The Original USKL -- TSN Version 2011 (Chat Room)
by cirills » Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:46 pm
That is correct FD -- but only because you HAVE to drop 5. Your current roster is 39. You drop a minimum of 5 players and will get 5 picks in return, but since you traded for a draft pick so you would get 6.
If you only have 39 like Stoney (w/ no draft picks coming) -- you drop a minimum of 5 players and will get the same amount of picks back in return, not an extra one to get HIM back to 40.
This protects against possible dumping for picks.
If you only have 39 like Stoney (w/ no draft picks coming) -- you drop a minimum of 5 players and will get the same amount of picks back in return, not an extra one to get HIM back to 40.
This protects against possible dumping for picks.
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by qksilver69 » Fri Aug 04, 2006 11:28 pm
Guys, I respectfully disagree & would offer this p.o.v.:
1) We're trying to make these leagues as close as we can to being our own GM, right?
2) The baseball GMs have free agency where there are NO restrictions on the amount of players you can sign, just on the number you can have as active at any given time.
3) I see no advantage that any one owner has over another owner in making uneven trades. We are all at the same advantage or disadvantage.
4) What is the issue about stockpiling picks? Why is this a problem? If 1 owner sees value in 2 players (meaning he would rather have the 2nd player than someone currently on his team) then we can safely assume that the 2nd player in the deal would have value in the draft OR that the player has enough value in the current season to represent a penalty to the sending owner, and therefore the owner giving up the player is losing something. I think to NOT allow stockpiling is kind of detrimental to the fair/free market idea in that sense....
Anyway, my 2 cents fellas...
1) We're trying to make these leagues as close as we can to being our own GM, right?
2) The baseball GMs have free agency where there are NO restrictions on the amount of players you can sign, just on the number you can have as active at any given time.
3) I see no advantage that any one owner has over another owner in making uneven trades. We are all at the same advantage or disadvantage.
4) What is the issue about stockpiling picks? Why is this a problem? If 1 owner sees value in 2 players (meaning he would rather have the 2nd player than someone currently on his team) then we can safely assume that the 2nd player in the deal would have value in the draft OR that the player has enough value in the current season to represent a penalty to the sending owner, and therefore the owner giving up the player is losing something. I think to NOT allow stockpiling is kind of detrimental to the fair/free market idea in that sense....
Anyway, my 2 cents fellas...
- qksilver69
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MICHAELJURACEK » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:45 am
I agree with qksilver on this.
There was never an initial intention to bar uneven trades, or stockpiling FA draft picks. There are some logistical difficulties that might not have been worked out perfectly from the start, but I wanted to encourage that type of creative thinking, not bar it, for the exact reasons that qksilver mentions.
There was never an initial intention to bar uneven trades, or stockpiling FA draft picks. There are some logistical difficulties that might not have been worked out perfectly from the start, but I wanted to encourage that type of creative thinking, not bar it, for the exact reasons that qksilver mentions.
- MICHAELJURACEK
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Sat Aug 05, 2006 12:58 am
[quote:f2c0954c7f]but I wanted to encourage that type of creative thinking, not bar it, for the exact reasons that qksilver mentions. [/quote:f2c0954c7f]
I never said I didn't Mike. :?
But it is NOT as simple as you both make it out to be and I will demonstrate why using a trade from the two of you.
First however I wish to address Qk's post:
[quote:f2c0954c7f]Guys, I respectfully disagree & would offer this p.o.v.:
1) We're trying to make these leagues as close as we can to being our own GM, right?
2) The baseball GMs have free agency where there are NO restrictions on the amount of players you can sign, just on the number you can have as active at any given time.
3) I see no advantage that any one owner has over another owner in making uneven trades. We are all at the same advantage or disadvantage.
[/quote:f2c0954c7f]
Apparently, we are in a debate now and I am not sure how it happened. :?
As far as the first 3 points in Qk's empassioned post I agree 100% unequivocally so long as we adhere to maintaining a 40 man cap on roster size.
As for point #4;
[quote:f2c0954c7f]4) What is the issue about stockpiling picks? [i:f2c0954c7f][b:f2c0954c7f]Why is this a problem[/b:f2c0954c7f][/i:f2c0954c7f]?[/quote:f2c0954c7f]
I didn't quite call it stockpiling picks as much as I was worried against players dumping players to gain picks in an upcoming FA Draft or Supplemental Draft. Since, these are the times where potential future keepers that affect the balance of play are drafted, I deemed it at unfair attempt by owners [b:f2c0954c7f]potentially [/b:f2c0954c7f] to create an advantage.
HOWEVER, upon retrospect (and reflection on the rest of Qk's 4th point) I realize this is very short sided of me. In reality, what difference is there if Owner A trades 5 for 1 to Owner B who then has to drop 4 of them (or 4 others) himself if he already had 40 to begin with. But MORE IMPORTANTLY, what difference is it then if Owner B Drafts 4 new players to replace them, since if HE DROPPED THEM HIMSELF (prior to the upcoming FA or Supp Draft) he would be getting the same exact thing.
BUT, .... there are still 2 problems here, and I will use another quote from Qk to illustrate one of them. This from the last trade he made to date, this one with Bubba Hotep.
[quote:f2c0954c7f]I send Jorge Piedra to Bubba for his #6 draft pick next year. I will have 39 this season on my roster as a result. Bubba will need to drop 1 additional player from his 40-man roster this year.
[/quote:f2c0954c7f]
Ok, so Bubba is currently at 40 players (legal) and Qk is playing with 39 (BUT, will be getting a an additional '07 FA Draft Pick from Bubba so next Spring will be back at 40.
The problem lies in Bubba's situation.
We can assume that Piedra was a player he wanted and thought would improve his team this season. So much so, that he was willing to trade a Draft Pick for it.
However, we have already established that no matter what he has to drop a Minimum of 5 players next year. Further, if he decided to drop ONLY the minimum 5 players, then Qk would be entitled to Bubba's 5th ROUND PICK since he would not HAVE a 6TH ROUND PICK to give him.
So doing the math here -- Bubba has a 40 man roster heading into the '07 FA Draft (and Mike_J, I am ONLY using you here for illustrative purposes only).
He really likes his team and decided he will ONLY be dropping the minimum 5 players, thus entitling him to 5 picks in return. However, he traded his 6TH Round pick to Qk, so absent that, he HAS TO trade his closest round pick (in this case his 5TH ROUND pick).
Thus Mike, only drafts 4 PLAYERS for himself in the FA Draft leaving him a 39 man roster.
I believe Qk is thinking now that he could then draft an additional player to get back to a 40 man roster, but therein lies the rub. In doing so he would be getting back exactly what he had traded away in the first place -- a 6th Round Pick.
So, in fact, (in THIS prescibed scenario) he would be getting Piedra for absolutely nothing at all and THAT is what I am seeking to avoid.
The solution then, is the following (as I see it).
1. [b:f2c0954c7f]Yes, you CAN make lopsided trades providing that NO OWNER has MORE than 40 players at the end of the transaction [/b:f2c0954c7f]which includes any drops either player needs to make to justify that.
2. [b:f2c0954c7f]HOWEVER, IF you trade away a Draft Pick in the upcoming Draft, you WILL NOT be able to REPLACE that pick with another Draft Pick [/b:f2c0954c7f]as that unfairly minimizes the loss you had just incurred.
Thus, in the above scenario, [b:f2c0954c7f][i:f2c0954c7f]Bubba would NOT get an additional pick [/i:f2c0954c7f]for having TRADED AWAY his 6th round (in reality his 5th round pick) and would start the '07 season with 39 man roster then (if he made no other such deals).[/b:f2c0954c7f]
3. As far as gaining extra picks (or "stockpiling" picks as some have called it now), [b:f2c0954c7f]You THEN may make up lost roster space in whatever draft comes along next, [i:f2c0954c7f]PROVIDED that you do NOT exceed that Draft's Maximum Rounds per EACH owner [/i:f2c0954c7f](3 in a Supplemental Draft and 15 in FA Draft).[/b:f2c0954c7f]
Otherwise, you might allow owners to unfairly manipulate the maximums we have already voted on and are part of our League's Constitution.
This does NOT prevent you from trading for another owner's picks and winding up with MORE than 3 or 15 players drafted (depending on the Draft), but you will not get bonus rounds for yourself to fill an undersized roster.
Thus, if you enter a FA draft with a 39 man roster and decide to drop the MAXIMUM 15 players, you may [b:f2c0954c7f]BUT will receive a MAXIMUM 15 players in return[/b:f2c0954c7f]. You will NOT be entiled to an additional 16th pick to get your roster up to 40 men.
If you decide to drop 14 players however, you may then get an additional 15th player if your roster is below 40 man capacity (or 2 players if you are at 38 and only drop 13 players, etc.).
Likewise, prior to a Supplemental Draft, if you decide to drop the maximum 3 players [b:f2c0954c7f]you may only get 3 players back[/b:f2c0954c7f], but if you decide to drop 2 players (or 1 player) you may get an additional pick/s (once again, if you are operating under capacity).
[i:f2c0954c7f][b:f2c0954c7f]This ensures that no onwer will simply "throw in" players to a deal that he would like to drop off his roster, as a way of circumventing the maximum number of picks we are allowed in a given draft. This action would in fact allow you to do something you would otherwise not be able to (drop more than the Maximum number of players allowed)[/b:f2c0954c7f][/i:f2c0954c7f] (The "other" problem).
I see no other way to prevent this potential loophole, other than with what I have just prescribed, ([i:f2c0954c7f][b:f2c0954c7f]UNLESS YOU/WE DECIDED TO DO AWAY WITH ANY MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ROUNDS AFFIXED TO EITHER DRAFT [/b:f2c0954c7f][/i:f2c0954c7f]-- with no maximum, there would ne no rule to be violated and you would thus be ensuring all the creative thought and free enterprise you could muster). :wink:
When Qk said:[quote:f2c0954c7f][b:f2c0954c7f]The baseball GMs have free agency where there are NO restrictions [i:f2c0954c7f]on the amount of players you can sign[/i:f2c0954c7f][/b:f2c0954c7f][/quote:f2c0954c7f]
He was right.
However, WE DO! :roll:
God Bless you if you have made it here as I really spent some time in thinking this through.
I never said I didn't Mike. :?
But it is NOT as simple as you both make it out to be and I will demonstrate why using a trade from the two of you.
First however I wish to address Qk's post:
[quote:f2c0954c7f]Guys, I respectfully disagree & would offer this p.o.v.:
1) We're trying to make these leagues as close as we can to being our own GM, right?
2) The baseball GMs have free agency where there are NO restrictions on the amount of players you can sign, just on the number you can have as active at any given time.
3) I see no advantage that any one owner has over another owner in making uneven trades. We are all at the same advantage or disadvantage.
[/quote:f2c0954c7f]
Apparently, we are in a debate now and I am not sure how it happened. :?
As far as the first 3 points in Qk's empassioned post I agree 100% unequivocally so long as we adhere to maintaining a 40 man cap on roster size.
As for point #4;
[quote:f2c0954c7f]4) What is the issue about stockpiling picks? [i:f2c0954c7f][b:f2c0954c7f]Why is this a problem[/b:f2c0954c7f][/i:f2c0954c7f]?[/quote:f2c0954c7f]
I didn't quite call it stockpiling picks as much as I was worried against players dumping players to gain picks in an upcoming FA Draft or Supplemental Draft. Since, these are the times where potential future keepers that affect the balance of play are drafted, I deemed it at unfair attempt by owners [b:f2c0954c7f]potentially [/b:f2c0954c7f] to create an advantage.
HOWEVER, upon retrospect (and reflection on the rest of Qk's 4th point) I realize this is very short sided of me. In reality, what difference is there if Owner A trades 5 for 1 to Owner B who then has to drop 4 of them (or 4 others) himself if he already had 40 to begin with. But MORE IMPORTANTLY, what difference is it then if Owner B Drafts 4 new players to replace them, since if HE DROPPED THEM HIMSELF (prior to the upcoming FA or Supp Draft) he would be getting the same exact thing.
BUT, .... there are still 2 problems here, and I will use another quote from Qk to illustrate one of them. This from the last trade he made to date, this one with Bubba Hotep.
[quote:f2c0954c7f]I send Jorge Piedra to Bubba for his #6 draft pick next year. I will have 39 this season on my roster as a result. Bubba will need to drop 1 additional player from his 40-man roster this year.
[/quote:f2c0954c7f]
Ok, so Bubba is currently at 40 players (legal) and Qk is playing with 39 (BUT, will be getting a an additional '07 FA Draft Pick from Bubba so next Spring will be back at 40.
The problem lies in Bubba's situation.
We can assume that Piedra was a player he wanted and thought would improve his team this season. So much so, that he was willing to trade a Draft Pick for it.
However, we have already established that no matter what he has to drop a Minimum of 5 players next year. Further, if he decided to drop ONLY the minimum 5 players, then Qk would be entitled to Bubba's 5th ROUND PICK since he would not HAVE a 6TH ROUND PICK to give him.
So doing the math here -- Bubba has a 40 man roster heading into the '07 FA Draft (and Mike_J, I am ONLY using you here for illustrative purposes only).
He really likes his team and decided he will ONLY be dropping the minimum 5 players, thus entitling him to 5 picks in return. However, he traded his 6TH Round pick to Qk, so absent that, he HAS TO trade his closest round pick (in this case his 5TH ROUND pick).
Thus Mike, only drafts 4 PLAYERS for himself in the FA Draft leaving him a 39 man roster.
I believe Qk is thinking now that he could then draft an additional player to get back to a 40 man roster, but therein lies the rub. In doing so he would be getting back exactly what he had traded away in the first place -- a 6th Round Pick.
So, in fact, (in THIS prescibed scenario) he would be getting Piedra for absolutely nothing at all and THAT is what I am seeking to avoid.
The solution then, is the following (as I see it).
1. [b:f2c0954c7f]Yes, you CAN make lopsided trades providing that NO OWNER has MORE than 40 players at the end of the transaction [/b:f2c0954c7f]which includes any drops either player needs to make to justify that.
2. [b:f2c0954c7f]HOWEVER, IF you trade away a Draft Pick in the upcoming Draft, you WILL NOT be able to REPLACE that pick with another Draft Pick [/b:f2c0954c7f]as that unfairly minimizes the loss you had just incurred.
Thus, in the above scenario, [b:f2c0954c7f][i:f2c0954c7f]Bubba would NOT get an additional pick [/i:f2c0954c7f]for having TRADED AWAY his 6th round (in reality his 5th round pick) and would start the '07 season with 39 man roster then (if he made no other such deals).[/b:f2c0954c7f]
3. As far as gaining extra picks (or "stockpiling" picks as some have called it now), [b:f2c0954c7f]You THEN may make up lost roster space in whatever draft comes along next, [i:f2c0954c7f]PROVIDED that you do NOT exceed that Draft's Maximum Rounds per EACH owner [/i:f2c0954c7f](3 in a Supplemental Draft and 15 in FA Draft).[/b:f2c0954c7f]
Otherwise, you might allow owners to unfairly manipulate the maximums we have already voted on and are part of our League's Constitution.
This does NOT prevent you from trading for another owner's picks and winding up with MORE than 3 or 15 players drafted (depending on the Draft), but you will not get bonus rounds for yourself to fill an undersized roster.
Thus, if you enter a FA draft with a 39 man roster and decide to drop the MAXIMUM 15 players, you may [b:f2c0954c7f]BUT will receive a MAXIMUM 15 players in return[/b:f2c0954c7f]. You will NOT be entiled to an additional 16th pick to get your roster up to 40 men.
If you decide to drop 14 players however, you may then get an additional 15th player if your roster is below 40 man capacity (or 2 players if you are at 38 and only drop 13 players, etc.).
Likewise, prior to a Supplemental Draft, if you decide to drop the maximum 3 players [b:f2c0954c7f]you may only get 3 players back[/b:f2c0954c7f], but if you decide to drop 2 players (or 1 player) you may get an additional pick/s (once again, if you are operating under capacity).
[i:f2c0954c7f][b:f2c0954c7f]This ensures that no onwer will simply "throw in" players to a deal that he would like to drop off his roster, as a way of circumventing the maximum number of picks we are allowed in a given draft. This action would in fact allow you to do something you would otherwise not be able to (drop more than the Maximum number of players allowed)[/b:f2c0954c7f][/i:f2c0954c7f] (The "other" problem).
I see no other way to prevent this potential loophole, other than with what I have just prescribed, ([i:f2c0954c7f][b:f2c0954c7f]UNLESS YOU/WE DECIDED TO DO AWAY WITH ANY MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ROUNDS AFFIXED TO EITHER DRAFT [/b:f2c0954c7f][/i:f2c0954c7f]-- with no maximum, there would ne no rule to be violated and you would thus be ensuring all the creative thought and free enterprise you could muster). :wink:
When Qk said:[quote:f2c0954c7f][b:f2c0954c7f]The baseball GMs have free agency where there are NO restrictions [i:f2c0954c7f]on the amount of players you can sign[/i:f2c0954c7f][/b:f2c0954c7f][/quote:f2c0954c7f]
He was right.
However, WE DO! :roll:
God Bless you if you have made it here as I really spent some time in thinking this through.
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by MICHAELJURACEK » Sat Aug 05, 2006 1:49 am
I think you're looking at the FA draft incorrectly, sandlot.
Look at it like this- every owner gets 15 picks, no matter what. Its just that the owner can choose not to use any number from round 6-15 by keeping players he already owns. So if I choose to hold 35, and trade my 6th round pick, it makes no difference. I still have a 6th rounder, its just that it goes to qksilver. I still have a 7th through 15th, its just that I've already (functionally) used them on players I already own.
Now you might say that gives a potential advantage (trading picks I never meant to use) but not if you look at rounds 6-15 as a chance to redraft your own players (which is what it is if you choose not to use those picks). If I keep 35, and trade away picks 6 through 15, it still doesn't matter-its my repicking my own player in return for giving someone else the chance to cut more of his own. I get those first 5 picks, I'm at 40. I trade away picks 6 through 15, then it should become the business of the owners on the receiving end to get themselves to 40 post-draft.
Look at it like this- every owner gets 15 picks, no matter what. Its just that the owner can choose not to use any number from round 6-15 by keeping players he already owns. So if I choose to hold 35, and trade my 6th round pick, it makes no difference. I still have a 6th rounder, its just that it goes to qksilver. I still have a 7th through 15th, its just that I've already (functionally) used them on players I already own.
Now you might say that gives a potential advantage (trading picks I never meant to use) but not if you look at rounds 6-15 as a chance to redraft your own players (which is what it is if you choose not to use those picks). If I keep 35, and trade away picks 6 through 15, it still doesn't matter-its my repicking my own player in return for giving someone else the chance to cut more of his own. I get those first 5 picks, I'm at 40. I trade away picks 6 through 15, then it should become the business of the owners on the receiving end to get themselves to 40 post-draft.
- MICHAELJURACEK
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Sat Aug 05, 2006 2:04 am
[quote:140b9821ef]So if I choose to hold 35, and trade my 6th round pick, it makes no difference. I still have a 6th rounder, its just that it goes to qksilver.[/quote:140b9821ef]
What you talking about Willis???
This makes no sense at all. It's a fictional pick because HE (Qk) is getting a pick and YOU still are getting (keeping) a player. You can't see how that simply does not add up.
Sorry Mike, but I thought out my post above at nauseum [i:140b9821ef][b:140b9821ef](and I hope everyone takes the time to read it)[/b:140b9821ef][/i:140b9821ef], and the solution/problem lies in the established maximums we have.
IF you have maximums in the two drafts, then you will have potential loophole violations in adding players via picks and thus need to control that.
Without maximums you do not any such violations and thus can have free trade. One solution would be to have NO MAXIMUMS on the FA Draft, but leave the Supp. Draft capped where it is. I mean, are any of us that bad to think we can redraft a whole team, and even so, the players we drop will become part of the FA pool for that FA Draft so there will be no real dillution of players.
I am an NOT endorsing doing away with any maximums btw, I am just stating the root of dillemma is all and a potential solution for those seeking unlimited free enterprise.
What you talking about Willis???
This makes no sense at all. It's a fictional pick because HE (Qk) is getting a pick and YOU still are getting (keeping) a player. You can't see how that simply does not add up.
Sorry Mike, but I thought out my post above at nauseum [i:140b9821ef][b:140b9821ef](and I hope everyone takes the time to read it)[/b:140b9821ef][/i:140b9821ef], and the solution/problem lies in the established maximums we have.
IF you have maximums in the two drafts, then you will have potential loophole violations in adding players via picks and thus need to control that.
Without maximums you do not any such violations and thus can have free trade. One solution would be to have NO MAXIMUMS on the FA Draft, but leave the Supp. Draft capped where it is. I mean, are any of us that bad to think we can redraft a whole team, and even so, the players we drop will become part of the FA pool for that FA Draft so there will be no real dillution of players.
I am an NOT endorsing doing away with any maximums btw, I am just stating the root of dillemma is all and a potential solution for those seeking unlimited free enterprise.
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by qksilver69 » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:42 am
Chuck - can u pls check email? We have an HCKL issue that we need to look at, sorry...
- qksilver69
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Sat Aug 05, 2006 10:49 am
[quote:250a4c93e0]Sorry if my asking the orginal question caused all of this commotion. I was just uncertain as to the nature of uneven trades (leave it to the new guy to bring in the confusion )
[/quote:250a4c93e0]
Not at all Chuck, this all needed to come to the forefron what with the recent batch of trades.
After Qk posted last night I realized I needed to think this all through and address it which is what I did in that rather lengthy post above.
No worries mate. :D
[/quote:250a4c93e0]
Not at all Chuck, this all needed to come to the forefron what with the recent batch of trades.
After Qk posted last night I realized I needed to think this all through and address it which is what I did in that rather lengthy post above.
No worries mate. :D
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
Return to Individual League Chat
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests