Draft pick trading: you decide! (576 views)

[stephen]

So with just a few more rounds to go in the draft, now seems like the perfect time to decide on what we're going to do about draft pick trading going forward. After the mild brouhaha of the Trevor Story trade, we need to get some rules in place to avoid any future controversy.

The way I see it we have three options:

a) Leave the rules as they are and allow any and all trading of draft picks. This would theoretically allow a team to have 6 keepers, plus several additional picks in the first 6 rounds.

b) Ban the trading of draft picks completely. This would encourage any team with more than 6 keeper-calibre players to make 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 trades.

c) Allow draft pick trading but only for picks in round 7 or later. A compromise between the two other options, this would basically keep things as they are but would prevent trades which give a team more than 6 players from the first 6 rounds.


I'll set the deadline for the poll to April 2nd, aka Opening Night, so can everyone vote on it by then please. And obviously please refrain from making any trades involving draft picks until we've decided on this!

Feel free to use this thread to discuss (in a civil manner!) the pros/cons of each option.

[Will]

I think trading draft picks is absolutely fair game, but it gets a bit sticky when you're trading the top 6 picks, which are supposed to be for keepers. One way of solving that is each team has to keep six players, making trading picks a good way to improve your top 6.

[matthew]

Ok, so I'm open minded on this and don't really know which way I'll vote - if at all.

However, I have two instinctive concerns about the idea of trading surplus keepers becoming the norm.

1) Over a few seasons, if you imagine several such trades each year, won't the best teams get better and the worst teams get worse? Superteams with excess keepers will get effective draft pick compensation while rubbish teams will get players they'd have been able to draft anyway but lose a draft pick in the process. This I think is the competitive balance point that some of us alluded to re the Story trade.

2) If I have 7 top 50 ranked players (unlikely, I know) and decide to shop the 7th, what would be a fair return? I'm losing that player anyway so I should really accept the highest offer, even if that's pretty meagre - my 10th rounder for someone else's 9th rounder for instance. Is that a fair swap? Would people be within their rights to veto such a trade? It's fair in market terms but is clearly not a swap of equal value. It seems a recipe, potentially, for a lot of contentious trades.

This is the only league I'm in or have ever been in really, so I'm interested to hear from those with experience of other leagues whether my concerns are relevant or not.


M.

[matthew]

Mar 22, 2017 15:05:49 GMT Will said:

One way of solving that is each team has to keep six players, making trading picks a good way to improve your top 6.

Oh no! Purely on the grounds of self-preservation I can't endorse that. My team is always heavily focused on the current season with little thought for keepers so I would only really vote for such a change if it didn't come into effect until 2019 (i.e. giving me the 2018 draft to change strategy).

[tony]

I think allow all trading of picks, allow trading of picks 7 onwards at the very minimum.

Why shouldn't someone that has drafted/picked up well in one season have some advantage in future seasons, isn't that the entire point of a keeper league in the first place? Given there are only 6 keeper slots only the top 84 should warrant consideration to be kept and there is enough movement among these positions (Turner, Villar, Sanchez are all firmly in the top 50 after being relatively nobody's last year) that there should be a short route to contention for anybody. (ie I finished 3rd last season with a team I inherited and considered keeping 0 of this year, active management is a far bigger advantage that a draft pick trade).

In a different league I'm in with Will I traded 5 keeper level players for 2 taking under their true collective value but believe it was a (rare) win-win trade as I got something for players I was about to lose for nothing. The same I think applies to the Story trade but with myself on the other side. Surely when deciding whether or not to make a veto the idea is to look at both sides of a trade and see if it's relatively fair for each owner, as opposed to looking at it league wide or based on an opinion of what a rule should potentially be? (eg I imagine every other playoff team would've loved to have vetoed the Chapman to the Cubs trade however both teams gave fair value)

MIOF effectively kept 5 1st round players and a 2nd rounder while Slump Busters kept 2 x 1st rounders , 2 x 2nd rounders , and a 3rd and a 4th rounder while picked up a 5th round pick - in terms of 'competitive advantage' I dont think it's the team with an extra pick that has that.

Trading picks, as long as recorded properly, can help facilitate trades that keep battles for spots going that otherwise wouldn't have been possible.

I'm all for it.

[matthew]

Mar 22, 2017 16:08:28 GMT tony said:

Trading picks, as long as recorded properly, can help facilitate trades that keep battles for spots going that otherwise wouldn't have been possible.

I have to say this is what I like about it. Particularly once you get past July and a bunch of teams are out of contention, it can be tough to find anything enticing to offer in a trade that won't cripple your own team. Draft picks are a good solution.

[cardinalrichelieu]

I've kept out of this, but seeing as I've been asked to vote....

I think if you have too many keeper calibre players obtaining a 7th rounder (or less) is still better than nothing. If you don't want draft picks nothing stops you doing a 2 for 1 deal...

[darthchris]

I'm not voting as I'm quitting the league after this season. Trevor story trade going through did it for me. It's a 6 keeper league. You keep 6. Trading top 6 pix alters that. If you want going forward. Fine by me. But I'm out.

[browntown]

I'd like to reiterate I didn't think there would be an issue with this trade, as it was within the rules, and I made it very clear I was willing to undo it, especially as it now means that someone doesn't want to be a part of this league anymore. On the other hand, at least the league is able to come together and collectively clarify how trades should work. Surely that this is now being addressed is even more the reason to stay on.

As a show of good faith to Chris and anyone else I've rubbed up the wrong way, I will only keep 5 players next year and take my extra pick at the end of the draft (in the 31st round, if you will). I don't want people thinking I'm here to cheat or swindle what is ostensibly a fun league.

[stephen]

I wasn't planning to wade into this discussion but I feel I need to point out that nobody broke any rules with the Trevor Story trade, and there should be no implication that anyone cheated. It was a perfectly legal trade (which was voted on and wasn't vetoed) that fully complied with the rules, inasmuch as there were any rules on the subject. The problem arose from people having strong, differing opinions on what should and shouldn't be allowed, and so if anyone's to blame it's me for not laying out the rules in advance. It had just never come up before in previous seasons.

If it was up to me I'd get rid of draft pick trading completely as it's brought nothing but grief so far, and I agree that teams shouldn't be allowed to keep more than 6 players. But for better or worse we've always done things democratically, so when the poll closes we'll go with the majority vote. Obviously that may not please everyone, but I don't really see any alternative. If anyone feels they need to leave the league as a result then that's very unfortunate, and Chris I hope you'll reconsider.

[tony]

Agreeing with what Browntown said - we negotiated/made the trade in good faith within the rules of the league in what is essentially a mutually benefitial trade. Didn't think it would cause an issue, would've happily taken it back had the Commish said it was against any rules - its now better we sort out a league opinion to avoid any future issues.

I'd also point out that he didn't technically keep over 6, he kept 6 plus had an early pick, the value gained over a full season is likely very marginal. Also I don't think this is technically a 6 keeper league given it's not an enforced number.

As I've already said I don't buy the competitive advantage argument under limited keeper rules - no 2 teams start off equal given the very nature of keepers, if the ultimate aim is a perfectly level field then we should be discussing changing to a redraft with an order set by lottery as opposed to a few picks being swapped.

[darthchris]

It's not about competitive balance. It's a keeper league.

FYI. Same logic. There is no rule stopping anybody trading their team away to somebody else for a bag of balls, a packet of crisps and a half of lager.

[matthew]

The irony of the Trevor Story trade is that as far as I could tell from the email exchange a few weeks ago, people were angered by the trade from both sides - some because Tony was getting Story for just a draft pick, others because Chris Brown was getting a second 6th rounder.

I'd hoped therefore that the underlying problem was largely the unprecedented nature of the trade. Nobody as far as I know has ever made a trade like that before (which with a grand total of 1 season in the league between them, neither Tony or Chris B were aware of) and so the etiquette around such things is uncertain. I was hoping that if we cleared up the rules for next season then whatever the decision we'd all be in the same boat again and could get along and have fun.

It would be a massive shame if Chris Caulfield or anyone left the league over this.

[tony]

Mar 22, 2017 20:58:40 GMT darthchris said:

It's not about competitive balance. It's a keeper league.

FYI. Same logic. There is no rule stopping anybody trading their team away to somebody else for a bag of balls, a packet of crisps and a half of lager.

The competitive balance was mentioned by a few, your teams veto said "it changes the balance" and "makes the best teams stronger" which is essentially the same thing, so to all intents and purposes...

You vetoed based on a rule that you thought should exist, rather than one that actually does exist (would be like me vetoing the Jansen for Xander trade because I think it should be a league rule that anyone called Kenley can't be traded) the whole point is now to make a common decision on league policy.

FYI hardly the same logic, the Story/Pick has fair league value on both sides. I'm fairly sure a trade for a bag of balls etc would be vetoed, the Story trade broke no rules and as such wasn't....

[darthchris]

For the record the poll Qs should be amended - not that I'm voting.

A says - keep it as it is.

Keeping it "as it is" should be no pick trading.

The status quo has been that there is no pick trading. Two players new to the league, and not knowing the established rules bedded in over 7 years of the league, traded picks. That doesn't make it a pick-trading league. (Not that anything wrong was done just that the trade shouldn't have been processed - I must stress that I fully accept people's comments above regarding that particular trade - apart from competitive balance distraction which is simply missing the point )

Allowing such a significant change in established practice two days before keeper lockdown was wrong. Add to that the silliness of moving to QS (we already score for era and innings - QS just does it again and adds nothing) based on a short poll a few days before keeper lockdown - when we had all off season of silence was also wrong. Some people are fine with that and that's cool but this isnt the league for me.