i think we just ruined the FAQ on progressives

LOL

This quote from you:

"In every single case I have given away a #1 draft pick "

Because of the FACT that you had (in every case above) declared a keeper list with only 24 players, therefore in every case you had a 1st rd. pick to trade away/deal. Hence no problem. You said it yourself when you used the word "allocated" in each scenario. In none of these cases did you trade away something you didn't (theoretically) possess.

The answer is none of them. Though I'm not sure what you have proved thru these 5 examples.
I see no inconsistency at all within them.

The problem only occurs when the trading of the draft pick is in a future years draft.
In THAT scenario (the problem scenario) the team (theoretically) could post a 25 player keeper list and in that same draft (wherein the team/owner would NOT be allocated a pick) the team/owner would be (somehow) trading away a draft pick that they never possessed (wasn't allocated to them!).

The trading rules for the Triple ERA Progressive league (that I am in) specifically address this very issue and quite directly REQUIRES any owner trading a future year draft pick to cut as many players as necessary to CREATE the draft pick they traded away previously. The rule requires the trading owner to file a keeper list which allocates enough draft picks to possess the pick they traded away.

I could quote the rule for you if you like, but after many seasons playing under it I can tell you that you just become used to it and I haven't found it to be a problem.

I don't remember being in leagues that explicitly addressed these scenarios involving traded draft picks, or that had controversies over any of this. In neabaseball's scenario above, I would go with his Argument #2. Once your roster is full, you don't have any remaining picks.

I do remember making a trade once that was something like "My 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th round draft picks for your #1 pick", when my team had three open roster spots and another team had maybe 10 open roster spots. Without the trade, I would have drafted three mediocre players at the end of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd rounds. With the trade, I got one great player in the first round and then two awful players in the 7th and 8th rounds. That was good for my team. The other owner needed depth and was able to complete his roster after 5 or 6 rounds of drafting, instead of going into a 10th round. He figured that was good for his team. I didn't see it as controversial, and no one in the league complained. But by some of the reasoning in this thread, I would not have had 4th, 5th, 6th round draft picks available to trade anyway. I've always assumed you have a draft pick in every round, until your roster is full. Then once your roster is full, you shouldn't be trading away a subsequent draft pick.

When the draft order is set, it is set for every round. If you trade away a player during the draft, you'd need to jump back into the draft to fill the roster vacancy.

Say you have the 8th pick in the round. It is now round 5, and you only needed 4 picks. It is still your slot to draft in. You could trade that slot. It has value. You're just not using it in round 5. You may end up using it in round 6, if you make a trade.

This does not cause a problem for the commish if he/she chooses to condense the round to shorten the draft time. You could still be reinserted if need be.

If someone as commish wants to define draft picks differently, fine, as long as everyone understands the rules set forth. I just don't care for that interpretation.

Posted by grayfoxx on 5/5/2016 4:10:00 PM (view original):
A different way around this rule is to have a 5(or whatever) round draft first, and THEN make your cuts(to get down to 25)........just like all of the Pro Sports Leagues do.
They dont cut their players and then hold a draft.

If I ever get back into the Commissioner saddle again this is how I'd do it.
I've never been a fan of cutting a player and not knowing who I'll get to replace him.

Posted by bheid408 on 6/29/2016 6:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by grayfoxx on 5/5/2016 4:10:00 PM (view original):
A different way around this rule is to have a 5(or whatever) round draft first, and THEN make your cuts(to get down to 25)........just like all of the Pro Sports Leagues do.
They dont cut their players and then hold a draft.

If I ever get back into the Commissioner saddle again this is how I'd do it.
I've never been a fan of cutting a player and not knowing who I'll get to replace him.

I agree, that probably solves the problem better than anything else. I always thought, "if you draft before you cut then nobody can draft any of the cuts." I guess it never occurred to me to draft rookies for X number of rounds, make cuts, then draft the cuts to fill in your specific depth needs. Probably most of the owners wouldn't even need/want any of the free agents.

(c) By far my preference is to have the draft order reward teams for winning, not for losing. There are multiple ways to do this, and it creates a race for draft position in parallel to the pennant races. Putting the playoff teams at the bottom of the draft order then prevents a 'rich-get-richer' effect where the same teams get high picks every season.

Posted by dino27 on 7/30/2019 11:53:00 PM (view original):
all i said was that a formula can only go so far...youwill never be able to avoid instances of making subjective decisions and it will take a commissioner with the will to do necessary things for the integrity of play.
how in the world should that be redlined.

in other words i was agreeing with a of your comment.
the need for a commissioner with integrity of his own is the major thing.
it should be mandatory.

no one working for WIS has incentive to deter tanking......i am not blaming them ...they want us to do the policing.
there needs to be oversight over commissioners among us to keep everyone honest and to set better standards among us.
it is a culture and i believe inthe baseball progs about 20-25% are apologists or defenders or tankers.
that is too high.

im one of the few that is very passionate about this.
imnot stirring up trouble but when there is discussion i will be involved.
because i careabout this.
all good owners should.