IBC

Should we allow draft pick trading?

I say yes, from the end of the regular season until the commencement of the draft.

I'm surprised it took this long for this to come up.
I say No, It's not necessary and has in the past been more trouble than it's worth. No one is suffering from not being able to trade draft picks and there have been far too many cases in the past of a few GM's taking other GM's for a ride on the picks. Leave it as is.

Bren, one of your basic premises is flawed. There was more trouble raised because of not allowing draft pick trading (7 months of JP bitching) than there ever was when it was allowed.

Additionally, we have an established TRC who I feel will be able to judge the merits of draft picks for trade and I'd argue that rebuilding GMs suffer from not being able to trade draft picks in that the draft is one of the best ways to get good young top level talent (a lot more easily than trading for them for sure) and if rebuilding GMs can trade their old talent for a decent draft pick or trade their draft pick for appropriate talent (judged by the TRC) then what is the big problem? It's just helping them get better.

100% agree with what shawn said.

more often than not it's been the top teams in the league that end up with the top picks when we allow pick trading, not the rebuilding teams.

we dont have as many retarded Gms now.

And i assume you are also referrencing the deal where JB took Upton #1 overall....... BP got HanRam and somebody else out of that so it looks OK to me.

RedSox wrote:more often than not it's been the top teams in the league that end up with the top picks when we allow pick trading, not the rebuilding teams.

my point was that while the top teams might get the picks, the teams that originally had the picks get instant talent instead of being forced to wait a few years (and obviously Japanese imports are the exception, but the guy who has the pick knows they are out there)

Somtimes, yes. But many times thathasn't been the case.
That said, I expect that pick trading will be re-instituted (that was the one thing I was certain of would change when I retired as commish).
That said, we discussed various addenda to draft pick trading in the prior thread, I hope we'll include some of those protections.

Astros wrote:we dont have as many retarded Gms now.

And i assume you are also referrencing the deal where JB took Upton #1 overall....... BP got HanRam and somebody else out of that so it looks OK to me.

I got HanRam and Kotchman for Upton and Kearns. Will still probably regret it in the long run, but not exactly a horrible deal.

I voted to allow draft pick trading ... "After the regular season concludes but before the draft". I did so because this allows GMs to trade draft picks without slowing down the actual draft. I personally will not be trading any draft picks - but I may trade for a draft pick. I believe that some GMs feel they are in a position to make a run in (for example 2008) but they are lacking a key impact player whom they could acquire by trading a 1st or 2nd round pick. Admittedly they are trading the future (potentially) for what they perceive to be a impact player right away. If so ... so what.

JP has said "no" to offers for my old flame Lincecum just as I have for Kershaw. If a GM can not balance his real needs, he will get bounced --- I know ... I have certainly witnessed that in this league.

Bren - This is not a personal rebuke of what you have done as Commissioner. This is simply the Exec. Council saying we think there is a measured method of allowing draft pick trading. If we are shown to be wrong I (and I believe others) will admit and make appropriate adjustments in the future.

I don't take it as such. I know the pick trading ban is unpopular and the vote and result was inevitable. That's why I haven't really fought it.

Sounds like we've come to a decision. I simply don't see how draft pick trading hurts the league. Sorry Bren, looks like JB is ending up with the #1 draft pick again.

Before I announce this, I wanted to see if we were going to keep any of the restrictions we had talked about previously, namely the one which would prevent GMs from trading picks if it's their first draft. If so, how do we define first draft? First IBC draft? What if they've done a similar draft in another league?

I would say that they cannot trade away their picks; but CAN trade for others if its their first draft (if we do put any restrictions on it at all.)

viewtopic.php?t=339

One thing I do know is that it would be a lot easier for me to put this stuff into OOPSS if we had no restrictions, though I can work with whatever we decide.

You won't necessarily need to put the restrictions into the OOPSS system. As long as everyone, particularly the TRC, knows what they are, then I don't see a problem.
I like the idea of keeping first time drafters from trading away their picks (but allowing them to acquire them.
Any thoughts on potential something like keeping the top five teams from trading for the top 5 picks?

RedSox wrote:You won't necessarily need to put the restrictions into the OOPSS system. As long as everyone, particularly the TRC, knows what they are, then I don't see a problem.
I like the idea of keeping first time drafters from trading away their picks (but allowing them to acquire them.
Any thoughts on potential something like keeping the top five teams from trading for the top 5 picks?

In terms of restrictions, I was talking about things such as keeping the top 5 picks from being traded. Better to put this stuff in OOPSS than have another JP-Nils-gate because someone didn't catch it in time. That said, I'm totally against restricting specific pick ranges or anything related.

Keeping the top five teams from trading their picks is unfair and unnecessary anyway. We were given like four choices and 83% of us voted for exactly the same thing. No more restrictions are necessary unless they result from issues with Shawn being able to implement it. jmo.

I think what Bren meant was that the top 5 teams (let's be frank and simply say JB) would not be allowed to trade for the top 5 picks, but that the teams holding those picks could trade them to other teams. I'm wondering how long that restriction would hold? I don't think it's enforceable unless the players drafted also can't be traded to those teams, otherwise JB just has to wait for the pick to be made to make the offer. I think it's an interesting idea but not a realistic one.

Good point, I see that now, should have read more closely the first time. That suggestion frankly, seems even MORE crazy than how I took it. Pretty soon we'll be saying the top 5 teams can't sign free agents or make trades with each other. Too much.

The biggest problem I have with the idea is that its so blatantly directed at JB, or at least that's how the league will see it. As loudly as I've advocated that the league should starve JB out and not trade him young pitching under any circumstances that don't involve him giving up Pujols/A-Rod/Mauer I don't think that directly making rules to fuck with his team is what the ExCo should be up to and that's what it will look like.

It's no more directed at JB than it is at me, Pat, Brandon or anyone else.
However, thinking about it further it would become entirely too convoluted to keep an eye on.

Because it's you Pat and Brandon who end up with the #1 pick every year. I understand