One thing to watch out for...some progressives have a strange rule regarding the trading of future draft picks. I think this rule is unfair and fundamentally flawed. Those of you who have access to crazystengel's progressive draft league forum can see a recent post where some of us discussed this rule here
For those who don't have access, here's the gist:
The exact phrasing may differ, but the issue has to do with what happens when you trade away a future draft pick. I typically see it phrased something like this: "when posting keepers, a team must make sure that they have cut enough players to account for any draft picks traded away." So a team that has traded its first round pick can have no more than 24 keepers, for example, in order (I guess?) to "free up" the traded 1st round pick.
I have never understood this rule. The leagues I am commissioner of don't use it, and I won't join leagues that do. I've occasionally heard it explained as a rule to prevent teams getting "something for nothing" but I think that reflects a basic misunderstanding of opportunity cost, and the rule is directly punitive - effectively a tax - on teams that trade.
Let's take as an example my current Houston Mustangs in the NWP. We are late in the 1994 season, and preparing for the 1995 draft. During the 1994 draft, I negotiated a trade with another team in which I gave up my 1994 2nd round pick and 1995 1st round pick for another team's 1994 1st round pick. We agreed on this trade...it was considered a fair exchange by both owners. I gave up 2 draft picks, one of them a 1st in 1995, to acquire a 1st in 1994. I have not "gotten something for nothing." I have given up the right to draft a player in the first round in 1995.
I have lost out on the right to add a good 1995 rookie to my roster.
Now I'm getting ready to post my 1995 keepers, and looking at my roster I prefer to keep 25 players. Thankfully, the NWP allows me to do this.
If the hypothetical rule that I am complaining about were in place, then I would have to drop a player I would prefer to keep. For the sake of argument, let's say the player I would cut if forced to do so would be Jason Bere. Now I need to replace him, but I don't have a first round pick, so I would have to use a second round pick...my team will pick late in the 2nd round, so this player will be around the 45th best player available in the 1995 draft. Looking at my draft spreadsheet, that might be someone like, say, Ron Coomer.
I would much rather have Bere than Coomer.
So this rule effectively penalizes me for making an equal trade with another owner. It says, effectively, that I can't make the trade...that I have to give up something ELSE - Jason Bere - for something of lesser value - Ron Coomer.
In other words, instead of the trade:
-- I give up a 1994 2nd and a 1995 1st, in exchange for a 1994 1st
-- I give up a 1994 2nd, a 1995 1st, and Jason Bere, in exchange for a 1994 1st and Ron Coomer.
Since I prefer Bere to Coomer, this rule effectively imposes a tax on me for making the trade by forcing me to drop a more valuable player for a less valuable one.
Again, I did not "get something for nothing." I lost out on getting a player like Tony Clark or David Bell, someone who would be a late first round pick in 1995. The opportunity cost of that lost pick has real value.
To further see the absurdity of this rule, imagine instead that during the 1994 season I traded a 3rd round pick to acquire a minor player. Say, perhaps, Alex Cole.
Now when I post my keepers, what does this rule require me to do? I have to cut not 1, but THREE, players, in order to free up a 3rd round pick. See how dumb this is? Now the trade is a 3rd round pick PLUS 3 players I prefer to have kept, for whomever I will get with my 1st, 2nd, and 4th round picks, who by definition are less valuable than the 3 players I am forced to cut.