IBC

Are we doing this again? Seemed to be mixed results: viewtopic.php?t=6312

There must be some functionality missing on the site since I'm the only one posting in ExCo General...

As an aside, what is the temperature on keeping/nixing this rule: "D. Drafted Players are also not tradable until after a GM stops drafting."

I completely understand why we don't allow trading of draft picks once the draft has started...you don't want people using 24 hours to negotiate. However, once a player is selected, I don't see why trades can't be processed. If teams agree to a trade mid-draft, there's no real reason to make them keep players they are planning to trade until they and the other GM post they are passing the rest of their picks. Any thoughts on removing this rule?

Tigers wrote:There must be some functionality missing on the site since I'm the only one posting in ExCo General...

As an aside, what is the temperature on keeping/nixing this rule: "D. Drafted Players are also not tradable until after a GM stops drafting."

I completely understand why we don't allow trading of draft picks once the draft has started...you don't want people using 24 hours to negotiate. However, once a player is selected, I don't see why trades can't be processed. If teams agree to a trade mid-draft, there's no real reason to make them keep players they are planning to trade until they and the other GM post they are passing the rest of their picks. Any thoughts on removing this rule?

I did not like the first issue ... I was of the camp that we should keep drafting until all teams indicate they are, respectively, done.

I agree on the second issue.

Whatever ExCo collectively decides I will publically support.

On the post-draft waivers, whether it was intended or not, Bren would request a number of extra picks and then take like half-full days to make them. This results in a period where he and maybe one other person have a monopoly on the ability to sign one-year pros after the draft and during a period where information about these players does come out.

I think we should avoid that and I favor using a special email to submit waivers requests if we make a change from what we're doing.

I'm kind of on the fence on executing trades. Allowing immediate trades probably results in more waiting on trade talks, but it may be worth that small negative. No strong feeling either way.

Rangers wrote:On the post-draft waivers, whether it was intended or not, Bren would request a number of extra picks and then take like half-full days to make them. This results in a period where he and maybe one other person have a monopoly on the ability to sign one-year pros after the draft and during a period where information about these players does come out.

I think we should avoid that and I favor using a special email to submit waivers requests if we make a change from what we're doing.

I'm kind of on the fence on executing trades. Allowing immediate trades probably results in more waiting on trade talks, but it may be worth that small negative. No strong feeling either way.

Good point on the post draft waivers. I had forgotten about people dragging things out, waiting on write-ups/rankings, etc. We'll institute how we did it last year or via email. I proposed email for the ZiPS waivers, but that was shot down due to some feeling we needed to be transparent. I think we can list a winner and the losers in order of their priority and be transparent. I like the email idea, but I'm also not opposed to just doing it on the board.

Tigers wrote:I think we can list a winner and the losers in order of their priority and be transparent.

I think that's the right way to do it. The only way that someone can think they're being cheated is someone finding out what they submitted to the email.

I'm down for that. JP, do you want me to just set up a gmail account where we share the username/password for this purpose, if everyone's agreeable? We can create a thread to let people know how we're planning to carry it out.

I think this process will work:

Following the draft, players will be placed on waivers. Any team wishing to place a claim on a player must email (draftclaims@gmail.com (example). After 24 hours from the first email received to the account for that player, exco will announce winners and the subsequent loser(s) for the player in a thread on the message board. Loser(s)s will be listed in order of the current waiver priority listed on the website. The waiver priority on the website will be used to determine the winner and loser(s).

Once exco announces all draftee claims, the remaining players will be considered off waivers and open to free agency.

My only question on this is what happens when team A puts in 3 claims? Say he wins on the first. Are we essentially re-doing waivers in our heads to put that team at #30 for waiver claims 2 and 3? Or, should we just hold the waiver priority as it is, meaning teams 1-5 on the waiver list can get whoever they want without "using" their waiver position and then losing it upon successful claim?

Tigers wrote:My only question on this is what happens when team A puts in 3 claims? Say he wins on the first. Are we essentially re-doing waivers in our heads to put that team at #30 for waiver claims 2 and 3? Or, should we just hold the waiver priority as it is, meaning teams 1-5 on the waiver list can get whoever they want without "using" their waiver position and then losing it upon successful claim?

I think that it should be just like the draft, i.e. the way they do the Rule 5 draft in MLB. The only difference between this and just extending the draft is pace.

BP and I had a quick offline conversation. This is what he's proposing and I'm fine with it. Brett, clarify as needed:

After the last pick of the draft, all players go on waivers for 24 hours. Teams have 24 hours from the last pick in the draft to submit claims for the players they want to the email address. Once 24 hours passes, exco (i'm fine doing it) will award players to teams based on the draft order, going down the line until all the players who have been claimed are awarded.

Examples:

BP and I claim the same guy: BP wins. Message board post will state Texas is awarded Player X (Detroit)

JP and I claim the same guy: Detroit wins. Post will state Detroit is awarded Player Y (Pittsburgh)

BP, JP and I claim the same guy: BP wins, post will state Texas is awarded Player Z (Detroit, Pittsburgh).

We just go down the list for the players claimed in order. We'll essentially just collect all the claims after 24 hours and process them based on the draft order and post on the board who won, who lost. Then, once awarded, teams have to make cuts to account for who they've claimed.

Sure. I'm good with that idea all the way through.

Shawn or myself can set up an IBC League waivers address tomorrow if that's the route we all choose to go, which it appears to be.

I am okay with this process ... suggest minor verbiage revision:

After the last pick of the draft, all draft-eligible players who were not drafted go on waivers for 24 hours. Teams have 24 hours from the last pick in the draft to submit claims for the players they want to the email address. Once 24 hours passes, Exco (i'm fine doing it) will award players to teams based on the original draft order, going down the line until all the players who have been claimed are awarded.

What the trade issue?

Fine by me

WhiteSox wrote:... What the trade issue?

Crap - typed that post in a hurry earlier this morning before enough coffee prior to the gym and work.

Meant to write ... What about the trade issue (that was also raised in this thread)? Thoughts? I agree with Pat that I see no harm in trading players already drafted as opposed to trading current or future picks once the draft has started.

If I remember correctly, the reason that we stopped allowing trades until the end of the draft was to try and avoid draft-and-trade deals.

I'm fine with the waivers proposal.

Dodgers wrote:If I remember correctly, the reason that we stopped allowing trades until the end of the draft was to try and avoid draft-and-trade deals.

I'm fine with the waivers proposal.

Do you know why exco was trying to eliminate draft and trade deals?

I thought it was just the slow-down but I haven't gone back and read it.

Dodgers wrote:If I remember correctly, the reason that we stopped allowing trades until the end of the draft was to try and avoid draft-and-trade deals.

I'm fine with the waivers proposal.

So what does this, "I see no harm in trading players already drafted as opposed to trading current or future picks once the draft has started" have to do with "draft and trade". If a player is drafted in the first round and the draft is now in the third round, for example, how is the draft slowed if the player drafted in the first round is included in a trade that does include the current or future picks?

WhiteSox wrote:

Dodgers wrote:If I remember correctly, the reason that we stopped allowing trades until the end of the draft was to try and avoid draft-and-trade deals.

I'm fine with the waivers proposal.

So what does this, "I see no harm in trading players already drafted as opposed to trading current or future picks once the draft has started" have to do with "draft and trade". If a player is drafted in the first round and the draft is now in the third round, for example, how is the draft slowed if the player drafted in the first round is included in a trade that does include the current or future picks?

I think the argument would be that if you can't trade picks but can trade players once they are picked, you would be encouraging someone to shop the pick while they are on the clock, and just consummate the trade immediately after making the pick.

Found a couple threads where we discussed previously (both mentioned people stalling on their picks shopping it, I wonder how much of that historically has been based on new players becoming available during the draft due to old rules) but wasn’t able to find the original discussion about not allowing made picks to be traded during the draft.

viewtopic.php?t=968
viewtopic.php?t=1496

It seems like the past discussion on the topic is pretty consistent. There seems to be a fear that teams are going to sit on their picks in order to shop them. In reality, this can happen anyway, so the rule isn't a deterrent. Obviously, we don't like people spending a lot of time on picks, but everyone is afforded 24 hours and they can use it as they wish. I've burned 9 hours on the current pick because I went to bed early. I could have been fielding offers in that time.

I think the rule change to push the draft date and cut off international signed players has greatly assisted in moving along the draft pace. Most zips are out by the time we draft. I think all of that mitigates the worry by some of delay.

Do we have the email address created yet? Seems as if we're good with the new post-draft waivers process.

Do we have any thoughts on the trading during the draft question? Seems as if Jim and I support lifting the ban, BP and Shawn have discussed but not provided an opinion, JP and Aaron yet to chime in.

I don't support lifting the ban, to me it is a guaranteed way for us to slow down the draft.

Dodgers wrote:I don't support lifting the ban, to me it is a guaranteed way for us to slow down the draft.

Slower then it is today

WhiteSox wrote:

Dodgers wrote:I don't support lifting the ban, to me it is a guaranteed way for us to slow down the draft.

Slower then it is today

And this is with him not being able to shop the pick.

Dodgers wrote:

WhiteSox wrote:

Dodgers wrote:I don't support lifting the ban, to me it is a guaranteed way for us to slow down the draft.

Slower then it is today

And this is with him not being able to shop the pick.

Won't make any difference ... and the discussion is about players already drafted - not current or future picks. A team can do as they want with their 23 hours 59 minutes 59 seconds as Bren is demonstrating once again today. I don't understand how you think trading an asset you already own (a player) will slow down the draft ... particularly when a team has up to 24 hours already.