1st Round Draft Picks

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:01 pm

I think we need to make all first rounders trade-able at this point and no time limit on all of them, and then start the timed portion on the start of round 2.

Otherwise it's not fair to those picking 25-30 or whatever is coming up on Jan 5.; so Bren you can sit on your pick as long as you want but others should receive that same luxury.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:05 pm

Totally agree here. With the start of the timed portion, no more pick trading as we had planned all along.

Also, I move to allow harassment of GMs taking too long with their picks (especially if this passes).

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 3:50 pm

Pirates wrote:I think we need to make all first rounders trade-able at this point and no time limit on all of them, and then start the timed portion on the start of round 2.

Otherwise it's not fair to those picking 25-30 or whatever is coming up on Jan 5 ...

I agree 100%!

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 6:47 pm

Mets wrote:
Pirates wrote:I think we need to make all first rounders trade-able at this point and no time limit on all of them, and then start the timed portion on the start of round 2.

Otherwise it's not fair to those picking 25-30 or whatever is coming up on Jan 5 ...
I agree 100%!

I also believe this is an issue that requires 4 affirmative votes - there are currently three recorded.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 10:31 pm

We're gonna have a major problem when we get to Nate's pick.
MAJOR...

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Fri Dec 21, 2007 11:35 pm

How can we solve it?

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:06 am

OK well are you two goons on board with what I posted, Nate is a different subject

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:24 am

I'm on board, but I think we also need to issue a warning that once the new year rolls around bitching about hurrying the pick is fair game.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:56 am

RedSox wrote:We're gonna have a major problem when we get to Nate's pick.
MAJOR...

Why do you believe this ... because he has basically disappeared?

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 10:42 am

Mets wrote:
RedSox wrote:We're gonna have a major problem when we get to Nate's pick.
MAJOR...
Why do you believe this ... because he has basically disappeared?

My proposal:

The ExCo, recognizing an oversight in allowing trading of draft picks during the untimed portion of the draft and wanting to ensure that all first round picks are treated appropriately in an equally fair manner, has decided that all first round picks may be traded and that there will be no time limit on any first round pick as long as the GM of that has posted on the IBC Boards his intention to solicit trade offers for his first round pick within 48 hours of his pick being on the clock.

The timed portion of the draft will start with the end of the first round. At that point in time absolutely no draft picks may be traded and the clock will be strictly adhered to.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:44 pm

I think I'd agree with that.

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:20 pm

I think we should also add something like if after 72 hours there is no legitimate trade discussion then the clock starts so we don't have guys sitting on picks trying to find another Tabata deal.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:27 pm

How can you determine whether or not there is not legitimate trade discussion?

Giants · Post by **Giants** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 3:45 pm

There's an offer on the table or multiple suitors. I think it would basically be an honor system thing, if the guy has been on the clock for more than 3 days he can just email any ExCo member and say I'm close to a deal or something.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 4:40 pm

I think thats kind of ridiculous and I dont think that anybodys going to really just sit on a pick for that long just to be in-your-face and to screw the league and hold up the draft. I don't really think that we should have to baby-sit and be big-brother to teh GMs.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 5:11 pm

Mets wrote:
Mets wrote:
RedSox wrote:We're gonna have a major problem when we get to Nate's pick.
MAJOR...
Why do you believe this ... because he has basically disappeared?
My proposal:

The ExCo, recognizing an oversight in allowing trading of draft picks during the untimed portion of the draft and wanting to ensure that all first round picks are treated appropriately in an equally fair manner, has decided that all first round picks may be traded and that there will be no time limit on any first round pick as long as the GM of that has posted on the IBC Boards his intention to solicit trade offers for his first round pick within 48 hours of his pick being on the clock.

The timed portion of the draft will start with the end of the first round. At that point in time absolutely no draft picks may be traded and the clock will be strictly adhered to.

The "48 hours" thing is just to address a situation like a GM disappearing. Kinda' like in Illinois when they pass legislation that begins "In cities whose population is over 3,000,000" ... They could just say "In Chicago - and only in Chicago" just like we could say "if Nate doesn't surface by the time his pick is up" - but they don't and we shouldn't.

Dodgers · Post by **Dodgers** » Sat Dec 22, 2007 8:36 pm

I agree with Jim's proposal. I had already foreseen Nate being a problem and was trying to come up with a solution. The solution ideally would have been not to have dick heads hold up the draft trying to trade their picks.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:24 pm

sorry, but the idea of changing any of these rules in the middle of the draft is flat out wrong and I have a major problem with any of it. Especially this latest proposal. What part of "No Time limit" or "Untimed" is unclear? the Timed portion of the draft does not begin until January 4th, changing the rules in the middle of the process is, simply, wrong.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:38 pm

no, it's 100% right. i have a major problem with people sitting on their picks just for the fun of it and not affording other people a fair shake at the same luxury. you and JB sitting on picks has been pretty petty just to try to maximize value. it's pretty lame.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:44 pm

If I was sitting on my pick to maximize value I'd have dealt it instead of using it. How long I take on my pick is my business and mine alone. The Timed portion of the draft starts January 4th. Not When JP gets bored and wants something to do. We don't all have unlimited free time like you do.

Cardinals · Post by **Cardinals** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 9:57 pm

what exactly do I want to do? And I haven't been busier lately than this week so I'm not really sure what the hell you're talking about. Given the fact I don't even HAVE a first round pick.... whatever. you're an idiot. merry f'in christmas to you too.

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 10:18 pm

What do you want to do? Ultimately I can only guess, but I can tell from your own words that you want to deal for a first rounder.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:09 pm

RedSox wrote: The Timed portion of the draft starts January 4th.

Bren -

I respectfully disagree with you here ... if the ExCo decides to extend the untimed period through the completion of the first round - as it should do to ensure that all GMs are treated fairly - then that is what will happen.

Jim

Royals · Post by **Royals** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:20 pm

1. In regards to Nate, i tried calling him today. His VM message said he has lost his phone and to try his House or Gf's # but that he would be checking this VM periodically. I left a message saying to call me, his pick was coming up and his absence in the IBC was becoming an issue.

2. Jim, sorry, but barring some kind of travesty or obscene matter of fairness, we should not be changing the rule in the middle of the process. If it IS such an important issue though, then it would seem to demand 5 of 6 votes, not 4 of 6. If you want to change it, stop all pick trading immediately, as should have been done when the draft started.

Padres · Post by **Padres** » Sun Dec 23, 2007 11:23 pm

RedSox wrote:1. In regards to Nate, i tried calling him today. His VM message said he has lost his phone and to try his House or Gf's # but that he would be checking this VM periodically. I left a message saying to call me, his pick was coming up and his absence in the IBC was becoming an issue.

2. Jim, sorry, but barring some kind of travesty or obscene matter of fairness, we should not be changing the rule in the middle of the process. If it IS such an important issue though, then it would seem to demand 5 of 6 votes, not 4 of 6. If you want to change it, stop all pick trading immediately, as should have been done when the draft started.

Bren -

I am not proposing to change any rules ... I am simply proposing that all 1st round picks be treated in a similar manner ... To suspend trading immedaitely as you suggest, would instead be changing the rules in mid-stream.

Since I am not proposing to change a rule it should only require 4 votes .. though I am relatively sure this will get 5 votes as you are the only one against it I believe.

IBC

1st Round Draft Picks

1st Round Draft Picks

Re: 1st Round Draft Picks

Re: 1st Round Draft Picks