|
Post by Commish_Ron on Sept 19, 2018 19:31:02 GMT -5
This issue actually goes back a ways. I apologize for the way I handled it and that I let it get to this point. The rules have clearly stated for as far back as I can remember that draft picks can only be traded for the upcoming draft and only in the window of when Free Agents declare until the time the pick in question is on the clock.
This rule is difficult to enforce. If a handshake deal is made and the trades are posted separately there will likely be no fallout as long as neither trade is so blatantly one sided that it attracts serious attention and scrutiny.
Also I like to keep as many assets on the table as possible for trading. My participation in different OOTP leagues as well as other types of online leagues has taught me that the more trade assets and options are allowed the more trade activity you have.
With the two points above in mind I have turned a blind eye towards handshake deals. When people approached me to find out if they were legal my response has been that I would not take any responsibility and they were at their own risk. As a result some people started posting details of the handshake deals in their trade. This is not a criticism towards those GMs. They acted honorably in doing so. But it did force my hand to bring clarity and consistency to the enforcement so that the GMs that were strictly following the rules would not be doing so at a disadvantage.
Here is where I made my second mistake (the first being not enforcing the rule as published when I had the opportunity to do so). I implemented a rule change without a league vote. I honestly did not think it was that big of a deal and, again, I was trying to put in the rules what was actually in practice. It is this line of thinking that causes the type of content on the boards that may take away some of the enjoyment of the league. That being said. I love the passion for the PBL. It is what makes this league great. I always appreciate you all calling me on my BS too. I am here to serve and constructive criticism is always welcome.
So if you would all be kind enough, let's rewind the clock and do this right.
A poll is posted in this thread and we can debate it here. Options 2 and 3 would be a rule change and as such need 75% approval to pass. If 2&3 combined garner 75% of the vote, the greater of the two options will be implemented.
My opinion. I would like to make future draft picks available. 1) More trade asset types available = more creativity = more activity. 2) Virtually impossible to police completely and what is the point of a rule that you cannot enforce? If it is all above board people that might otherwise do it under the table do not gain an advantage.
Also my opinion. I do not see a reason to specify no pick trading more than one season out. I think that would be a bad idea for a team to do. But to my knowledge this type of trade has never occurred so the extra legislation seems pointless. Additionally, it would be even harder to enforce that the current rule.
A valid counter argument that was presented to me is that these trades created a temporary inflated value to a team. In the scope of a single season a GM can inflate the value of their organization without cost. I am sure there are additional arguments on both sides of the issue. There are no perfect solutions. It comes down to which arguments are most important to the league.
Ok. Almost done. Last points.
If option 1 passes I cannot guarantee that all handshake deals will be caught but I can promise that any more that I become aware of will be shut down.
If option 2 or 3 pass it will be mandated that the complete details of the deal be posted initially, that the receiving team will be responsible for posting the remaining parts of the trade at the appropriate time, and that in the event that a GM drops from the league or changes teams that the incoming GM will not be expected to honor the predecessors agreement.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Sept 20, 2018 7:16:20 GMT -5
Thanks for this Ron. I appreciate your comments. I am more than willing to repeat everything I stated in the thread I started after the new language was added... paramountbaseball.proboards.com/thread/12460/future-draft-pick-tradingTo me it is quite simple. If we trade picks (and we do) and if we allow behind the scenes "handshakes" (and we do) and that is acknowledged as being impossible to enforce, then just skip to my suggested language below. This poll is frankly irrelevant. I appreciate you posting it and cannot believe option #1 has even a single vote, but it's irrelevant.
"Keep as is and enforce where possible..."?
Aside from those that have already, please re-read that several times before you cast your vote.
Keep as is (the RED language):
Draft picks can only be traded posted in a trade for the upcoming draft and only after the World Series and prior to that pick being on the clock in the draft.
Endorses "hidden from the scrutiny" of other GM's in this league. Why? Ridiculous. "Parts" of a trade will be posted annually. Again, why not just post the agreed upon trade in full???
IF you must, for draft order (as already stated in the additional language below), refresh the Commissioner's memory annually about those traded assets applicable to the draft order. Fine, already in the rules.
Trading draft picks in future seasons is allowed. However the team receiving the draft picks assumes 100% of the responsibility and risk. The team receiving the pick will be responsible for posting a trade in the forums in the season the pick is going to be received. If the team offering the pick is no longer in the league to confirm, forgets or reneges, the commissioner will not take any action to mediate or compensate.
The horse has left the corral people. Whether "codified" in the rules as above, or allowed in a "handshake" deal, trading of future picks is endorsed NOW. WHY put (or retain) unenforceable restrictions in place, as some poll choices suggest?
Suggested, fully transparent and realistic, language:
Trading of any and all draft picks is allowed. Complete trades will be fully posted in the forum and confirmed. GM's involved are responsible for re-posting, prior to the confirmation of the annual draft order, any pick to be received.
Anything else is "smoke and mirrors", misleading/deceptive to all GM's (veteran and especially newer), and simply not realistic. And there is no way to evaluate (and I am NOT suggesting anything be done) a complete trade of future picks.
And there is NO point thinking about consequences IF this is already deemed to be allowed (handshake or otherwise).
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 20, 2018 7:20:26 GMT -5
As I understand it the poll regards trading future draft picks, not the practice of communicating the trading of picks to the league.
You seem to suggest that 1) the trading of picks multiple years into the future and 2) the clear communication of draft pick trades are not divisible issues. Could you elaborate on why you see it that way?
|
|
|
Post by Arizona_PBL on Sept 20, 2018 7:26:14 GMT -5
This is what option 1 should be (and I thought it was)
Draft picks can only be traded in a trade for the upcoming draft and only after the World Series and prior to that pick being on the clock in the draft.
This is what it was before all the changes started to occur.
If you want further clarification then add "the trading of future draft picks is prohibited".
lets not make this more complicated that it needs to be
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 20, 2018 7:28:18 GMT -5
This is what option 1 should be (and I thought it was) Draft picks can only be traded in a trade for the upcoming draft and only after the World Series and prior to that pick being on the clock in the draft.This is what it was before all the changes started to occur. If you want further clarification then add "the trading of future draft picks is prohibited". lets not make this more complicated that it needs to be This is my understanding of Option 1. If the Commissioner has a different understanding I'd appreciate that information
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Sept 20, 2018 10:27:30 GMT -5
It looks like option 1 is heading for victory, and frankly I'm fine with that as long as we're not fully opening the floodgates of all future draft picks being tradable.
However, there is one situation I'd like to discuss. I think when a new GM takes over a team in the intermediate period after the draft but before the trade deadline (as KC did last year) then they (and by extension the team they're trading with) should be allowed to trade draft picks. Here's my reasoning:
A new GM wants to start working with their team immediately. What's the first thing a GM does when he gets to the league? He makes his trade block. It's only natural to want to shape your new team according to your personal plan. I believe that a GM who takes over a team in such a situation is doing the league a favor, and should be allowed to start interacting with their team as fully as possible, as soon as possible. If they have a shot at making a run in the season they take over, they should be allowed to trade picks to make it happen. If they have a plan to rebuild, they shouldn't have to sit in a holding pattern till October to until they can get full value for their players (some of which might even have expiring contracts). This is how you encourage long-term buy-in from new GMs.
So I'm proposing that the Commish be allowed to propose an exemption to the draft pick rules for GMs entering the league in the period between the draft and the trade deadline. The teams involved would only be allowed to trade players from the next calendar year's draft, and the exemption ends on August 1st when the trade deadline passes. If no one else seconds this idea, then I understand. Just wanted to put it out there as a possible poll idea in case Option 1 passes. And in all honesty, it is the only reason why I'd pick option 2 over strict the interpretation of the rules.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 20, 2018 10:52:54 GMT -5
I think linguistic clunkiness of the topic is really doing us a disservice. I genuinely believe that 80% of the metaphorical ink spilled on this subject is just about the terminology.
Door 1: "Picks can be traded only for the current season." Between the end of the draft and the end of the season, draft pick trading is off-limits.
Door 2: "Only picks for the next draft can be traded." Once the 2048 draft ends, the picks in the 2049 draft can be traded.
I have read the first option in the poll to be Door 2, despite the "current season" wording, because it is my understanding that Door 2 is what the league is practicing currently.
However, it seems, from my reading, that Ben and Tampa interpret the first poll option to indicate Door 1.
Have I misunderstood?
My confusion arises from the fact that if Ben and Tampa are correct then there is no Door 2 option in the poll; the 2nd poll option suggests that leading up to the 2047 draft you can trade picks for both 2047 and 2048. And yet my understanding was that Door 2 was league practice (even if the gap between Door 2 and Door 1 was unenforceable).
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Sept 20, 2018 11:06:21 GMT -5
Door 1: "Picks can be traded only for the current season." Between the end of the draft and the end of the season, draft pick trading is off-limits. However, it seems, from my reading, that Ben and Tampa interpret the first poll option to indicate Door 1. Yes. That is how i understood it.
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Sept 20, 2018 11:26:55 GMT -5
Option 1 means that you can only trade draft picks for the upcoming draft. The window opens when FA declare and closes when the pick in question is on the clock.
Only 9 votes are needed for that to be enforced. I will leave the poll open in case anyone wants to change their vote because they did not understand my meaning.
|
|
|
Post by BlueJaysGM_Fin on Sept 20, 2018 11:57:19 GMT -5
It looks like option 1 is heading for victory, and frankly I'm fine with that as long as we're not fully opening the floodgates of all future draft picks being tradable. However, there is one situation I'd like to discuss. I think when a new GM takes over a team in the intermediate period after the draft but before the trade deadline (as KC did last year) then they (and by extension the team they're trading with) should be allowed to trade draft picks. Here's my reasoning: A new GM wants to start working with their team immediately. What's the first thing a GM does when he gets to the league? He makes his trade block. It's only natural to want to shape your new team according to your personal plan. I believe that a GM who takes over a team in such a situation is doing the league a favor, and should be allowed to start interacting with their team as fully as possible, as soon as possible. If they have a shot at making a run in the season they take over, they should be allowed to trade picks to make it happen. If they have a plan to rebuild, they shouldn't have to sit in a holding pattern till October to until they can get full value for their players (some of which might even have expiring contracts). This is how you encourage long-term buy-in from new GMs. So I'm proposing that the Commish be allowed to propose an exemption to the draft pick rules for GMs entering the league in the period between the draft and the trade deadline. The teams involved would only be allowed to trade players from the next calendar year's draft, and the exemption ends on August 1st when the trade deadline passes. If no one else seconds this idea, then I understand. Just wanted to put it out there as a possible poll idea in case Option 1 passes. And in all honesty, it is the only reason why I'd pick option 2 over strict the interpretation of the rules. I think you raised a valid example that certainly can happen. No one knows ahead of time, the timing when a GM leaves and another takes over. This is a valid example. My counter-point to anyone taking over a new team would be to take your time, assess your team and organization before rushing to trade the talent on the team inherited. I speak from experience on this one. And i'm sure some of us have also been through this as well. The prudent approach is to wait, assess and build a plan. By that time, the trading window for future draft picks is open and with a sound plan in place, the new Gm can certainly set themselves up for success with this approach. And i get it if no one else shares this approach, and I am on an island alone on this one. But it would be my advice to any new GM to take a prudent, patient approach instead of rushing the process.
|
|
|
Post by sansterre - Milwaukee Brewers on Sept 20, 2018 11:59:39 GMT -5
Option 1 means that you can only trade draft picks for the upcoming draft. The window opens when FA declare and closes when the pick in question is on the clock. Only 9 votes are needed for that to be enforced. I will leave the poll open in case anyone wants to change their vote because they did not understand my meaning. Thank you for the clarification.
|
|
|
Post by craigWhiteSox on Sept 20, 2018 12:10:55 GMT -5
The squeaky wheel does NOT get the grease. Makes to reason that one or two people's opinion haven't changed the way draft picks have been traded since as long as I can remember, which the poll reflects.
|
|
|
Post by Mac_Yankees GM on Sept 20, 2018 14:09:42 GMT -5
Even though it won't pass I voted the 2nd option to allow future pick trading but only 1 season in the future.
I like the idea that it opens up the possibility of the trade of a superstar player for 2 #1 picks while not critically mortgaging the future of a franchise in case we need to recruit a new GM.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Sept 20, 2018 14:31:41 GMT -5
Clarify the legality of "handshake deals" that are unenforceable if Poll Question #1, regardless of definition, wins? For that reason alone, in my opinion, you cannot contain trading any/all picks to the "rule" window that has been the standard.
They will happen. The language recently written into that section is there for that reason - they yhave happened - clarification was requested and granted as written - the Commissioner does not want to be the referee (which I respect and understand).
An "exemption" for a new GM is impossible because of the other party to any trade. And, to Fin's point, do you want only a "New GM" to be able to dismantle their team (possibly under the influence of the circling sharks). Or, more positively, to be able to mortgage a bit of their future to earn as spot in the post-season? That, in my opinion, puts us right back to why have a rule at all and allows gloves off trading.
This kind of deal could very well RARELY happen. This may produce a BLOCKBUSTER or two (experience of GM's involved irrelevant).
Why continue to pretend to restrict it (Poll Question #1 and/or Status Quo) if it can happen? With "handshakes" acknowledged and no longer required to be secret, we are REALISTICALLY at the point of just requiring a FULL trade be posted when negotiated. Otherwise trust it will be rigidly enforced (which has been pointed out to be impossible and undesirable). Someone will then have to call out "Joe Unkown for #2's (I won't use #1's)" for three drafts out to conclude something under the table, if the Commissioner won't.
That is all I have been saying.
Not being stubborn. Nor squeaky. Just being real.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Sept 20, 2018 14:48:59 GMT -5
Even though it won't pass I voted the 2nd option to allow future pick trading but only 1 season in the future. I like the idea that it opens up the possibility of the trade of a superstar player for 2 #1 picks while not critically mortgaging the future of a franchise in case we need to recruit a new GM. Weirdly enough, I didn't consider this possibility, and now that I have I'm forced to change my vote to Option 1. Sheesh this is complicated!
|
|