|
Post by sj on Jan 21, 2010 16:39:59 GMT -5
A few guys pointed out that this should be in it's own thread, so here it is. I started by saying that we should eliminate DP trading. I feel this way because I think it hurts the league as a whole, even when it doesn't hurt the teams trading away prime picks. I'm going to copy and paste the comments that guys have made about this so far. Before I begin quoting, I''ll bring up one objection to the idea that I haven't seen anyone else make yet: Isn't it too late to do this? Teams have been trading their DPs for 27 seasons, how is stopping DP trading after all this time going to help anything? Here are the quoted comments about DP trading taken from the Waivers thread: As for eliminating the trading of draft picks, perhaps we could consider some form of limit to the number of picks that you can acquire in any one year. As far as limiting draft picks, I am not so sure. If teams trade their picks, and do not pay attention to whom they are trading them to, its not the leagues duty to tell them about it...
Limiting DP trading would need to be a different discussion all together. I'm also against limiting trading draft picks. I thought the idea to encourage trades? As far as limiting draft picks, I am not so sure. If teams trade their picks, and do not pay attention to whom they are trading them to, its not the leagues duty to tell them about it... This is where I have to disagree, in the sense that because the league didn't tell them for such a long time, it has lead to the current state of TMBL being a league where a handful of teams have been dominant for a very long period of time, and will remain so dominant for a very long period of time.
Some teams hand out their picks so blindy and so easily that, yes, it has become a problem. It impacts the league. The teams that dominated in 1968 or 1971 still dominate today, and will continue to do so for a great number of years. Worst: the teams that were last in 1968 or 1971 are still last today - and one or two exceptions simply doesn't change this fact.
It's not as if we don't have anything else to trade. Pretty much every team's minors is loaded with players, and if any team doesn't trade its picks, it adds 6 more players every year. Do that for a number of years, and things will even out faster than if we do nothing. I think that was all of them.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 21, 2010 16:54:08 GMT -5
i would NOT be in favor of stopping draft pick trading...Thats a fun part for me, but in real life you cant trade draft picks so thats one reason why i could see banning that part
|
|
|
Post by sj on Jan 21, 2010 17:00:54 GMT -5
Blanket replies Paul's idea of limiting DP trading, rather than ban it, might be the only compromise that has a chance of being accepted in the league, but I still think banning is the way to go. Plus banning trades of amateurs in their first season with the team. As Terry said, this is about the league as a whole, not just the teams trading their DPs. There are cases where the league gets hurt even if the team trading it's DP away gets a fair deal. In fact, that's part of the problem. The teams that have historically traded for DPs can get even more DPs by making fair trades. With BBM's random player development, the more minor league players you have, the more chances you have of catching a good break. The flip side is teams trading away prime picks for players that can't possibly help them. That hurts them as well as the rest of the league. The point of encouraging trading is to keep teams progressing. Everyone screws up sometimes, some screw up more than others, and some created dynasty teams - for other owners. They didn't mean to, but they did it anyway. For my own question in the top post, the only benefit that banning DP trading can give this league is well off in the future. Probably 6 to 10 seasons away, and maybe even longer. The reason MLB has the player draft the way it is, is to help bad teams get better by giving them first shot at the best future players. MLB doesn't allow DP trading for the same reason we see here every day. Let's remember that MLB used to be a free for all system too. Before the draft began, teams whose scouts found the prospects, got the prospects. The draft was started to try balancing things out. Allowing DPs to be traded messes up the balance MLB tried to create by implementing a player draft. i would NOT be in favor of stopping draft pick trading...Thats a fun part for me, but in real life you cant trade draft picks so thats one reason why i could see banning that part It's not only fun for you, it's also fun for too many owners who seem to think that getting a player from you in exchange for a DP is equal to getting the player for free.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 21, 2010 17:38:12 GMT -5
It gets worst when teams sell their draft picks, and that has occured in each and every draft we had. Sure, most of the picks being selled are third or fourth rounders, but still, some of the players drafted that late can become pretty good. No team is going to benifit from receving a couple of millions for a 3rd or 4th pick. Despite, I've seen the teams selling their picks, more often than not, they're already drowning in cash. What's the point, then?
Sure, this could be a while before we start feeling the benifits from banning the trade of draft picks. But if we want the league to survive for a long time, well that's a pretty good reason to do it right there. When we equalized expenses, it was also the same thing: it was going to take a few seasons before we'd see the results. Or same with the two supplemental drafts we had, it brought players to the league, but the results were not immediate. Still, thinking long term really helped us before. That's a proven.
Trading draft picks has been a problem here for a while. Owners do it, some love it and do it more than others. But when you look deeply at what's going on and the results it has had on this league, you realize that it has been bad. Really bad. Doing nothing about it, for whatever reasons that would be, would only lead to these things being worse, and the gap between loaded teams and those naively thinking they really have a shot at catching them would only keep widening.
|
|
|
Post by MarinersGM on Jan 21, 2010 18:17:27 GMT -5
I understand what your trying accomplish but I'm against banning trading DP's. I really think this would slow the trading down even more. I would listen to thoughts about limiting how many you could get besides your own.
Maybe a sliding scale?
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 21, 2010 18:29:57 GMT -5
Maybe i should make a separate thread, but where are these "bad teams"
In the AL east the usual bad yankees are going be stacked...possibly win the wild card next year or in two, the blue jays are an expansion team that has talent. The o's have been around average for a while....if you stay average in any league, you will slowly die. The tigers and red sox are great teams.
The al central has 4 awesome teams....the royals are truly bad...they do need help
the al west..angles have their 3 studs w/ henderson, gaetti, and armas with talent coming up. The mariners might have the best young 2b to ss combo in the league...Rangers are like the royals...The A's well they are horrible, and if they didnt trade their picks maybe they would have some better, cheap players coming up...
Nl east...Expos, enough said...Phillies great SS, murphy could be the best player and they got franco....they just need a little pitching...Cardinals have some talent and are rising, i wouldnt say they are bad....mets are truly bad.
nl central....all teams are loaded....all will be loaded for a while
nl west...the giants have done a hell of job turning around whta they had, also the owner starter with no $$$$ flexiblity. The dodgers are a different team (trade a lot of picks) but they are in the hunt this year and have a great young starting rotation...the padres are rebuilding and have TALENT in the minors...the astros, well BBM hates them.
so i have the royals, rangers, a's, mets as bad teams. The a's with a different owner could be half way decent this year...the royals need to draft better...(joyner fourth overall pick is a 76/80...as a first baseman)...mets and rangers need some TLC
|
|
|
Post by Mosko on Jan 21, 2010 18:40:45 GMT -5
Like everything else posted in this board, this is only my opinion, but I think we should continue to allow trading of DPs.
I'll almost always be in favor of letting an owner pursue whatever strategy he wants with his own team even if most other owners would think it foolish. And this is no exception. An owner who makes ill-advised trades of his DPs will just as readily make ill-advised trades of players on his roster.
And really, what's the difference between trading a 4th round pick before the draft and trading the player obtained with that pick a week later?
|
|
|
Post by OriolesGM on Jan 21, 2010 19:06:22 GMT -5
The "average" O's organization would like to weigh in by saying that the trading of DPs should not be eliminated, but I do think there should be limits placed on how many picks can be obtained for each round. More importantly, I think there should be no trading of new draftees until they have been on the team for at least one year. Even if the majority of owners are in favor of banning the trading of DPs, an owner could still circumvent the system by colluding with another owner and trading away a player that was just drafted.
|
|
|
Post by boobiegibson4three on Jan 21, 2010 19:08:55 GMT -5
average o's...no offense to you...i might more last ten tmbl seasons...they're pretty closely related to my twins in that we're almost always close to making the playoffs, but havent been able to crack it
|
|
|
Post by Cubbies on Jan 21, 2010 21:10:19 GMT -5
I'm also in favour of still allowing DP trading.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 22, 2010 17:35:53 GMT -5
How about a couple of other ideas (lifted from some of the previous comments). Why not consider not eliminating the trading of draft picks, but rather the creation of rules surrounding the trading of draft picks.
1. No draft pick can be "sold" for cash. If someone wants to deal a pick for a player and cash, that could be seen as fine, but not for just cash.
2. We could place a limit on what picks can be traded for. We could say that 1st and 2nd round picks can only be included in a trade for a pre-peak prospect or a peaked major leaguer on a pre-arbitration contract
3. We could ban the trading of a draft pick for a player with an expiring contract (this may go along with a new waiver rule allowing these types of guys to be offered for free on a waiver system with multiple claims resulting in a cash auction of the player's remaining contract)
4. We could set a limit of how many picks a team can acquire by trade (say, no more than 2 per round)
Does anyone else have any ideas of how we can essentially raise the value of picks through restrictions on how they can be traded and reduce the negative impact on league balance through a restriction on what kinds of trades draft picks can be included in?
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Jan 22, 2010 19:12:24 GMT -5
How about a couple of other ideas (lifted from some of the previous comments). Why not consider not eliminating the trading of draft picks, but rather the creation of rules surrounding the trading of draft picks. 1. No draft pick can be "sold" for cash. If someone wants to deal a pick for a player and cash, that could be seen as fine, but not for just cash. 2. We could place a limit on what picks can be traded for. We could say that 1st and 2nd round picks can only be included in a trade for a pre-peak prospect or a peaked major leaguer on a pre-arbitration contract 3. We could ban the trading of a draft pick for a player with an expiring contract (this may go along with a new waiver rule allowing these types of guys to be offered for free on a waiver system with multiple claims resulting in a cash auction of the player's remaining contract) 4. We could set a limit of how many picks a team can acquire by trade (say, no more than 2 per round) Does anyone else have any ideas of how we can essentially raise the value of picks through restrictions on how they can be traded and reduce the negative impact on league balance through a restriction on what kinds of trades draft picks can be included in? These ideas seem too invasive and controlling. Maybe we should hold classes on how to play to win instead.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 22, 2010 19:48:30 GMT -5
These ideas seem too invasive and controlling. Maybe we should hold classes on how to play to win instead. It won't change a thing. We created a section on the boards to encourage any owners to ask questions concerning anything about the game or the league. It was (rarely) used for a time, then it flat out stopped being used. We also made sure that every single owner coming in would receive important info about the game, tips, stuff like that, as well as being encouraged to ask questions to me or others in private. Some did, but in many cases, tips and info about the game was discarded. The way some of these guys thanked me for the info was a subtle comment expressing how they appreciated all the help, but didn't need it. And then they'd act in such a way with their team that it soon became obvious they really didn't have a clue. Paul's point do see like a lot of stuff, but we're not forced to use them all. Taking some of it looks and applying it according to our needs seems like a good start.
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 22, 2010 23:25:19 GMT -5
yeah - I wasn't saying that all of the ideas needed to be used, but we could pick and choose. I just wanted to throw them out and see what people thought.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Jan 23, 2010 10:56:50 GMT -5
yeah - I wasn't saying that all of the ideas needed to be used, but we could pick and choose. I just wanted to throw them out and see what people thought. How about a couple of other ideas (lifted from some of the previous comments). Why not consider not eliminating the trading of draft picks, but rather the creation of rules surrounding the trading of draft picks. 1. No draft pick can be "sold" for cash. If someone wants to deal a pick for a player and cash, that could be seen as fine, but not for just cash. 2. We could place a limit on what picks can be traded for. We could say that 1st and 2nd round picks can only be included in a trade for a pre-peak prospect or a peaked major leaguer on a pre-arbitration contract 3. We could ban the trading of a draft pick for a player with an expiring contract (this may go along with a new waiver rule allowing these types of guys to be offered for free on a waiver system with multiple claims resulting in a cash auction of the player's remaining contract) 4. We could set a limit of how many picks a team can acquire by trade (say, no more than 2 per round) Does anyone else have any ideas of how we can essentially raise the value of picks through restrictions on how they can be traded and reduce the negative impact on league balance through a restriction on what kinds of trades draft picks can be included in? OK....#1, I can live with #2.....too big brother #3.....what if you plan on resigning him? What if that expiring contract is the original $400K? Too big brother #4.....Again, I don't like this. If I want to trade my whole team for first round picks then I should be able to. In fact that's what I pretty much did. It was fun for me and all involved. I just don't see how draft picks are the root of our problem. I believe inactive owners or those without a plan or maybe even a clue are the problem. You cannot legislate those away. Making the game more confusing will just make the problems worse, not better.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 23, 2010 13:01:34 GMT -5
#4.....Again, I don't like this. If I want to trade my whole team for first round picks then I should be able to. In fact that's what I pretty much did. It was fun for me and all involved. I just don't see how draft picks are the root of our problem. I believe inactive owners or those without a plan or maybe even a clue are the problem. You cannot legislate those away. Making the game more confusing will just make the problems worse, not better. And everytime something like this happens, it hurts the league in the long run. When the Rangers emptied the team, he had 16 picks in the first four rounds. On other occasions, other teams have stacked 10 or more picks over the first four rounds. Draft picks aren't the official root of the problem, but they're a big part of it. We have tried the best we can to help owners get more active, and there's just nothing more we can do about that. As for owners without a plan and those without a clue, when they don't want to be helped because they're flat out convinced they are the real thing, what can we do for them? Forbidding the trading of draft picks or even limiting it wouldn't make the game more confusing, and would certainly not make the problem worse.
|
|
|
Post by San Diego Padres on Jan 23, 2010 14:35:09 GMT -5
[/quote]
Forbidding the trading of draft picks or even limiting it wouldn't make the game more confusing, and would certainly not make the problem worse. [/quote]
I guarantee it won't solve anything and will make the game less interesting than it was.
|
|
|
Post by zekeb311 on Jan 23, 2010 14:54:20 GMT -5
This is all very confusing to me. The Trading of draft picks, in my opinion, should be very legal. Teams in every sport trade, and sell draft picks. It can be succesful, and it can be a humongous failure. However, take my brothers team, the pittsburg pirates. He traded for draft picks etc, and now look at him go from the bottom to the top. Also without the trading of draft picks it would be very difficult to straighten out money problems on teams. Unless you of course you trade stars for prospects. However, the best prospects are coming up in the upcoming drafts, pettite, cone, bagwell, Biggio. I think banning the trade of draft picks would make this game very boring, and would also make trades alot harder to go through. I get trades challenged, and canceled by the league alot. However, the value of a 1st round draft pick can be as valuable as Cecil Cooper, or Dennis Eckersley. I could ramble on for a long time about why i think banning the trade of draft picks would hurt the league. But, i'll leave you with this for now.
|
|
|
Post by Exposgm on Jan 23, 2010 15:32:11 GMT -5
Teams in every sport trade, and sell draft picks. Not in MLB: trading draft picks, as well as amateur draftees in their first pro year, isn't allowed. It can be succesful, and it can be a humongous failure. This is exactly the point. The teams for whom it has been a tremendous success are, have been and are going to be on top for quite a long time. And those for whom it has been a failure are, have been and will remain second order teams for a long time. This is the heart of the problem: the gap between those teams. However, take my brothers team, the pittsburg pirates. He traded for draft picks etc, and now look at him go from the bottom to the top. And from top to bottom: he's fourth again this year. Although I'll be the first to admit that it's not the same type of last place than the Pirates endured for a while. But the three teams ahead of him have benifited a whole lot more of the opportunity to acquire picks to the ton, and will continue to do so because, in some cases, it's a vicious circle. However, the best prospects are coming up in the upcoming drafts, pettite, cone, bagwell, Biggio. It doesn't matter who's coming up and who was drafted before. The problem remains the same. Allow the same teams to keep acquiring some of these guys, and it's like giving them endless credit to the postseason. Oh wait, isn't that already the case? Guys can summarize the league as a whole any way they want, such as Brad did, it doesn't portrait the global situation as well as it should. Let's go back ten years, 1971. How many teams won each division since then? AL East: Boston, Baltimore, Cleveland (since gone to the Central). AL Central: Cleveland, Detroit (since gone to the East), Texas (since gone to the West), Milwaukee. AL West: Minnesota (since gone to the Central), KC, Oakland. Wildcard: KC, California, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Baltimore. But this is the better league! Wait until you see this next one: NL East: New York, Montreal. NL Central: Atlanta, Cincinnati. NL West: San Fransisco, Houston, Los Angeles, San Diego. Wildcard: Atlanta, Cincinnati 90% of the time, then Pittsburgh once. This is awful! Sure, some teams have done well in recent years and are close to having better moments, among which Detroit, the two AL expansion teams, Philadelphia and the Cubs. Good for them. But let's keep in mind something else here: are the division leaders about to break up and allow this change of guard? Not exactly. Boston, Cleveland, Atlanta and Cincinnati are so loaded in the minors that it doesn't matter if others around them get better: their own future is already looking better. Oh, these are owners that have drafted extremely well, there is no doubt about that. But that have also strongly benifited from owners throwing away their picks right at them for whatever candies. Ask the teams trying to catch up with any of those four teams how they feel every time the team ahead puts their hands on yet another top pick from round 1 or 2 for players they don't need anymore because years ago they acquired picks that allowed them to draft their future replacements. And this keeps happening year after year after year. I think banning the trade of draft picks would make this game very boring, and would also make trades alot harder to go through. Boring? Isn't the actual state of things close to being boring? Teams in half of the TMBL divisions have won their division or qualified for playoffs with little or no challenge from others for the last decade, and more in some cases. As for making trades a lot harder to go through, let me doubt about that. First of all, the trade decrease that was noticed during the last offseason still hasn't gone away, and we owe much of the trading activity this season to only one team: the Blue Jays. If teams can't trade their picks, it's not as if they don't have anything else to trade. Our minors are full of players. And even if we can't trade our picks and amateurs in their first pro year, within a few years, our minors will all be full of prospects. With each team adding 6 prospects every season, it won't take long for that to happen. Instead of having a few teams add between zero to 2 prospects, and at the other end of the specter, having a few teams add between 8 and 14 prospects.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 23, 2010 20:19:02 GMT -5
Like many others, I am not sure about this idea. It seems like those that wanted to do something to increase the trading activity are the same ones in favor of this idea.
There is one thing I can guarentee about stopping the trading of draft picks: It will only decrease trading even more and maybe even cause it to be completely non-existent.
Terry, you said yourself that teams will make sure they get 6 prospects a year. If this is the case, why would anyone need to trade anyone ever?
With all that being said, I would be in favor of restricting the trading of draft picks a little more. Sort of like the "limits" discussed earlier.
1. I would be all for eliminating the trading of strictly cash for a draft pick. And just so I can circumvent those of you out there who like to get around every rule possible, that would include eliminating the trading of cash + a throw away bench player for a draft pick.
2. I would like to see some sort of limit placed on how many draft picks you can have in a round. Something along the lines of the following:
Round 1: 1 pick (yes, you can swap 1st rounders, but you can't have two of them) Round 2: 2 picks Round 3: 2 picks Round 4: 2 picks
Even if we just place limits on trading draft picks instead of completely eliminating it, trading overall will be hurt. There is no doubt about that.
The bottom line is: no matter how hard you try to dummy proof a league, bad owners are still going to have bad teams. That is just a fact of life. In this case, whether they keep the draft picks or not, they are either going to fail in getting the correct value in a trade or they are going to fail to make a good draft pick.
|
|
|
Post by marmol on Jan 23, 2010 21:25:32 GMT -5
Many teams decide its time and sell off their guys to rebuild. They stock up on draft picks and replenish their farm. This is done legitimately most times. I think making it one pick in the first round makes it a lot harder for a team to rebuild, it would be a slower system, maybe more realistic, but much harder nonetheless. People would need to trade for young talent, but it seems in general most owners are reluctant to trade that young talent vs the unknown in their draft picks...
I would be behind whatever the majority wants...
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 23, 2010 22:24:05 GMT -5
You are wrong here Scott. If teams are adding 6 prospects per year, as those prospects develop there will be a need to clear space at the major league level. Also, as they draft players they might end up with too much at one position and need to trade away to build up other areas. The problem with trading is that the distribution of baseball assets is very uneven. This causes a decline in trading as the teams with stockpiles of assets are rarely in the market to add, and have the luxury of waiting for a deal when they are ready to move a veteran.
My other league (Outahere) is probably 2nd to TMBL in terms of longevity. We've gone through 2 sets of "rebalance" drafts and we've expanded the league from 30 to 32 and then to 36! We still have an issue of balance, but it is getting better (we've had 2 teams win 11 of the last 12 World Series). We've implemented a full 40 man roster and rule V draft (just recently reduced to a 38 man roster) and trading activity in the league is fairly healthy.
There are other ways of doing things and there are solutions for problems in the league. Perhaps we could institute a 2 year moritorium on draft pick trading and see what happens? Call it an expirement. This league has been around for so long that there are going to be issues that need to be dealt with.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 23, 2010 22:33:20 GMT -5
You are wrong here Scott. If teams are adding 6 prospects per year, as those prospects develop there will be a need to clear space at the major league level. Also, as they draft players they might end up with too much at one position and need to trade away to build up other areas. I really don't think so. Let's put it this way: It might help increase trading in the very short term, although I doubt it. But in the long run, everyone is going to have enough of every position. How are you going to have trades when each team has an excess of every position? It is my belief, that this is the main driver already in the lack of trading. Our rosters are HUGE compared to what they use to be in the old days. Everyone has most of the positions already locked up for the future. Even the current bad teams are starting to look like real teams in the minors. How is making the rosters even bigger going to fix that? I think we should wait it out some more until we see the full effect of the even farm systems now which allows everyone to develop fairly between teams. Perhaps we could institute a 2 year moritorium on draft pick trading and see what happens? You are going to be able to tell absolutely nothing at the end of 2 years. I think it was Rand that said this earlier, and I completely agree: You will not see any effect from this for at least 7 or 8 seasons. And I am just not completely sold that you will see any effect at that time either (in fact in may do the opposite of what we are trying to do).
|
|
|
Post by Paul - Jays GM on Jan 23, 2010 22:39:16 GMT -5
ok - please clarify - what are we trying to do - avoid the death spiral into a league with all of the talent concentrated on the rosters of 4 or 5 clubs, or increase trade activity. I don't think that we can do both at the same time.
If the first issue is what we are trying to solve, then why not consider instituting a 40 man roster and an offseason rule V draft every year as a way to avoid that issue (it may also increase trade activity as guys try to move around prospects they feel could be lost to a rule V draft?
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Jan 23, 2010 22:57:15 GMT -5
ok - please clarify - what are we trying to do - avoid the death spiral into a league with all of the talent concentrated on the rosters of 4 or 5 clubs, or increase trade activity. I don't think that we can do both at the same time. My point is that we are NOT in a death spiral. Some of you in this league have to the most impatient people I have ever met. We went to an even expense system around 1978. It has not even been FIVE seasons since then. Do you expect the league to go from unbalanced to balanced overnight? It took many seasons to become unbalanced and it will take many seasons to become balanced again. There is no need to insert all kinds of crap in the middle of that which is not going to have a effect on the outcome. Why don't we wait another 3-5 seasons and see where we stand? At that point, some of the rookies who have had a full and fair A+ development on each team will start to come to the majors. Not to mention the fact that things have already greatly improved from 1978 (only 6 teams with less than 70 wins compared to 9 and many more teams competing in general). You do realize the only teams that haven't really competed in the last 3 seasons are the Yankees, Cardinals, Royals, Mets, Blue Jays, and Rangers right? And I know at least 2 of those teams are handled by good owners who will get their teams back to competing soon. Sure you could throw the Cubs and Phillies in there too, but if you think those teams are going to continue to be bad over the next season or two, you are going to be in for one heck of a surprise. Many teams who were terrible in the years surrounding that time are pretty darn good now. Some are still terrible, and those are the teams that are going to be terrible no matter what you do because they have uninterested owners. Like I said above, you can dummy proof the league all you want, but it is not going to help some owners one bit. If the first issue is what we are trying to solve, then why not consider instituting a 40 man roster and an offseason rule V draft every year as a way to avoid that issue (it may also increase trade activity as guys try to move around prospects they feel could be lost to a rule V draft? I am not sure how many times you have to be told "no" to a rule V draft or a 40 man roster, but here it goes again: No.
|
|