Maybe it can be changed in the future to the other interpretation that we had. If you trade draft picks with another team, you now own that person's draft year as well as draft slot. I'd hate to see the ability to trade draft picks completely taken away. The league loses some strategy and flexability in constructing your team. If we want to discuss tweaking rules and voting on them, I'm all for that. I agree that in a new league you want everyone to be on board and happy in order to keep it going. I just don't think that cutting down GM options is great for a league either. Maybe if we could figure what we don't like about the current trading system and start from there. I didn't think that my trade being basically for a player to be named later was doing anything wrong, since pmars and I were very clear on who the player would be. I honestly didn't think there was anything shady about that deal. I don't think pmars thought it was shady when he offered it to me either. If the majority thinks trades need to be only for an actual pick or a player you currently have, then let's change that part of it. I don't see the reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

yeah your deal was not shady at all. I think people were more mad at you moving up to take Gehrig instead of the later player swap.

Just as the DH. We can go with a majority rules vote as with trading draft picks.

If we are going to put this all to a vote, I see two different categories of trades.

Type 1) Trading up/down in draft order while drafting players from your own club's year

Type 2) Trading for the rights to another player's draft pick, whereby owner 1 selects a player, owner 2 drafts the player, then owner 2 immediately trades the player to owner 1 for a previously agreed upon amount.

The Gehrig trade involved both types of trades, which is why it seemed confusing. I think we need to decide right now which of these deals should be allowed. This league will be great no matter what, but I agree with ybjsports that we need to make a clear decision one way or another. do we allow:

Only Type 1 Trades (owners only draft from their own year)

Only Type 2 Trades (rights to a pick can be traded, so the draft pick will always be in the same year)

Both Type 1 and Type 2 Picks

No Trading of Draft Picks

I don't see anything wrong with what they did. I'm hoping we have all honest owners and someone would not screw another other. There is a certain element of trust that exists in leagues like this. I really wanna see the most options available. Basically what they are doing is selecting a player that the other person likes and then trading them to each other. If they would have traded slots and just done that later people would have went apeshit thinking that they were cheating or something but they were open about what is going on.

If people like it better and to make it easier I can make it such that draft positions are exclusive and if you move to anotehr spot you will have that year. I really didn't want to go that route to be honest it gets confusing. Having people draft there own year is alot easier to figure.

I don't think that we should disallow trading because of the tanking issue that might happen between similar era teams in order to improve their draft position in the only way that they can. If we allow trading of picks then that issue shouldn't exist if it is possible to trade for a pick ahead of another team that is picking from the same pool of players...

remember that you have to win at least 50 games to get a first round pick. see the rules on page 1 of this forum.

Sorry I'm late to the table -- I'm overseas and it was the middle of the night here (China). Expos will upgrade to C Mike Piazza.

OK, here's the thing (please read this entirely)...

We are still very much at the beginning of what hopefully becomes a multi-year, many-season progressive league. I think people are just exploring the rules in order to have the best league possible.

From what I've see, it becomes difficult to keep progressive leagues going. If people feel there are shady deals going down or that they are unfairly handicapped they'll be more likely to walk away. So the better and tighter we regulate the rules the better the league will be in the long run and the more likely it will be to survive.

Now, I don't want to cast aspersions, but we already have some reasons to be concerned. For instance, we have at least two owners who signed up with their first posts in WIS history AND these will be their first teams in WIS history. I don't know about you, but I just wasn't that sophisticated when I first joined WIS to jump into the forums and find a newly launching progressive league to join. So, these teams seem suspicious to me and yes, I'm concerned about it.

As much as we'd like to believe everyone is on the up-and-up I've unfortunately encountered those who are not. We need to structure the league in such a way as to protect ourselves from subterfuge. Otherwise we won't have a league at all.

As the saying goes, better safe than sorry. So I'm in favor of taking our time and flushing this out now, even if that requires some backing up.

I read this early not really sure what you are suggesting. I'm not gonna kick people out that jsut because they are new. I'm hoping everyone is on the up and up. I have no way to tell.

Quote: Originally Posted By nikospade on 9/27/2009I read this early not really sure what you are suggesting. I'm not gonna kick people out that jsut because they are new. I'm hoping everyone is on the up and up. I have no way to tell

No problem, I'm aware you saw it earlier, I was just moving it up to see if any others had comments. I think you're doing a great job managing a complex league. Thanks.

no problem! I'm trying my best. I didn't realize all the logisitics of it before we started. I think once all the "kinks" are worked out this will be a great league.

I concur.