:16 pm

I see one problem with limiting it to 5 spots... what happens if i trade for a pick and dont give up one. Now i have 6. Can i drop the last pick (5th rounder) to get down to five or do i have to drop a player... could get confusing.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:13 pm

Yankees wrote:I see one problem with limiting it to 5 spots... what happens if i trade for a pick and dont give up one. Now i have 6. Can i drop the last pick (5th rounder) to get down to five or do i have to drop a player... could get confusing.

There are some issues with the second option, which is definately more restrictive. Also the reason I think option #1 is a bit more realistic and allows some flexibility for guys if they want to stockpile more '08 picks than the alotted five. Gives a bit more flexibility to everyone, would just need to find an easy way to track GM's draft roster (which would now be at 15, but limited to 10 '06 and '07 players and 5 '08 players) to make sure they don't have more than five '08 ghost players in there.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 7:25 pm

I don't think picks should count against the 50 we currently have at all. If your going to allow pick trading, then you can gain more than your 5 if you are savy. The time to make cuts and make room for the picks is when they actually turn into a player on draft day, just like we've always done.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:01 pm

Agreed, to me the roster issues are the easy part, it's relatively easy for someone to go through the draft rosters and make sure no one is skirting anything. On the other hand, the more I think about it the more I think it might be an interesting wrinkle to the system if you had to use a roster spot for picks beyond five, at least through the end of the regular season (meaning you'd have to cut the back end of your roster, not your 5th round pick). It would add another layer of strategy to the negotiations and roster planning.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:11 pm

Reds wrote:I don't think picks should count against the 50 we currently have at all. If your going to allow pick trading, then you can gain more than your 5 if you are savy. The time to make cuts and make room for the picks is when they actually turn into a player on draft day, just like we've always done.

JP and I were talking about this issue earlier and I think we both agreed that this was the stance we liked best. Due to the nature of IBC rosters, to hold someone to only 5 picks at any one time would be a detriment, there's no reason not to let them go up and down as trades come and go.

Additionally, this is going to require a rule change to change the draft to only 5 rounds. Previously you could draft as long as you wanted, but if that's the case, it seems kind of dumb to hold it to only 5 picks tradable then. Either way, something has to give to fix that problem.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:17 pm

You don't have to necessarily change the rules of the draft, you would just say that only picks in the first 5 rounds are tradeable, which is pretty reasonable considering that the caliber of player you pick up in the 6th round has such long odds that he is probably not worth anything anyway.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:24 pm

Fair enough.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Jul 10, 2008 8:24 pm

Athletics wrote:You don't have to necessarily change the rules of the draft, you would just say that only picks in the first 5 rounds are tradeable, which is pretty reasonable considering that the caliber of player you pick up in the 6th round has such long odds that he is probably not worth anything anyway.

I tend to agree with this. Fifth rounders are really marginal as a tradeable asset to begin with. I don't see a big problem with looking at 6th+ a little differently, especially since for practical purposes we use five slots per year as our roster standard and since we basically allow guys to keep picking as a superior alternative to ending the draft with waivers on unpicked eligibles.

Yankees · Post by **Yankees** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 9:18 am

I'm on board with all the above...People shouldn't be penalized for hording picks now...but people who pick up players in those trades would need to stay on board with the 50-man roster.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 12:29 pm

Royals wrote:I'm on board with all the above...People shouldn't be penalized for hording picks now...but people who pick up players in those trades would need to stay on board with the 50-man roster.

Agreed.

The teams picking up the most picks are teams that probably need the help in rebuilding, so they should have the advantage of a full 50 man roster plus picks, with time to get their roster in order by draft day.

I thought that the draft picks didn't count against our roster last offseason, why would it be any different this year?

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Jul 11, 2008 6:59 pm

Rockies wrote: The teams picking up the most picks are teams that probably need the help in rebuilding

At least even money the team picking up the most picks will be JB.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:10 am

It will be Jag.

Mariners · Post by **Mariners** » Sat Jul 12, 2008 10:57 am

Yankees wrote:It will be Jag.

Not me, I'll be trading picks away this year!