post-season trading

[abuck1220]

what are we going to do about this? i know it was discussed a little bit at the end of last year. i think it's a problem (not saying that i haven't done it a couple times). allowing trading after the season like this is essentially trading free agents, which you obviously can't do in real baseball. i propose either a) not letting people trade their 1st round picks past the 7/31 deadline or b) limiting the number of points you can "dump" after the season. thus, you could maybe trade 600 points worth after the season for draft picks/exempt players, but you can't go dumping half your roster and scooping up 5 draft picks in return.

 

say i trade peavy to don for a 1st round pick. he'll finish high in the standings, so that 1st round pick will be like 14th overall. after the season, don can go trade peavy to a team that finished next to last or something and land the 3rd overall pick in the 1st round. he essentially gets peavy for three months and not only did it literally cost him nothing, he actually improves his standing in the draft. that's not right.

 

can we reach a decision on this now so i know how i want to approach my potential fire sale?

[tadowdaddy]

600 points may be too little, but say, one major player 600 pts or greater per team can be traded, and the rest (if you can't keep them) have to go into the draft? I know I took advantage last year, and would probably love to do the same this year, but I understand the frustration that others have with it.

 

What about trading other players that aren't worthy of first round picks but are worthy of 3rd, 4th, or 5th rounders? I think this should all be taken into account so that we can all manage our rosters for the rest of the year.

[abuck1220]

of course the other benefit of doing this (besides taking away what seems like an obviously unfair situation) is the vast improvement of the draft.

[Guest]

Predictably, I hate this idea.

[abuck1220]

any particular reason why?

[abuck1220]

i mean, besides the fact that you do it. like an argument as to why you should be able to dump players you have no intention/ability to keep for a handful of draft picks.

[Guest]

It is stifling a free economy with a socialistic redistribution of wealth.

 

Honestly, if a trade benefits both teams involved, I fail to see the issue in letting it happen.

[abuck1220]

it's not really a "trade" though. you're not giving up anything, as you don't really control the guys you are trading...it's like trading guys whose contract has expired before they file for free agency. you're getting free draft picks.

[Guest]

I have a difference of opinion. When I traded Juan Santana this past offseason, he received definite value for that. I could have traded Johan to someone else or made the decision to use my keeper slot on him (would have been better off, too). I work hard to collect assets during the year. I don't see how trading some of those assets for different assets is a bad thing.

 

btw - I believe the only "discussion" about this during the past offseason was you complaining about me getting the first pick again.

[abuck1220]

I have a difference of opinion. When I traded Juan Santana this past offseason, he received definite value for that. I could have traded Johan to someone else or made the decision to use my keeper slot on him (would have been better off, too). I work hard to collect assets during the year. I don't see how trading some of those assets for different assets is a bad thing.

 

 

once the season is over, they're not your assets until you make them a keeper.

 

and i realize juan got something in the trade. but you didn't give anything up because you didn't "own" santana.

[Guest]

I have a difference of opinion. When I traded Juan Santana this past offseason, he received definite value for that. I could have traded Johan to someone else or made the decision to use my keeper slot on him (would have been better off, too). I work hard to collect assets during the year. I don't see how trading some of those assets for different assets is a bad thing.

 

 

once the season is over, they're not your assets until you make them a keeper.

 

and i realize juan got something in the trade. but you didn't give anything up because you didn't "own" santana.

I sure as hell did. If I hadn't traded him I guarantee he'd still be on my roster.

 

Also, trying to equate this to real life baseball doesn't apply here. They are totally different situations.

[NCCubFan]

once the season is over, they're not your assets until you make them a keeper.

I look at it from the other perspective: They're your assets until you drop them.

 

From the perspective of the owner trading a draft pick for a player, if I trade a draft pick for a player that means I think the player's better than the other players I expect to be available when that draft pick comes up. If so, I don't think I should be prohibited from making the trade just because it also makes the other team better. That's what a good trade is, one that benefits both teams.

[abuck1220]

 

btw - I believe the only "discussion" about this during the past offseason was you complaining about me getting the first pick again.

 

Adam is exactly right - its a question of leverage. It would be like the Cubs trying to trade Ryan Dempster right now. Why make a draft pick in October that counts against your cap? Why not just pick up the same talent in March? I, for one, am very sick of these kinds of deals that often exploit the weaker teams.

[tadowdaddy]

I can see both sides of it, and would prefer that I be able to trade my studs that I can't keep after the season for at least minor leaguers and preferrably draft picks. Whatever the entire group decides though I'm fine with. I can say that I know Justin preferred what he got in Howard/Kazmir for a first rounder and a late 2nd rounder (Even though Kazmir's sucked complete nuts this year).

[abuck1220]

I have a difference of opinion. When I traded Juan Santana this past offseason, he received definite value for that. I could have traded Johan to someone else or made the decision to use my keeper slot on him (would have been better off, too). I work hard to collect assets during the year. I don't see how trading some of those assets for different assets is a bad thing.

 

 

once the season is over, they're not your assets until you make them a keeper.

 

and i realize juan got something in the trade. but you didn't give anything up because you didn't "own" santana.

I sure as hell did. If I hadn't traded him I guarantee he'd still be on my roster.

 

 

but then someone else wouldn't be.

 

if this doesn't get changed, i'm probably not going to trade anybody within the season. why would i? why trade teix or peavy for the 14th pick of the 1st round when i can just wait and trade him for the 3rd pick of the 1st round after the season.

[Guest]

I haven't really thought about this much since I haven't really thought about it being a problem.

 

What if all of the first round picks become "protected", as in you can't trade a first round pick anymore?

 

Does this resolve or temporarily remedy the problem?

[abuck1220]

i think you should still be able to trade them in season. that way the teams that are presumably sellers (ie not doing so hot) will have the opportunity to better themselves in the next year's draft.

[abuck1220]

but i'd be fine with a rule barring the trade of 1st round picks after the 7/31 trading deadline.

[tadowdaddy]

I'd be ok with that too, because you could still trade them for later round draft picks and exempt players/prospects.

[NCCubFan]

if this doesn't get changed, i'm probably not going to trade anybody within the season. why would i? why trade teix or peavy for the 14th pick of the 1st round when i can just wait and trade him for the 3rd pick of the 1st round after the season.

It seems logical to me that a player's trade value would be higher during the season than after. For example, last offseason we talked about me trading my 1st round pick to you for Prince Fielder, but I decided against it because I didn't want to have to carry his points. However, during the season I'd be much more likely to make such a trade (and perhaps even include a minor leaguer as well) because it would increase my chances of winning that season. So I don't think your analogy of trading Peavy for the 14th pick during the season vs. the 3rd pick after the season is valid, because I think during the season somebody would offer you more than just the first round pick.

 

But if you're willing to trade Peavy during the season for a 1st round pick, let's talk. :D

[Guest]

i think you should still be able to trade them in season. that way the teams that are presumably sellers (ie not doing so hot) will have the opportunity to better themselves in the next year's draft.

So let me get this straight...

 

You'd be fine implementing a rule that benefits your current situation where you can trade as many of your current players as you want for whatever draft picks you can get for them. However, anyone that wants to trade those same players later in the year shouldn't be allowed to do so?

 

I'm having difficulty in seeing how this is fair.

[Guest]

i think you should still be able to trade them in season. that way the teams that are presumably sellers (ie not doing so hot) will have the opportunity to better themselves in the next year's draft.

 

I was actually referring to making 1st rounders protected all year. I have a feeling that if the draft is going to get better, people will be less hesitant to trade a first round pick. Who has traded their first rounder for next year already?

 

No one?

 

ETA: I just looked. One 4th rounder and a bunch of 7th rounders have been traded so far.

 

I've had practically my entire team on the block for a month now, and no one is offering me draft picks. I'll take a look at the 2009 draft thread and see how many first rounders were traded before the deadline.

 

Most people don't want to give up that leverage pick and start the next season in the hole with a lousy draft.

[Guest]

More first round picks were traded before the deadline last year than picks after the deadline/postseason.

 

I still think that if this really is a problem for the commish and several other teams in the league, the best scenario is to protect the first round for all teams all year long. If Adam wants to trade Peavy now for someone's 2nd and 3rd round picks, or someone's 2nd rounder and a couple of minor leaguers, that option is still there.

 

The first round being protected makes it where teams can't stack up for the top players each and every year.

[abuck1220]

 

The first round being protected makes it where teams can't stack up for the top players each and every year.

 

but if you allow it during the season you're not benefitting "stacked" teams...you're benefitting "sellers" or teams that aren't in competition. if you say i can only get a 2nd rounder for peavy in june, you're only helping the "haves" and hurting the "have nots."

[abuck1220]

You'd be fine implementing a rule that benefits your current situation where you can trade as many of your current players as you want for whatever draft picks you can get for them. However, anyone that wants to trade those same players later in the year shouldn't be allowed to do so?

 

you're not doing it "later" in the year, you're doing it after the season. you really don't see the difference?

 

I'm having difficulty in seeing how this is fair.

 

but it's fair for you to trade your first round pick for a stud now and then trade the same stud for even better first round draft picks after the season? so you essentially get a free stud for three months and an upgraded draft pick?