|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 23, 2021 15:37:14 GMT -5
We have now had two discussions in Slack over how trading future draft picks should be managed. I would like to add some verbiage to the governance to avoid future confusion. This policy represents how the commissioner's office has been handling these issues for several seasons.
Requested language:
There is no officially sanctioned mechanism for trading future draft picks. However, the commissioner’s office does recognize that side deals can be made and would prefer transparency of these deals over attempts to disguise the intent. If two GMs make an agreement for a future draft pick, there must be two separate trades where the future draft pick is traded after the appropriate trade window opens. Trades for future picks are not recommended and the responsibility and risk of the future trade being completed falls solely on the GM receiving the pick. The future pick should be referenced in the initial trade, but it is not binding. If the second trade does not occur for any reason, there is no recourse available to the GM that does not receive the pick.
This is a change request and requires 75% approval to pass. Vote closes Friday. Proxy votes will be cast to Yes.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Feb 23, 2021 15:54:36 GMT -5
I'm fine with most all of the statement except, "The future pick must be referenced in the initial trade, but it is not binding."
I see a couple issues with this. Must implies a requirement to do this. If this is a requirement, is there a punishment for not doing so. My assumption would be that the punishment is the cancelation of the trade. But that brings us right back where we started today's argument, because it means that if someone posts a "1st rounder for 1 dollar" trade, the Commish is forced to make a judgement about whether that counts as a "real" trade or not. And more than anything else I think it's important that those judgements be kept to a minimum.
I'd be fine with the word "must" being replaced with "may," "should," or "can." Or else just saying it would be polite if the future pick was referenced.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 23, 2021 16:09:02 GMT -5
I'm fine with most all of the statement except, "The future pick must be referenced in the initial trade, but it is not binding." I see a couple issues with this. Must implies a requirement to do this. If this is a requirement, is there a punishment for not doing so. My assumption would be that the punishment is the cancelation of the trade. But that brings us right back where we started today's argument, because it means that if someone posts a "1st rounder for 1 dollar" trade, the Commish is forced to make a judgement about whether that counts as a "real" trade or not. And more than anything else I think it's important that those judgements be kept to a minimum. I'd be fine with the word "must" being replaced with "may," "should," or "can." Or else just saying it would be polite if the future pick was referenced. Yeah, you are the second to point that out. I agree. I am going to replace "must" with "should"
|
|
|
Post by detroitcarl on Feb 24, 2021 21:42:29 GMT -5
So following the logic, I see no reason a team cannot go full LA Rams and trade multiple 1st round picks, assuming the receiving party accepts the risk. Given my understanding, I really don't see why this is not possible under our current mode of operating.
Basically there is zero difference between 1 and 4 future picks, you just agree to trade a middling RP on the first day of every off season for X number of years.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 24, 2021 22:09:34 GMT -5
So following the logic, I see no reason a team cannot go full LA Rams and trade multiple 1st round picks, assuming the receiving party accepts the risk. Given my understanding, I really don't see why this is not possible under our current mode of operating. Basically there is zero difference between 1 and 4 future picks, you just agree to trade a middling RP on the first day of every off season for X number of years. True although the big difference is the Rams can be pretty sure the NFL teams will be around for 4 years and the deals are binding. So they can be confident in their silliness. Regardless of how committed as any of us are I would think it would be an extreme risk for a GM to commit to that. So, sure, this mode of operation allows it. But to an extent I have to trust to common sense.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Feb 25, 2021 7:23:47 GMT -5
So following the logic, I see no reason a team cannot go full LA Rams and trade multiple 1st round picks, assuming the receiving party accepts the risk. Given my understanding, I really don't see why this is not possible under our current mode of operating. Basically there is zero difference between 1 and 4 future picks, you just agree to trade a middling RP on the first day of every off season for X number of years. Yes, technically possible. But each year into the future the promised draft pick is, the riskier it becomes. To my memory, no one has ever traded for anything past the next off season's first rounder. And honestly, I'm not entirely sure anyone would accept a deal where anything beyond that was offered. Unless they're really comfortable with the possibility of trading a star player for magic beans.
|
|