BEST TOPIC OF ALL TIME! ME!
Moderator: Executive Committee
-
Cardinals
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: Manch Vegas, CT
- Name: John Paul Starkey
BEST TOPIC OF ALL TIME! ME!
woo hoo. We can discuss my punishment altering defense in this thread whenever Bren feels the need to let me present my defense. I told him I'd wait until he said it was OK to back in May and I'll still oblige to that.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
-
Cardinals
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: Manch Vegas, CT
- Name: John Paul Starkey
Basically...
This penalty was imposed to "make an example" of people trading picks. The point of the rule was to prevent people
from trading draft picks themselves. While a draftee was traded, he had been on my roster for a month. Everybody agrees
that the "spirit of the rule" was not broken in the least bit.
Obviously, i've been a pain in the ass regarding this and if I wasn't such a pain in the first place, it wouldn't be so harsh.
However, the penalty penalizes both SF and HOU not just for round 1, but for every single round of the draft.
At the time I wrote this, Houston had the 4th worst record in the league. If this occured in last years draft, Houston
would go from Evan Longoria to Tyler Colvin or Matthew Sulentic. That drop off is huge- especially for a rebuilding team.
While at the time of the pick, Houston's roster was not in rebuilding mode, it was on it's way later that week, before the
penalty was completely laid down.
Additionally, if this had happened in last years draft, Houston would lose it's 2nd round pick. Assuming picking in the 4th slot,
Houston would miss out on Cedric Hunter, Kasey Kiker, Adam Ottavino, Matt Antonelli and Jeff Samardzija. All considered
to be pretty good prospects.
The drop in round 3 would be losing the opportunity to grab somebody like Trevor Cahill or Carlos Truinfel
and down grade to somebody such as Chris Coghlan (who?)
No pick in round four would deprive Houston of a chance for somebody such as D'Arby Myers, Brooks Brown,
Brandon Hynick or even the imported HIdeki Okajima.
You get the picture. A draft class potentially of:
Evan Longoria
Cedric Hunter
Carlos Truinfel
Brandon Hynick
Jeff Manship
would turn into:
Tyler Colvin
Chirs Coughlan
Kyle Orr
That dropoff for a team that will be among the worst of the worst in 2007, is too drastic.
What I propose is simple. Both Houston and SF will be penalized. They will lose their pick that is closest to the pick that is traded. The pick
that was traded was #22 overall. If SF has pick #23 in the first round, they lose that pick.
If Houston has pick #3 in the first round, they lose their second and fifth round picks. Losing the fifth rounder is something that will even out
the penalty between SF/HOU.
The value of the penalty compared to last years infraction stays truer to course this way, and only affects the nearest value to the pick that caused the ruckus.
Instead of wasting an entire draft class, the only thing wasted is the pick most closely resembling in value the one from last year, which is a fair compromise.
This penalty was imposed to "make an example" of people trading picks. The point of the rule was to prevent people
from trading draft picks themselves. While a draftee was traded, he had been on my roster for a month. Everybody agrees
that the "spirit of the rule" was not broken in the least bit.
Obviously, i've been a pain in the ass regarding this and if I wasn't such a pain in the first place, it wouldn't be so harsh.
However, the penalty penalizes both SF and HOU not just for round 1, but for every single round of the draft.
At the time I wrote this, Houston had the 4th worst record in the league. If this occured in last years draft, Houston
would go from Evan Longoria to Tyler Colvin or Matthew Sulentic. That drop off is huge- especially for a rebuilding team.
While at the time of the pick, Houston's roster was not in rebuilding mode, it was on it's way later that week, before the
penalty was completely laid down.
Additionally, if this had happened in last years draft, Houston would lose it's 2nd round pick. Assuming picking in the 4th slot,
Houston would miss out on Cedric Hunter, Kasey Kiker, Adam Ottavino, Matt Antonelli and Jeff Samardzija. All considered
to be pretty good prospects.
The drop in round 3 would be losing the opportunity to grab somebody like Trevor Cahill or Carlos Truinfel
and down grade to somebody such as Chris Coghlan (who?)
No pick in round four would deprive Houston of a chance for somebody such as D'Arby Myers, Brooks Brown,
Brandon Hynick or even the imported HIdeki Okajima.
You get the picture. A draft class potentially of:
Evan Longoria
Cedric Hunter
Carlos Truinfel
Brandon Hynick
Jeff Manship
would turn into:
Tyler Colvin
Chirs Coughlan
Kyle Orr
That dropoff for a team that will be among the worst of the worst in 2007, is too drastic.
What I propose is simple. Both Houston and SF will be penalized. They will lose their pick that is closest to the pick that is traded. The pick
that was traded was #22 overall. If SF has pick #23 in the first round, they lose that pick.
If Houston has pick #3 in the first round, they lose their second and fifth round picks. Losing the fifth rounder is something that will even out
the penalty between SF/HOU.
The value of the penalty compared to last years infraction stays truer to course this way, and only affects the nearest value to the pick that caused the ruckus.
Instead of wasting an entire draft class, the only thing wasted is the pick most closely resembling in value the one from last year, which is a fair compromise.
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
. Anyone actually gonna oppose this?
1. First of all, the rule is partly to 'make an example' but it is primarily to punish those who break the rules. The rule was in place well in advance of the draft and the members involved have no excuse for not being aware of the rule. You can nitpick about the spirit of the rule all you want but two Gm's as experienced as Nils and JP have no excuse for not knowing the rule was there.
2. That said, the rule is that if you trade a pick, you lose the pick from that same round as the one you traded. The penalty has already been reduced once and honestly, I think if the GM involved was someone less prominent or less well-liked, the idea of reducing the penalty would be dismissed out of hand. This isn't any fault to JP for trying to get it reduced, but if it were Vacek or Dave or just some average GM I can bet pretty safely there wouldn't be much call to reduce the penalty.
3. That JP's team (and penalty) got worse was a result of his OWN decisions, nothing more. The Timberwolves wouldn't have gotten a break when they screwed up and were stripped of their draft picks
4. Maintaining a penalty for pick trading is important because in the past, many GM's have demonstrated a complete disregard for the rule and a willingness to dodge it.
5. Changing or eliminating the penalty, after steady pressure from a GM, sets a very bad precedent for future penalties.
6. Voting to reduce or eliminate an established penalty for an ExCo member sets an even WORSE precedent and sets a very poor example.
2. That said, the rule is that if you trade a pick, you lose the pick from that same round as the one you traded. The penalty has already been reduced once and honestly, I think if the GM involved was someone less prominent or less well-liked, the idea of reducing the penalty would be dismissed out of hand. This isn't any fault to JP for trying to get it reduced, but if it were Vacek or Dave or just some average GM I can bet pretty safely there wouldn't be much call to reduce the penalty.
3. That JP's team (and penalty) got worse was a result of his OWN decisions, nothing more. The Timberwolves wouldn't have gotten a break when they screwed up and were stripped of their draft picks
4. Maintaining a penalty for pick trading is important because in the past, many GM's have demonstrated a complete disregard for the rule and a willingness to dodge it.
5. Changing or eliminating the penalty, after steady pressure from a GM, sets a very bad precedent for future penalties.
6. Voting to reduce or eliminate an established penalty for an ExCo member sets an even WORSE precedent and sets a very poor example.
That's the crucial point here, that this trade passed wasn't just Nils and JP's fault, there was a complete system breakdown. Also Bren keep pushing this whole draft pick trading thing and I'll start proposing that we allow it again, with the proviso that trades must be done before the draft or involving players already drafted to keep the thing moving.
Your REIGNING AND DEFENDING #evenyear IBC CHAMPION
2015- #torture #evenyears 179-145
2006-2014 Gritty Gutty A's 828-631
2005 Texas Rangers 65-97
Total: 1072-873 .551
2015- #torture #evenyears 179-145
2006-2014 Gritty Gutty A's 828-631
2005 Texas Rangers 65-97
Total: 1072-873 .551
-
Cardinals
- Posts: 8041
- Joined: Sat May 18, 2002 1:00 am
- Location: Manch Vegas, CT
- Name: John Paul Starkey
For the record:Dodgers wrote:My favorite is that JP told Bren that they made the trade before realizing they broke the rule (and before it passed) and Bren did nothing to stop it.
4. It won't be possible to break the rule once we use OOPSS for drafting, so I'll just make sure I have it done before the offseason.
stlvertigo: that trade cant be put through on OOPS yet because of your dumb rule no trading 06 picks till post draft
stlvertigo: i mean i dont mind waiting
stlvertigo: but this deal had nothing to do with pick trading
brendilon: No sympathy. Sorry
stlvertigo: I dont expect sympathy cuz i dont mind waiting
stlvertigo: im just stating its a bit silly
last I heard from Bren that night on it. Anyways, I came to him as soon as I realized it couldn't/shouldn't have been up on OOPSS.
i'm over it, I'm not faulting Bren here, it was a gaffe on my, nils, bren and the TRC for approving it and yes bren it is partially on you for not taking it off of OOPSS or just saying yo lay low on it for a little.
regardless, I just figured i'd present evidence with the 'claims.'
12, 14, 15, 17, 22
Shawn, you're a smart guy, but that's a remarkably stupid thing to say. Putting the draft picks into OOPSS will not stop GM's from making trades with them.Dodgers wrote:My favorite is that JP told Bren that they made the trade before realizing they broke the rule (and before it passed) and Bren did nothing to stop it.
4. It won't be possible to break the rule once we use OOPSS for drafting, so I'll just make sure I have it done before the offseason.
JP, the problem isn't that you submitted the trade into OOPSS, it's that you discussed and agreed to a trade involving picks, PERIOD. If you had waited until after the draft was over to submit it to OOPSS, you and Nils would STILL be guilty of breaking the rules, you just might not have gotten caught.
Did you break the rules? ABSOLUTELY
There is no reason to further reduce th penalty when you clearly broke a rule with a clearly defined penalty.
-
Dodgers
- Site Admin
- Posts: 5783
- Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:00 am
- Location: Fort Lauderdale
- Name: Shawn Walsh
You can never stop GMs from accepting trades and then waiting until the draft is over to do it. What I can do is prevent all that year's draftees from being traded until the draft is over, which is another reason JP's trade shouldn't have made it to the committee, OOPSS should have never allowed it. By integrating the entire drafting process into OOPSS I can then say I've done everything possible to stop draft pick trading.RedSox wrote: Putting the draft picks into OOPSS will not stop GM's from making trades with them.
