Trading Picks

[BrewCrewGM]

We may have discussed this briefly before last season started, but I'd like to see what everyone thinks of making picks not trade-able.

For one, it'd give the admins a ton less to work with, as every team would have their own pick each round. Would no longer have to track down all of the hundreds of picks traded.

Two, it would likely prevent further tanking. Teams could no longer stockpile 1st rounders.

Three, it gives every team an ability to give each of their respective farms a fresh wave of talent every year.

Four, it would give contenders who couldn't care less about picks less ammo to work with when trading for proven major leaguers or for cap, which would bring further balance to the league, I think.

And five, this probably means nothing to the rest of you, but it'd make the league more realistic, which I'm big on.

Been thinking about this for a while. Just wondering what the league thinks of it.

[Deleted]

I'd like to keep trading picks, but I understand all of your points. As far as being realistic, I think MLB will go to pick trading in the future. My suggestion for change is what Cigar has been saying for a while, and that's to limit the number of 1st round picks, or maybe even the number of picks from each round you can have.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

Oct 6, 2013 19:19:15 GMT -5 BrewCrewGM said:

We may have discussed this briefly before last season started, but I'd like to see what everyone thinks of making picks not trade-able.
For one, it'd give the admins a ton less to work with, as every team would have their own pick each round. Would no longer have to track down all of the hundreds of picks traded.
Two, it would likely prevent further tanking. Teams could no longer stockpile 1st rounders.
Three, it gives every team an ability to give each of their respective farms a fresh wave of talent every year.
Four, it would give contenders who couldn't care less about picks less ammo to work with when trading for proven major leaguers or for cap, which would bring further balance to the league, I think.
And five, this probably means nothing to the rest of you, but it'd make the league more realistic, which I'm big on.
Been thinking about this for a while. Just wondering what the league thinks of it.

I agree it would save the Admins a bunch of headaches.

IMO there's a difference between stripping your team down, and tanking/neglect. I have no problems with a manager who guts his Major League team, but still fields a team and builds a tremendous farm, which is no different than high picks. So are we gonna suggest not trading prospects either?

I forget if you were a part of the 2012 draft? Because I seem to remember a lot of teams on auto draft. To me that's a team/manager not really refreshing their farm.

Whatever the league wants I'm fine with.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

I could also throw the suggestion out there of why are the amount of picks we can make capped? I've traded something for all my picks. So why after 13 are my picks not worth anything?

[BrewCrewGM]

Oct 6, 2013 20:20:48 GMT -5 Cincinnati Reds - Chris said:

Oct 6, 2013 19:19:15 GMT -5 BrewCrewGM said:

We may have discussed this briefly before last season started, but I'd like to see what everyone thinks of making picks not trade-able.
For one, it'd give the admins a ton less to work with, as every team would have their own pick each round. Would no longer have to track down all of the hundreds of picks traded.
Two, it would likely prevent further tanking. Teams could no longer stockpile 1st rounders.
Three, it gives every team an ability to give each of their respective farms a fresh wave of talent every year.
Four, it would give contenders who couldn't care less about picks less ammo to work with when trading for proven major leaguers or for cap, which would bring further balance to the league, I think.
And five, this probably means nothing to the rest of you, but it'd make the league more realistic, which I'm big on.
Been thinking about this for a while. Just wondering what the league thinks of it.

I agree it would save the Admins a bunch of headaches.

IMO there's a difference between stripping your team down, and tanking/neglect. I have no problems with a manager who guts his Major League team, but still fields a team and builds a tremendous farm, which is no different than high picks. So are we gonna suggest not trading prospects either?

I forget if you were a part of the 2012 draft? Because I seem to remember a lot of teams on auto draft. To me that's a team/manager not really refreshing their farm.

Whatever the league wants I'm fine with.

I joined the league during the 6th round of the draft.

And no I'm not one of those guys who put it on auto-draft. Like to try and find diamonds in the rough, no matter the round.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

I didn't say you were one that put it on auto draft. But one of your backing points to not allow draft pick trading is because managers can refresh their farms. The only managers refreshing their farms are the ones who actively participate through the entire draft.

If teams are on autodraft it doesn't matter if they traded picks or not because some managers aren't involved in our draft. SO in like rounds 4-10 I was seeing some teams follow the draft strategies of picking Senior College guys who are signing for a meal at Red LObster just to say they were drafted. So when the teams are on autodraft selecting these schmuck kids they're not really refreshing their farm.

[BrewCrewGM]

Oct 6, 2013 20:46:14 GMT -5 Cincinnati Reds - Chris said:

I didn't say you were one that put it on auto draft. But one of your backing points to not allow draft pick trading is because managers can refresh their farms. The only managers refreshing their farms are the ones who actively participate through the entire draft.

If teams are on autodraft it doesn't matter if they traded picks or not because some managers aren't involved in our draft. SO in like rounds 4-10 I was seeing some teams follow the draft strategies of picking Senior College guys who are signing for a meal at Red LObster just to say they were drafted. So when the teams are on autodraft selecting these schmuck kids they're not really refreshing their farm.

Nah I wasn't saying that you did, but you're right. That does make sense.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

What did I say?

[BrewCrewGM]

Oct 6, 2013 21:38:46 GMT -5 Cincinnati Reds - Chris said:

What did I say?

You saying that you didn't say that I was one of the guys who used auto-draft. Something like that. Whatever. No big deal.

[Deleted]

Limiting Rd #1 picks is probably a realistic option.

Eliminating all trading of picks probably less realistic for this league, as owners like the action, and dealing picks creates action.

All we ever wanted was competitive balance and having the bottom clubs improve over the years instead of being mired near the bottom for eternity. Maybe banning pick trades is the best to achieve that...

We know someone will say the clubs can simply deal the drafted players afterward; still, we do have a Trade Review panel to oversee poor trades.

[Deleted]

Sub-topic: Bringing roster limits down from 31 to a more realistic and equitable 25 or even 28, or something like that. Makes no sense at all to have teams carrying 8, 10 or more SPs on their rosters.

Limiting roster sizes would also free up many quality players to the bottom clubs and make meeting salary cap limits easier for all teams.

Maybe we should discuss this 2nd topic in a separate thread, so as not to get distracted keeping too many topics in the air.

[Deleted]

Oct 7, 2013 8:08:22 GMT -5 @cigarcity said:

Sub-topic: Bringing roster limits down from 31 to a more realistic and equitable 25 or even 28, or something like that. Makes no sense at all to have teams carrying 8, 10 or more SPs on their rosters.

Limiting roster sizes would also free up many quality players to the bottom clubs and make meeting salary cap limits easier for all teams.

Maybe we should discuss this 2nd topic in a separate thread, so as not to get distracted keeping too many topics in the air.

Seems like this would really benefit clubs that have elite SP, teams that have the two likely Cy Young award winners, guys like that....

[Deleted]

Limiting picks and/or banning trading picks is a horrible idea imo, except for the sole purpose of making it easier to moderate.

Cutting back rosters is an interesting idea but one that would need to be implemented slowly...i also do find it a bit funny that an owner (cigar) who is so opposed to even the slightest change in scoring categories is so adament about cutting back rosters and limiting picks.

[Deleted]

We have advocated bringing rosters down to reasonable levels for 4 years. Has nothing to do with the make up of anyone's rotation. Simply a matter of being more reasonable about the number of starters teams should carry.

As for the draft picks, we have also advocated limiting picks for years, even when we were trying to keep up with the Royals mega-harvests. Now it has bleed over to the Marlins absurd accumulation of Rd #1 picks.

If we had to chose, we'd say limiting rosters to 26 or 28 or something like that, even if we do it gradually over a couple of years, would be good for the league overall. It would force the top clubs to give up some of their talent, thus making better players available to the bottom teams.

These ideas are nothing new; we have proposed them many times.

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

Maybe a more feasible option would be setting up a games started or innings pitched limit instead of cutting rosters

[Deleted]

Im all for cutting down rosters to a 25 man roster. Limiting picks though is silly, unless you're going to limit the amount of picks that can be traded away. If someone like Reds wants to go out and acquire a whole heap of mid round picks and rebuild his farm the proper way, he shouldnt be penalized for that.

[BrewCrewGM]

I'd be down for dropping rosters from 31 to 27 or 28 or whatever, as long as the MiLB rosters stay at 60.

[Deleted]

I would not be in agreement to cut roster spots especially 4 years into the league. This really never has been a problem and yes cigar I know you've mentioned it. If anything there's much bigger problems then this. Just to name some masterlist? Number of dl spots? Abuse of trust given to owners? People not updating their rosters just to name a few

[Deleted]

Oct 7, 2013 22:26:40 GMT -5 @mikeyp1515 said:

I would not be in agreement to cut roster spots especially 4 years into the league. This really never has been a problem and yes cigar I know you've mentioned it. If anything there's much bigger problems then this. Just to name some masterlist? Number of dl spots? Abuse of trust given to owners? People not updating their rosters just to name a few

While that may be true, none of the things you mentioned are related to the foundation of the league except DL spots which really isn't a big deal at all.

I think the scoring categories is the biggest thing that needs to be revamped.

Cutting rosters is whatever to me....the well built/run teams are still going to dominate and the bottom teams would squabble over the scraps cut form the top teams and then still suck.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

As for the draft picks, we have also advocated limiting picks for years, even when we were trying to keep up with the Royals mega-harvests. Now it has bleed over to the Marlins absurd accumulation of Rd #1 picks.

I'd rather just address the issue that no one in this league be able to give permission to a manager to tank ever again. And yes having 5 players on your roster with zero attempts made to fill the roster, is blatant tanking.

If we had to chose, we'd say limiting rosters to 26 or 28 or something like that, even if we do it gradually over a couple of years, would be good for the league overall. It would force the top clubs to give up some of their talent, thus making better players available to the bottom teams.

These ideas are nothing new; we have proposed them many times.

Maybe there should be a vote and if a change is voted in, implement it into the rules.