FAQs on Progressives Topic

Most commissioners will award additional picks if a player is traded during the draft.

In real life the clubs have minor league teams. This isn't real life. We have roster limitations.
5/1/2016 10:20 PM (edited)
now suppose we collude, and trade the bambino back and forth to each other each season for a 1 and a 2

keep 21, use 4 high picks

get the Babe back

keep 21, use 4 high picks

get the Babe back...
5/2/2016 8:36 PM
Posted by gbakker on 5/2/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):
No I won't...... one last word.... if I own a first round pick I should be able to trade it without having to prove later that I would have needed it....I should be allowed to adjust to a 25 man roster prior to the draft if I wish.
You dont *own* a first round pick - you have to *earn* it by only keeping 24 players.
So you shouldnt be able to trade it away without *earning* it.

Say the trade never happened - if he kept 25 players he would NOT be able to trade away his 1st round pick.
He is trying to keep 25 players AND trade away his first round pick.
5/2/2016 11:06 PM
I removed my posts, I was just repeating others' arguments.
5/2/2016 11:58 PM
Posted by grayfoxx on 5/2/2016 11:06:00 PM (view original):
Posted by gbakker on 5/2/2016 5:14:00 PM (view original):
No I won't...... one last word.... if I own a first round pick I should be able to trade it without having to prove later that I would have needed it....I should be allowed to adjust to a 25 man roster prior to the draft if I wish.
You dont *own* a first round pick - you have to *earn* it by only keeping 24 players.
So you shouldnt be able to trade it away without *earning* it.

Say the trade never happened - if he kept 25 players he would NOT be able to trade away his 1st round pick.
He is trying to keep 25 players AND trade away his first round pick.
So if he did not trade his first round pick he would not be able trade his first round pick? Unless then he did? Kind of circular logic dude.
5/3/2016 3:28 AM
After looking over the rule, I think I have my head around it.

Did you ever see a guy trade a pick he wasn't going to use, or couldn't use, because the roster is full? I'm saying that this is a pick that wouldn't ever be used, but the guy gets value in return anyway. Seems that this rule, intentional or otherwise, is in place to prevent this. Some want a full compliment of 8,9,10 picks, even though they will post 23 keepers, then wanting to get value for the unneeded picks. Is like having a car for sale with no title. It's ok dude, just buy it, I will send you the title later...he has posted that he has finished drafting, but is trading current draft picks. It's Monopoly money.

In this instance I can't trade a future 4th round pick until I prove that I have at least that many roster vacancies. That would have to be AFTER i post my keepers. Makes it difficult at best to trade a future pick "in season". The asset must be in hand at the time of transaction. Another word is Justified.

Not sure if I like it, but there is merit in the spirit of the rule. It is down to whether or not a draft pick is deemed to have value prior to it being used.
5/3/2016 7:54 AM (edited)
Should I be allowed to include next year's 4th round pick in a trade, then next season I post 22 keepers?
5/3/2016 8:06 AM
Posted by DoctorKz on 5/3/2016 8:06:00 AM (view original):
Should I be allowed to include next year's 4th round pick in a trade, then next season I post 22 keepers?
Yes
5/3/2016 9:38 AM
THIS:

"It is down to whether or not a draft pick is deemed to have value prior to it being used.
"

Of course it does! In a progressive draft picks are obviously valuable.
And I don't think you should be allowed to trade a 4th Rd. pick in the upcoming draft away and then post 22 keepers!
That would mean you don't get a 4th Rd. pick. You should NOT be able to trade away picks (which have value!) that you never EVER possessed.

It's completely illogical to me!

Besides it is not uncommon to re-draft someone you just cut. If the player you had to release because of your decision to trade away a future pick is so daggone important......... just re-draft him!
5/3/2016 11:31 AM
I'm not arguing the importance of a draft pick, nor taking sides on the argument. I am merely stating that a commissioner determines whether or not the pick is allowed to be used in any manner prior to he/she assigning draft picks. It is at their discretion, and any issues with said rule should be addressed to the commissioner, or the voting members should try to get the rule changed.
5/3/2016 6:20 PM
I think the issue is distinct concepts of what a draft pick is.

Some people think that a draft pick only exists if you cut a player to have room for the pick in advance.

Some people think that a draft pick always exists no matter what. However, you might not be able to actually take a player if you don't have roster space. This has always been my personal interpretation, and I've always felt free to trade away any picks I please. I think the other way makes all uneven trades impossible.

Consider the following scenario:
I keep 23 players. Los Angeles also kept 23 players. Thus, before the draft starts I have 2 picks. For argument's sake we'll say I own the 12th overall pick and the 21st pick in rounds starting with round 2. Los Angeles owns the 3rd overall pick and the 5th pick in rounds starting with round 2. (If this looks awkward, this is just how I'm used to picks going, I've only played in the Original J4M (now defunct) and now one of hockeyhead's which is quite atypical.)

I trade Randy Johnson to Los Angeles for their 1st and 2nd round picks. What exactly happens to the picks here?

Before the draft, I was capable of making picks 12 and 45. Now I also own picks 3 and 29, but have 1 extra roster slot. Thus it follows that I will make picks 3, 12, and 29. Los Angeles was going to make picks 3 and 29 before the draft, and that was it. Should I be forced to trade Los Angeles pick 45, as that pick exists, and otherwise they'll be left with a roster hole? Logic would suggest that since I didn't include that in the trade, pick 45 is not going to happen -- a blank pick. I still own this pick but can't put a player on my roster with it. However, even though Los Angeles couldn't make pick 53 before the draft, they still "own" it, and thus I would think they would make their (now only) selection at pick 53. (It won't be the 53rd player, necessarily, as there will be vacated picks, such as my own 45 at this point, but still the 53rd pick in terms of timeslotting and so on.) Do I have to give another team the 8-pick advantage if they failed to negotiate for it in a trade? Seems odd.
5/3/2016 8:06 PM
Some people think that a draft pick always exists no matter what. However, you might not be able to actually take a player if you don't have roster space. This has always been my personal interpretation, and I've always felt free to trade away any picks I please.

My thoughts, too.
5/3/2016 8:09 PM
getting something for nothing is the American way

probably the human way



there should be a rule that satisfies the chicago school and jesus too



but there ain't, so we are goin down

in the mean time, Go Mariners!
5/3/2016 10:20 PM
Posted by uncleal on 5/3/2016 8:08:00 PM (view original):
I think the issue is distinct concepts of what a draft pick is.

Some people think that a draft pick only exists if you cut a player to have room for the pick in advance.

Some people think that a draft pick always exists no matter what. However, you might not be able to actually take a player if you don't have roster space. This has always been my personal interpretation, and I've always felt free to trade away any picks I please. I think the other way makes all uneven trades impossible.

Consider the following scenario:
I keep 23 players. Los Angeles also kept 23 players. Thus, before the draft starts I have 2 picks. For argument's sake we'll say I own the 12th overall pick and the 21st pick in rounds starting with round 2. Los Angeles owns the 3rd overall pick and the 5th pick in rounds starting with round 2. (If this looks awkward, this is just how I'm used to picks going, I've only played in the Original J4M (now defunct) and now one of hockeyhead's which is quite atypical.)

I trade Randy Johnson to Los Angeles for their 1st and 2nd round picks. What exactly happens to the picks here?

Before the draft, I was capable of making picks 12 and 45. Now I also own picks 3 and 29, but have 1 extra roster slot. Thus it follows that I will make picks 3, 12, and 29. Los Angeles was going to make picks 3 and 29 before the draft, and that was it. Should I be forced to trade Los Angeles pick 45, as that pick exists, and otherwise they'll be left with a roster hole? Logic would suggest that since I didn't include that in the trade, pick 45 is not going to happen -- a blank pick. I still own this pick but can't put a player on my roster with it. However, even though Los Angeles couldn't make pick 53 before the draft, they still "own" it, and thus I would think they would make their (now only) selection at pick 53. (It won't be the 53rd player, necessarily, as there will be vacated picks, such as my own 45 at this point, but still the 53rd pick in terms of timeslotting and so on.) Do I have to give another team the 8-pick advantage if they failed to negotiate for it in a trade? Seems odd.
I agree with this interpretation and have always run my leagues this way. I know it's not exactly an apples to apples comparison but the real MLB draft works like this. A team owns all its picks and can trade them if they want or pass if the want. In our case teams just pass on their picks if the have a full roster.
5/3/2016 10:50 PM
Here is another thing to consider: I trade Randy Johnson to another team in say 1996 for their number one pick in 1997. But in 1997 I post 25 keepers. Do they still get to make a pick in 1997?

If the answer is yes, then contrarian23's argument has been right all along, since they can only have my number one pick in 1997 IF I HAVE ONE TO TRADE THEM and according to many here, I would not have a pick because I posted 25 keepers for 1997, so that pick, traded a year before was - to use bagchucker's unfortunate phrase - "currency created out of thin air" - (unfortunate because as I demonstrated ALL currency has ALWAYS been created out of thin air - money started in ancient Sumer with lists of what was owed by peasants or merchants to the temple in exchange for access to resources, without any coin in existence for another 3,000 years (in "Greece" actually what is today Turkey, after the time of Homer).

So either a pick exists even if a team posted 25 keepers or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then all trades of picks for succeeding years need either to be 1) banned or annulled, or 2) covered by requiring the team having traded to post only 24 or fewer keepers the following year,

Or we could use common sense and logic.
5/4/2016 6:49 AM
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7|8 Next ▸
FAQs on Progressives Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2024 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.