Draft Pick Trading Discussion

[Deleted]

In the past, we posted on setting a firm salary cap ceiling. We had one owner running rampant (old Angels GM) and amassing more than $200M at one point; he included salary cap $$$ in every trade he engineered, and the Trade Review panel kept rubber-stamping his deals.

We posted many times on bringing roster sizes down to a reasonable level. Carrying 31 players, plus 3 DL slots, is a way of retaining quality players; salary cap is essentially in place to force top teams to unload talent when it got too expensive. Smaller rosters sizes helps redistribute talent, which benefits the teams that need talent infusions. Smaller also shrinks operating budgets, which helps everyone.

We have posted many times on limiting the acquisition of Rd #1 picks -- and many all picks. For two or three years, Royals was done drafting after Rd #2. The result of this sort of structure run-a-muck was teams (all teams, not just the Royals and Yankees) building a feeder system that allowed them to build a pipeline to their majors and perpetuate a dynasty.

We have posted many times on the lax nature of the Trade Review, allowing teams to "run their own clubs" leading to an array of problems. We have a Trade Review Panel in place to curb lopsided deals and to regulate trades, so that teams on top do not take advantage of league rules. But, the current structure allows all sorts of sidestepping (hence, Marlins taking the acquisition of Rd # 1 picks to a new level of absurdity and running out a daily line-up that featured retired players, minor leaguers and mostly empty roster slots).

We have objected to the elimination of scoring categories because we feel it doesn't make any sense to alter the categories -- scoring is scoring. Teams built their clubs (we did, for sure) to take advantage of certain categories of scoring points, and a new set of categories potentially means re-doing rosters -- at least in part. We went along with the mega-amassing of picks until we simply gave up and made a truce with Royals, mutually agreeing privately to curb our enthusiasm for acquiring picks so the rest of the league could "catch up." Once the cap ceiling was set at $160M, we reached it, so we could operate on the same financial level as the top teams in the league. We will go along with the coming changes in category scoring, adjusting as we can, on the fly, even though we think it doesn't help anyone to change the categories and will potentially hurt some teams.

After four years of active, friendly posting, attempting to improve the league, this will be our final post on these subjects or on any subject. With almost every suggestion we set forth we have encountered chirping rather than discussion, name-calling and accusations questioning our motives instead of responses to the ideas themselves. We will make no more suggestions -- on any subject.. We know some owners will continue to post that our suggestions to improve league rules were for our own team's benefit, but they are wrong, or worse, they are foolish.

[Red Sox]

I think draft picks should be left just like they are. Let teams move their assets however they want to. I think people overvalue picks by not thinking about the value of the player they are going to get with the pick.

A top 5 pick generally gets you a top 50 prospect after a draft and the next 10 picks might rank in the bottom half of the top 100. That assumes that the 15 best players are drafted with the first 15 picks, which rarely happens. People are looking at the marlins accumulation of picks and thinking he is going to get 15 top prospects, when in reality he will get a top 50 prospect, 2-3 in the next 50 and then some prospects in the next 100 or so. Maybe next year a couple of the guys you get move up into the top 50 and 100 through attrition. Some of those guys will fail. The team who tries this better be very good at finding talent if he is going to turn his strategy into a top team. Even if it works, it will still take several years to make it work

[Red Sox]

of course, everything in my theories are off if teams are going to let guys like carlos correa get to the number 10 or 11 pick in every draft.

[Deleted]

Oct 11, 2013 11:24:02 GMT -5 Red Sox said:

of course, everything in my theories are off if teams are going to let guys like carlos correa get to the number 10 or 11 pick in every draft.

b
Anyway, I'm all for trading picks completely without restriction. As Cigar said we sort of made a gentleman's pact to stop going after first rounders and honestly I think draft picks were way undervalued when the league started and in my opinion the pendulum is swinging too far the other way. It seems most guys value a first over a 27-year-old superstar who makes double digit salaries which maybe there is some logic too but really aren't you hoping and praying the guy you draft becomes exactly that? Granted you get the cost-controlled years but getting the sure thing sure is nice.

[Red Sox]

I totally agree with you on player evaluation. I think everyone has their own team though and should be able to value their assets however they see fit, so as long as collusion isn't going on and the trades aren't insane one way or the other. I like things the way they are on draft picks. I think the trade committee with its diverse opinions and ways of looking at things has done a good job bringing a balance when it comes to determining if a trade is fair or not.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

Oct 11, 2013 9:54:42 GMT -5 @cigarcity said:

After four years of active, friendly posting, attempting to improve the league, this will be our final post on these subjects or on any subject. With almost every suggestion we set forth we have encountered chirping rather than discussion, name-calling and accusations questioning our motives instead of responses to the ideas themselves. We will make no more suggestions -- on any subject.. We know some owners will continue to post that our suggestions to improve league rules were for our own team's benefit, but they are wrong, or worse, they are foolish.

From my impression over the course of the last 10 months you're a very good manager. I just don't understand the incessant need to reference the Royals. If its done in jest I've missed the point and apologize. If you're being serious.....it's tiring.

I'm good friends with the Dodgers and you'll never see him or I slobbering over what each others doing with their team. I'll defend him to an extent if he's getting berated in a Trade Analysis, but that's about it.

[Deleted]

I am Defiently in support of keeping the draft pick trading. In my opinion. If your a good mangaer eventually you get to the top not matter how bad your team is initially. I received my team in a disarray and am trying to stack my farm just like Reds. Plus I think it makes the draft more interesting with trades and more enjoyable. Just my two cents

[BrewCrewGM]

Bottom line for me is that I think there should be no limit with draft picks. Let Reds use all of his picks this year and once rookie rosters are no longer allowed let Reds choose which rookies to keep, or if he chooses to keep every one of them, why not let him cut some of his MiLBers to make room?

I don't know how many picks he has total, but for example if he has 15 players on his rookie roster and only 10 spots on his MiLB roster available, he should be allowed to do what he wants, whether it's to keep all 15 rookies and release five from his MiLB roster or keep just 10 of those rookies and release the other five.

I think something like that would be the best course of action.

[St. Louis Cardinals (Andrew)]

I agree with most of what Brewers said, there are 13 Rookie roster slots and teams are limited to a maximum of 13 picks.

I think if you have clear MiLB roster slots you should be able to draft more to fill those slots (assuming you have the picks).

I'm not in favour of a limitless Rookie roster and unlimited picks though.

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

Well I think it's fine to leave it that you can only keep 13 on a "rookie roster" until the all-star break where you have to move them all over to your MiLB.

But if someone wants to take more players, I think it would be fine to let them draft their 13 then just keep drafting but place players straight into their MiLB roster. I don't see a problem with that at all

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

Is November 9th the start of the Amateur Draft?

[Arizona Diamondbacks]

I think that's what we decided on

[Deleted]

Idk where I stand. I don't really understand, though, how you guys think trading all of your mlb assets for minor league players is ultimate strategy..it's quite simple and not as maverick as you think. there definitely SHOULD be a rule regarding your mlb team in that you have to form a semi competitive team - by that i mean at least a couple of players accruing stats. i do understand the merit behind that strategy as when i inherited my team juan miranda was in the starting lineup. one of my leagues created a tier system based on performance. it's a 16-team league so the formula would be different but let me just give you a taste of it:

"YEAR 1
At the end of the year, we will assign all teams to a bucket according to this formula:

Bucket 1 - Teams 1 and 2 (played for the championship)
Bucket 2 - Teams 3,4 and 5
Bucket 3 - Teams 6,7,8,9,10 and 11
Bucket 4 - Teams 12,13 and 14
Bucket 5 - Teams 15 and 16

I originally supported a decrease in salary cap across the board for year one, however, I don't think that is necessary. You will lose/gain 1M dollars in cap space for every bucket you moved from year 0. Example: if your team won the championship last year, and you finish in bucket 2 this year, you will lose 1M in cap space for 2014. If your team finished in Bucket 5 last season, and you finish in Bucket 2 this year, you will gain 3M in cap space. HOWEVER! You may never go over 150M in salary cap, and may never go below 130M in salary cap. So if you are set to gain 2M this year, you simply will remain at 150M."

seems to give incentive to active owners while curbing the ability to tank - and if an owner chooses to tank, he would simply lose some salary to work with while keeping whatever he wants to do with his minor league system.

[Cincinnati Reds - Chris]

Oct 13, 2013 21:57:48 GMT -5 @tnorton said:

Idk where I stand. I don't really understand, though, how you guys think trading all of your mlb assets for minor league players is ultimate strategy..it's quite simple and not as maverick as you think. there definitely SHOULD be a rule regarding your mlb team in that you have to form a semi competitive team - by that i mean at least a couple of players accruing stats. i do understand the merit behind that strategy as when i inherited my team juan miranda was in the starting lineup. one of my leagues created a tier system based on performance. it's a 16-team league so the formula would be different but let me just give you a taste of it:

"YEAR 1
At the end of the year, we will assign all teams to a bucket according to this formula:

Bucket 1 - Teams 1 and 2 (played for the championship)
Bucket 2 - Teams 3,4 and 5
Bucket 3 - Teams 6,7,8,9,10 and 11
Bucket 4 - Teams 12,13 and 14
Bucket 5 - Teams 15 and 16

I originally supported a decrease in salary cap across the board for year one, however, I don't think that is necessary. You will lose/gain 1M dollars in cap space for every bucket you moved from year 0. Example: if your team won the championship last year, and you finish in bucket 2 this year, you will lose 1M in cap space for 2014. If your team finished in Bucket 5 last season, and you finish in Bucket 2 this year, you will gain 3M in cap space. HOWEVER! You may never go over 150M in salary cap, and may never go below 130M in salary cap. So if you are set to gain 2M this year, you simply will remain at 150M."

seems to give incentive to active owners while curbing the ability to tank - and if an owner chooses to tank, he would simply lose some salary to work with while keeping whatever he wants to do with his minor league system.

Interesting idea.

But wouldn't a salary floor force managers to take on salaries/sign players they may not want to pursue? My whole outlook on my favourite MLB team as well as all my Fantasy Teams is to be lean financially with a youthful, high ceiling team. Seeing as my fave MLB team went full retard (Jays), doesn't mean I wanna do the same with my Fantasy Teams.

As for tanking, if a manager doesn't feel the need to field a roster and atleast put a bunch of scrubs at every position, why do you see it necessary that manager remain in the league? If you're gonna tank, atleast tank and forced to be active. And if the manager isn't active at that point......sayonara.