Major League Keeper League (MLKL)

Roscodog wrote:
Looking to vote a proposed change in a rule, that currently does not make a lot of sense to a few already regarding FA draft and number of players that need to be dropped.

Current Rule
You cannot trade draft choices that you do not own. This means that if you trade a 9th round draft pick, you must release as many players as necessary to insure that you will have a 9th round pick. For example, you have a 40-man roster, and you have acquired extra 2nd, 3rd and 6th round draft picks during the year. You have also traded away a 7th and 9th round draft picks. This means you must release at least 12 players prior to the draft to ensure that you will have a 9th round pick. If you plan to continue drafting beyond Round 9, you will have to release an additional player for each subsequent round. You cannot drop more than 15 players.

So what this means if you trade 3 draft picks (say rounds 6, 8 and 10) for 3 players, you would have to drop a minimum of 13 players under the current rules and that only accounts for one trade, while the trading partner only has to drop enough players to get to 30 (at a minimum).

I am proposing the following (and more than welcome to alter as needed). So if you are stock piling draft picks, you may do so, as you are already under restriction that you roster can never fall under 25 players.

Proposed Rule Change
1. You must drop enough players to get your roster to a size between 25 and 30.
2. You cannot trade draft picks past the 10th round.
3. Active roster may never be less that 25 players.

If you have any suggestions to tweek above please let me know.

Vote below:
Peter - YES
Thisisdan -
Tcochran - NO
Alk58 -
Turtle -
TefJ -
Edub1969 -
Roscodog - YES
Nythawk - NO
Smitty -
Lakeviewdave -YES
Thisisray -

You cannot trade something you dont have. Say my roster is at 30 and I have 3 1st round picks, 5 2nd round picks and 2 3rd round picks. I would be done drafting after round 3 since I would now have a full 40 man roster. If this is the case then I would forfeit all my picks in the remaining rounds,right??? What this rule would do is let me manipulate the rule because I know I have 10 picks in the 1st 3 rounds and now I can trade my 4th,5th and 6th round picks (because I have rights to them????)to somebody else for future picks or prospects??????? How would this be fair to everybody else who still has roster space???? Its very simple:Once you have a full 40 man roster you no longer have any picks

Or you can decide that you have 9 picks in the 1st 3 rounds so you will trade your picks in rounds 4-9 and keep your 10th round pick to get around this rule as well????

I think I understand the arguments here, but if someone wants your 4th round pick, and your roster is full, is it really hurting the person who could benefit from that 4th round pick? You can't trade for a player because your roster is full. The best you can do is trade future picks or prospects. I'm just not sure who it's hurting. I am not sure of my position on this at this point, but I am just trying to get a full grasp of both arguments. Right now, I am leaning to getting rid of the rule, unless someone can better articulate how it is a detriment. In my mind, at the outset of the draft, you own a draft pick in each of the 10 rounds. If you trade for other picks in early rounds and don't need all 10 rounds, does that mean you don't still own rights to those picks? You may not need them, but why can't you trade those rights if someone else is willing to give you something for them? You are still not exceeding your 40 man limit, and someone else is benefiting. I have never done this, but it seems like legitimate roster and draft manipulation if you can pull it off.

I guess my main question for debate is, just because you may not have the roster space, does that mean that you still don't own the rights to those picks. You can either skip them because your roster if full, or trade the rights to someone who would obviously desire those rights.

so

I guess my main question for debate is, just because you may not have the roster space, does that mean that you still don't own the rights to those picks. You can either skip them because your roster if full, or trade the rights to someone who would obviously desire those rights.

Here's a similar example from a different league. It involves prospects, but the theory is the same.

The league had a 10-prospect max rule, which one of our managers had filled by trading. I offered future picks to him in exchange for his #3 and #4 prospect picks in the current draft. He could not draft them because he already had filled his prospect bucket.

After a lengthy discussion, the other 10 managers unanimously voted to block this deal because those picks no longer existed after the other guy already had 10 prospects.

By the end of the discussion, I agreed with that position -- and will continue to vote NO in this thread.

See I think you should have been allowed to make that deal

See I think you should have been allowed to make that deal

I think not. I eventually understood that the other guy already had 10 prospects and had no right to any more than that.

As I read the rule in this league it doesn't apply to prospect picks only Free Agent

As I read the rule in this league it doesn't apply to prospect picks only Free Agent

Its the same point.If you are at at a full 40 man roster your draft is now complete.

I think I understand the arguments here, but if someone wants your 4th round pick, and your roster is full, is it really hurting the person who could benefit from that 4th round pick? You can't trade for a player because your roster is full. The best you can do is trade future picks or prospects. I'm just not sure who it's hurting. I am not sure of my position on this at this point, but I am just trying to get a full grasp of both arguments. Right now, I am leaning to getting rid of the rule, unless someone can better articulate how it is a detriment. In my mind, at the outset of the draft, you own a draft pick in each of the 10 rounds. If you trade for other picks in early rounds and don't need all 10 rounds, does that mean you don't still own rights to those picks? You may not need them, but why can't you trade those rights if someone else is willing to give you something for them? You are still not exceeding your 40 man limit, and someone else is benefiting. I have never done this, but it seems like legitimate roster and draft manipulation if you can pull it off.

I guess my main question for debate is, just because you may not have the roster space, does that mean that you still don't own the rights to those picks. You can either skip them because your roster if full, or trade the rights to someone who would obviously desire those rights.

You are hurting every other player that still has legal picks to make by giving somebody else \picks that no longer exist, If all these arguments are for allowing picks to be traded then why do we have 40 man roster limits. Why cant I keep all my picks and let me have a 46 or more man roster????