Draft Pick Trading

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:15 pm

ExCo has voted to restore amateur draft pick trading to the league.

There are two conditions in which it has been restored. The first being that picks may only be traded from the conclusion of the regular season until the beginning of the draft. This is a dual purposed reason: so we can better assess the value of the pick being traded and so the draft isn't held up.

The second condition is that there will be additionaly TRC scrutiny for new GM's trading draft picks. The deals will be analyzed more heavily by the TRC than GM's who have been around for previous drafts. This is to ensure that the new GM's don't get screwed out of their draft picks in their first drafts in the IBC.

To summarize: We can trade draft picks from the end of the regular season until the commencement of the draft and newbies will have their trades involving picks under heavier review.

Nationals · Post by **Nationals** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:19 pm

Just clearing up one point here--do picks stop being traded at the "official commencement" or does it refer to whenever the first pick happens?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 8:31 pm

We haven't addressed this, but I assume that we'll have to set a time.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:05 pm

I'm so freakin glad this was discussed amongst all members of the IBC before a final decision was made by the ExCO

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Sat Aug 18, 2007 11:09 pm

All of my picks are available...starting the day after the WS.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:17 am

Rockies wrote:All of my picks are available...starting the day after the WS.

I need a second rounder.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 12:37 pm

Reds wrote:I'm so freakin glad this was discussed amongst all members of the IBC before a final decision was made by the ExCO

If there was any question about the result of a full league vote on this issue, it would have been put to a full league vote. Pretty much the only thing stopping pick trading before was me being Commish.
However, if other members feel that a full league vote is called for than the ExCo will conduct one.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 4:12 pm

RedSox wrote:
Reds wrote:I'm so freakin glad this was discussed amongst all members of the IBC before a final decision was made by the ExCO

If there was any question about the result of a full league vote on this issue, it would have been put to a full league vote. Pretty much the only thing stopping pick trading before was me being Commish.
However, if other members feel that a full league vote is called for than the ExCo will conduct one.

I dont want a full league vote, but certainly a nice discussion could have occurred. Perhaps a compromise. Despite the JP trade/Nate TRC debacle, I thought everyone was relatively happy about the pace of the draft.

I'm on the fence, personally. I think trading picks can be beneficial if done right.. but in this league, as has been proven, it can also make the strong that much stronger. Lets be honest.

I would like to see the "lesser" teams forced to take their picks, instead of trading them off for potentially nothing. The calibur of GM's is at an all time high, so that helps offset any negative effects, but I still think there is incredible value in not trading away your #1 or #2 pick for what ammounts to crap when you could have stuck Lincecum.

I've actually given this quite a bit of thought. There is plenty of value beyond the 1st round. I'd really like to see the 1st round be "locked" - thereby guaranteeing that the guys at the top of the draft list, will pretty much land a "blue chipper" (unless you're maels fuckin rodriguez or ryan wagner.. heh) and thereby help the long term value of their respective franchises'. Beyond that, let the 2nd through whatever go for market value. And belive me, only 30-60 picks in, there is still a TON of value to be shuffled around.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:32 pm

We discussed and debated scenarios around several of those suggestions and unfortunately they start getting way too complicated as far as enforcement.
I agree that draft pick trading has been largely a mode for the strong to get stronger in the past. largely though this involves new GM's being taken advantage of, which we feel we addressed adequately. If a new GM isn't getting a dead-even fair deal on a draft pick trade, it should be rejected.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 5:33 pm

Rockies wrote:All of my picks are available...starting the day after the WS.

And if anyone starts any discussions sooner or the ExCo gets wind that they have, there WILL be hell to pay.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:11 pm

Take that Houston and Colorado.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:57 pm

Haha...just making sure everyone knew I have no interest in spects in a prospect league.

What the hell can discussions have to do with anything?

Discussions won't help my team this year...It's not like I can trade for a player for "future considerations"

Athletics · Post by **Athletics** » Sun Aug 19, 2007 10:18 pm

Rockies wrote:Haha...just making sure everyone knew I have no interest in spects in a prospect league.

What the hell can discussions have to do with anything?

Discussions won't help my team this year...It's not like I can trade for a player for "future considerations"

Ill trade you all your 5 picks for Craig Biggio. He'll be great next year.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:51 am

Ya, he owns lefties!

Astros · Post by **Astros** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:18 am

Just throwing in my 2 cents before I head to work. I agree with Nate, I think the first round should be locked. Yeah you can get great value in the later rounds, I know I've got Brad Thompson, Chase Headley, Howie Kendrick, Adam Lind all after Round 1 but I think we should still lock all first rounders to ensure that the bad teams don't get worse

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 7:21 am

Well, since my draft last year included Joba, Okajima, Hankerd, Cowart....I'd probably be better off owning draft, then selling high on the players.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:13 am

I really don't think locking the first round is going to do anything. If guys aren't trading their picks before the draft, they'll trade the players they take afterwards (maybe not the best example but JB just traded for Chamberlain). Stopping trading of the pick is not going to stop the players that go at that position from getting traded, so why not allow trading? I'd rather have the #2 pick going to JB in exchange for solid talent, where he has to take a chance on someone who might not work out...say Matt Bush for instance, rather than the #2 team getting the bust. Granted there's Japanese players and all, but nobody's stupid enough to deal their pick without knowing who they would likely get at that spot.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:14 am

Also, for those of you talking about trading all your picks, you're still going to need 10 draftees, so there's really no point in doing that.

DBacks · Post by **DBacks** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 9:51 am

Can we set up a league discussion on roster breakdowns?

If we're going to allow draft pick trading, it seems only fair to do away with the lmits on who you can have on your roster. In the MLB, you've got your 40 man roster, your 25 active, and a minor league system full of players old and young. Yes, my argument is selfish, because I'm not big on prospects, but what exactly is the problem with me having the 50 guys I actually want on my roster?

Yes, some of them are MLBers, some of them are quad A guys who can't seem to make the jump. So what? Those are the guys I prefer. After being in the league since year one have I not earned the right to fill my roster with whoever I want? I'm not hruting anyone. In fact, I'm helping out every other prospect hungry GM by not grabbing up youth to fill up my roster.

Especially now that we are allowing draft pick trading, I think we should consider editing this rule. Maybe a 5 man roster of th elast two drafts and then the other 45 do whatever the hell you want with. Otherwise what is the point of trading your draft picks? You're just going to be forced to pick up trash at the end opf the draft anyway.

Everyone might not agree with me, but I think I should have a little more freedom with my roster after 5 years. I mean the beauty of this league is that we all find different ways to win. My style is much different than most other GMs - so what? I think the topic at least warrants a league wide discussion. We're always trying to be more like the MLB, so let's do it. Give more freedom with the rosters. Let me build my minor leagues the way that I want. It's not bothering anyone, it's not unfair to anyone, it's not any more work for anyone.

Let's at least talk about it.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:58 am

For those scared of the "worse" teams getting worse; when JB traded for the #1 pick a few years ago he gave up Han Ram and another pretty good prospect that eludes me. So I don't really this as necessary to lock the first round.

Mets · Post by **Mets** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 11:36 am

I still don't understand the 10 draftees thing. But I'm sure that's not a battle worth fighting. As a exclusive software user, I don't even know how my "draftees" are half the time.

Dodgers wrote:Also, for those of you talking about trading all your picks, you're still going to need 10 draftees, so there's really no point in doing that.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:28 pm

I've already tried to get the 10 draftees into ten players not in the database, so for example on my team Percival and Palmisano would qualify towards that 10, but that was shot down.

WhiteSox · Post by **WhiteSox** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 12:33 pm

Seems like my name keeps popping up in this thread so I might as well post in it now. First of all i think draft pick trading is a great idea and am very happy it is back. Not everyone in this league is high on prospects and if they can get good value for a first round pick or fifth round pick for that matter they should be able to do so. As long as the TRC is doing there job and not letting bad deals slip through the cracks.

I personally love prospects and trading for draft picks. Just to show you the value of these picks, here are moves I personally made to acquire some top spots in the draft. In retrospect, they are moves I should not have made:

Yankees get: #1 overall pick in the '05 draft (Justin Upton), Austin Kearns, Collin Balester
Tigers get: Casey Kotchman, Hanley Ramirez

AND this doozy:

SF gets Alex Rios
NYY get Oak 1st rd (#6) (Ricky Romero) and Juan Morillo.

Now I'm sure there some bad trades out there too that worked out well for the teams getting the draft picks. It just adds another aspect to the league and a very fun one at that.

Locking the trading of a specific round will also not accomplish anything. If a team wants to trade their first round pick and can't do so, they will just trade that player after the draft. And my recent trade for Chamberlain is a bad example. First of all, that draft is long since over and second of all i gave up possibly the best prospect currently in the minor leagues in Jay Bruce.

Finally, I too would also like to see the rosters go back to just a flat 50 players... fill the roster however you want it. What harm does that really do? If you want to give me extra spots in the form of a roster size increase then I will happily draft 10 2007 players for that purpose. Personally I think if we are only going to be allowed to carry 50 players, let the GMs use those spots however they want.

BlueJays · Post by **BlueJays** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:33 pm

RedSox wrote:We discussed and debated scenarios around several of those suggestions and unfortunately they start getting way too complicated as far as enforcement.
I agree that draft pick trading has been largely a mode for the strong to get stronger in the past. largely though this involves new GM's being taken advantage of, which we feel we addressed adequately. If a new GM isn't getting a dead-even fair deal on a draft pick trade, it should be rejected.

How is trading of all picks, except 1-30, complicated? If anything, should be less complicated as there are 30 less picks that could move around?

In any case, I am pretty sure the rich will keep getting richer as I am a firm believer that a good GM will always be successful no matter the environment. But as much as this league bitches about "competitive balance" and parity - it just seems to me to be pretty foolish. As I said, I think the issue is offset a bit by the quality of GM's in the league - so its not as large a concern as in previous years - but I also thought the point in no trading of picks was to also help the speed and effeciency of the draft. And weren't we all happy with the pace last year? It was by far the quickest first year player draft we've ever had. I'd really like to keep that going instead of draggin the thing out for eternity.

Like I said, its not so much the decision that irked me - but more so that a major change in league policy was done without a league discussion as has almost always been done in the past. I understand we now have the ExCo, but this is still OUR league right? I know I'm not around as much lately, but I would have liked to have been able to give my input, even if it were to fall on deaf ears.

Is this how future business is to be done in this league?

Rangers · Post by **Rangers** » Mon Aug 20, 2007 6:45 pm

I'm on board with removing the draft pick only designation on ten spots. 50 players, field your team. I just don't see what is gained by adding the extra restriction, and I hate rules that exist for the sake of having extra rules.