The Original USKL -- TSN Version 2011 (Chat Room)
by cirills » Tue Aug 08, 2006 11:48 am
[quote:b6ec6f54ba]Trying to keep all these traded picks straight is going to be a real pain in the (expletive) - [/quote:b6ec6f54ba]
That's my job unfortunately. :cry:
Chuck, please don't try to complicate things on this thread (you can PM me with those questions if you want) -- I will update the Roster page as soon as Stoney confirms (which is what you told me to wait for). :?
That's my job unfortunately. :cry:
Chuck, please don't try to complicate things on this thread (you can PM me with those questions if you want) -- I will update the Roster page as soon as Stoney confirms (which is what you told me to wait for). :?
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:24 pm
But since you asked,
[quote:a825c3548f]Since I am not picking in the 2nd then I pick in the 8th?[/quote:a825c3548f]
Not really. It's because after the 7th round is over you will only have 39 players and thus would be allowed to draft another player to get to a 40 man roster capacity. If you had two 1sts and NO 2nd you would have 40 players after 7 rounds and thus not need an 8th.
[quote:a825c3548f]in this particular case since I traded the 2nd pick can I drop only 6 players and be OK?[/quote:a825c3548f]
NO. Because as the FD corollary states you HAVE TO drop as many players as the pick you have traded. In this case you traded a 7th round pick and thus you HAVE TO drop at least 7 players (regardless if your "net pick" scenario means mathematically you don't.) When real teams trade for a certain round pick they are going to GET that round pick. As I said earlier, the trading of a specific round pick will NOT be affected by any other trades you might make, and it forces your hand to think about the trade you make. You are making a committment then, to DROP that many players off your roster.
Your Round by Round scenario is correct then, and you DO get an 8th round pick since again, you will ony have 39 players at the end of Round 3.
Sorry gang, but if you had opted to keep rosters always at 40 players, and keep trades in even amounts this type of "new math" wouldn't be necessary, but most of you were opting for flexible trading so this was the best compromise.
Trust me, I ain't thrilled with it becasue it means a lot of extra and precise bookkeeping to keep it all straight.
AND, I am not thrilled with owners getting higher picks than me to "fill out their rosters" (after unbalanced trades), just because I happen to drop more players than them (that doesn't seem quite right either). Like KD had intimated, it might seem more fair of them to wait until after the last "regular" picks have been made by other owners
But, we needed some standarized way of dealing with this and this is what we voted on and thus is now the rule. It ain't perfect (I don't think anything would be now that we have gone down this path). :?
At least now, I have something to refer to in making these decisions. :wink:
[quote:a825c3548f]Since I am not picking in the 2nd then I pick in the 8th?[/quote:a825c3548f]
Not really. It's because after the 7th round is over you will only have 39 players and thus would be allowed to draft another player to get to a 40 man roster capacity. If you had two 1sts and NO 2nd you would have 40 players after 7 rounds and thus not need an 8th.
[quote:a825c3548f]in this particular case since I traded the 2nd pick can I drop only 6 players and be OK?[/quote:a825c3548f]
NO. Because as the FD corollary states you HAVE TO drop as many players as the pick you have traded. In this case you traded a 7th round pick and thus you HAVE TO drop at least 7 players (regardless if your "net pick" scenario means mathematically you don't.) When real teams trade for a certain round pick they are going to GET that round pick. As I said earlier, the trading of a specific round pick will NOT be affected by any other trades you might make, and it forces your hand to think about the trade you make. You are making a committment then, to DROP that many players off your roster.
Your Round by Round scenario is correct then, and you DO get an 8th round pick since again, you will ony have 39 players at the end of Round 3.
Sorry gang, but if you had opted to keep rosters always at 40 players, and keep trades in even amounts this type of "new math" wouldn't be necessary, but most of you were opting for flexible trading so this was the best compromise.
Trust me, I ain't thrilled with it becasue it means a lot of extra and precise bookkeeping to keep it all straight.
AND, I am not thrilled with owners getting higher picks than me to "fill out their rosters" (after unbalanced trades), just because I happen to drop more players than them (that doesn't seem quite right either). Like KD had intimated, it might seem more fair of them to wait until after the last "regular" picks have been made by other owners
But, we needed some standarized way of dealing with this and this is what we voted on and thus is now the rule. It ain't perfect (I don't think anything would be now that we have gone down this path). :?
At least now, I have something to refer to in making these decisions. :wink:
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by qksilver69 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 2:47 pm
Chuck, if you're out there, check email when u get a chance...
Thx,
Qk
Thx,
Qk
- qksilver69
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by qksilver69 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:12 pm
Yeah, "The Shark" gave JJ Putz, possible best R2/Cx in next year's set, to Chuck for a pair of prospect upgrades. I don't think Chuck is feeling too bitten by the Shark in that deal right now.... :roll:
- qksilver69
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by cirills » Tue Aug 08, 2006 8:32 pm
[quote:854dc602d3]Yeah, "The Shark" gave JJ Putz, possible best R2/Cx in next year's set, to Chuck [/quote:854dc602d3]
Putz will NOT be an R2.
He WILL BE a pretty darn good R1 though. :roll:
And stop talking about HCKL stuff in USKL!!! :twisted: :P
Putz will NOT be an R2.
He WILL BE a pretty darn good R1 though. :roll:
And stop talking about HCKL stuff in USKL!!! :twisted: :P
- cirills
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:34 pm
by qksilver69 » Tue Aug 08, 2006 9:26 pm
Sandy, Putz could very well be an R2. He has 51 gms & 54 IP. If he throws a few more 1+ IP gms, SOM could give him an R2.
A very good similar example is Jose Valverde from 2005. Valverde had 61 gms & 66 IP, almost identical to Putz, and they both started the year as setup men & switched to closer role mid-year, so don't be too hasty with those emphatic assertions...
A very good similar example is Jose Valverde from 2005. Valverde had 61 gms & 66 IP, almost identical to Putz, and they both started the year as setup men & switched to closer role mid-year, so don't be too hasty with those emphatic assertions...
- qksilver69
- 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 7 guests