Trade Objection

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:26 pm

Since my 9 pick started this debate.......I'm curious here. Maybe the Yanks do have some sort of spell on the rest of the league here. I offered to swap the Braves my 40th pick for his 29th. He rejected that, and then turned around and swapped Seth Smith for Jose Tabata. Maybe my assessment of the values of these players are wrong, but how is the Yanks offer better than the one I made to him??

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:30 pm

Astros wrote:Since my 9 pick started this debate.......I'm curious here. Maybe the Yanks do have some sort of spell on the rest of the league here. I offered to swap the Braves my 40th pick for his 29th. He rejected that, and then turned around and swapped Seth Smith for Jose Tabata. Maybe my assessment of the values of these players are wrong, but how is the Yanks offer better than the one I made to him??

Do you mean 40 and 9? Obviously not 40 for 29 straight up.

Guardians · Post by **Guardians** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 12:33 pm

He rejected 9 and 40 from me for his 10 and 29.......instead, waited until i traded the 9 pick to the Yanks, then accepted a 9 and Smith for 10 and Tabata.

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 3:46 pm

The trade's been approved. The only one against it is Bren. Bren don't run the show anymore. Lets keep this thing going

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:53 pm

There doesn't seem to be enough GM's willing to object (though there seem to be plenty who think it's a bad deal) so the draft may as well resume. i would agree with what Shawn has hinted at, which is that we should not have allowed pick trading during this untimed portion of the draft.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:29 pm

Who about you cannot trade a pick for that round, once the round has started...

So in the 3rd round, all 3rd round picks are locked...but 4th & 5th are still tradeable.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 7:50 pm

Or we could keep the rules as is and not jump the gun on starting the draft. Let the draft start in January like it always does and lock trading of picks once it does. There's no reason for us to start the draft early.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 9:20 pm

i agree, its like having a fantasy football draft in june

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 10:51 pm

we've always started it in December early.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Wed Dec 12, 2007 11:34 pm

Does Gabe mean the timed portion? I assumed that was what he meant, though I see now that it could be interpreted multiple ways.

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 1:07 am

Dodgers wrote:Does Gabe mean the timed portion? I assumed that was what he meant, though I see now that it could be interpreted multiple ways.

I think that he means just don't do this early, untimed drafting. Start the draft officially when we start it, so that there aren't grey areas on rules. I agree with him, if that's what he's saying.

We talked about this (I think in exco) and I mentioned that this untimed portion encourages guys to be sorry (use time to their benefit and to everyone else's detriment), but I didn't get any support on that. I think that we just need to start the draft with the time limits and trades frozen and all next year.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 2:46 am

yeah, sorry if that was unclear, i wrote it in a hurry at work.

what i'm saying is there's nothing to gain by starting the draft now, especially with pick trading still being allowed. it only creates negatives in my mind. i can't see how it benefits the league or GMs in any way.

i know people are anxious to get going but in reality the longer we wait to draft the more it helps every GM. By January, which I really thought is when we always did this thing but maybe i'm wrong, you're gonna have a lot more info on international signees, which can only help you, not hurt you. if a guy drafts early during this "untimed portion" because he's pressured by others to do so, and then come January he finds out the guy he drafted is having surgery or something, he's gonna be pissed and rightly so.

essentially we are starting the draft now, because when a GM is up, as we saw with JB, they're pressured into quickly making their picks. this is unfair. they have another month to decide what they wanna do and get their research done. i think its best for everyone involved if the draft starts in Jan, and once it does, pick trading is locked. everyone is on the same time limit, everyone gets the same amount of time to make their pick, and most importantly, everybody is working with the same information. fairness all the way around.

Orioles · Post by **Orioles** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:33 pm

I agree there's no need to start early. I know if my pick comes up, I'm taking my sweet-ass time.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:47 pm

Marlins wrote:I agree there's no need to start early. I know if my pick comes up, I'm taking my sweet-ass time.

I really don't feel anyone has felt pressured to select ... nor do I believe anyone has altered his selection due to perceived presuure. I got who I hoped to get at #8 and I am damn happy with the pick.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:49 pm

Starting this early means that GM's with high picks are pressured into making decisions about Japanese players before they sign. How pissed would someone be if they took Kuroda with the #15 pick, and he didn't come over? (example)

There's no way to get that back.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:51 pm

i consider posts of "hurry up and make your pick" to be pressure, whether they're taken seriously or not.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Thu Dec 13, 2007 12:57 pm

Cubs wrote:i consider posts of "hurry up and make your pick" to be pressure, whether they're taken seriously or not.

Says the guy with no draft picks.

.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:09 pm

FWIW. smith didn't make the Rockies Top 10.

Whether we continue with the early untimed start or not next season or not, we defintely need to not allow the trading during the draft.

Tigers · Post by **Tigers** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:13 pm

RedSox wrote:FWIW. smith didn't make the Rockies Top 10.

Whether we continue with the early untimed start or not next season or not, we defintely need to not allow the trading during the draft.

No doubts about that. Was a pretty big oversite this year, but unfortunatley, oversites happen. Can't predict everything.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:16 pm

i disagree. this portion is untimed and is just to help kick up the activity. the only reason you say this is because you had a problem with this trade. how often do you expect there to be a veto-able trade during this part? I can't see that many trades in such a manner happening. the only person that objected to this trade was Bren anyway, so to say that one person out of 28 others not involved in the trade should allow no pick trading is a bit out there.

i like the rule as it is; no pick trading once the timed portion starts. i have zero qualms with the system as is and you'd be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 1:24 pm

Actually JP, you're wrong. We were able to pause the draft quite effectively so i don't see that being too much of an issue.
However, the ability to trade these picks right before they're used allows them to be dealt for much higher values, whereas those picks that are dealt during the times portion do not get that added value on top of their intrinsic value.

Pirates · Post by **Pirates** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:14 pm

I think that if you allow draft trading during the draft you have to add some sort of time limit, not like 30 mins but something more in sense of 5-7 days. Say Fukudome didnt make a decision until january, JB theoretically could've stalled on that pick for months until he made a decision. But on the flip side if you take away trading then their should be no time limit whatsoever because then you cant weigh draft picks and then trade them for higher value.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:28 pm

It should be noted, that Bren really wasn't the only one to object to that trade imo, everyone just knew it couldn't be overturned so they didn't officially object.

I think consistency is most important, and therefore there should be no trading while a pick is eligible to be made.

Marlins · Post by **Marlins** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:58 pm

...starting next year.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:15 pm

Giants wrote:...starting next year.

Yes, starting next year. We don't want to change the rules in the middle of something.