Another potential option that could accomplish the goal and allow the flexibility for teams to trade early draft picks in season:
- Limit the draft picks that may be traded during weeks 1-17 to Rounds 14-24
- Open trading of all draft picks at the start of week 18 until the trade deadline at the end of week 19.
- During this two-week period, teams may only trade two draft picks in round 7-13; no limit on Rounds 14-24.
- There is not limit on the number of draft picks a team may acquire.
- No limit to draft picks that can be traded in the offseason.
- Do not limit the number of trades (other than during the two-week period) or tether round spread.
- No further fines.
The idea is to allow non-contending teams to start the rebuilding process, while attempting to put some limit on the amount of talent a contending team can acquire without sacrificing talent on their roster (ie, trading big-time players instead of big-time draft picks). The timeframe would provide incentive for teams to wait until later in the season to give up (ie, unload their players for picks).
Last year, 30 draft picks were traded in rounds 7-13. Of that total, 21 of the picks were traded prior to the start of week 18. Pushing these trades off to that two-week period would theoretically keep these players who are worthy of being traded for an early pick on their original teams for longer and make the team more competitive longer. This proposal would help restore competition without severely hindering those teams that want to rebuild.
It would also make for a very interesting two-week period. Could be a lot of fun.
I still don't see this as a viable solution to dump trades. I do not think trading picks should be regulated.
ReplyDeleteI think we are overcomplicating things. We should be targeting & brainstorming about how to incentivize being competitive.
If a team wants to beef up their team for the playoffs they can trade a young stud to a team trying to rebuild for a bunch of pieces that are no longer valuable to the team building for the future. Same effect as trading picks just a different way to do it. I can only imagine what kind of haul Trout would bring in mid-season next year - especially from a team looking to rebuild. Why wouldn't a rebuilding team give up all their non keepers and then some for him? How do we keep this from happening? Keep that team from wanting to rebuild...
Personally, I never really minded the player-only dump trades - when a team traded a big stud for a lot of good players. At least, the team contending took an immediate hit on some level. Sure, Trout would bring Russ a lot of talent, but he would lose a lot as well by losing him. As it stands, when a team trades a pick, they lose nothing until the following season.
DeleteThe current system allows teams to get significantly better and significantly worse iin one trade, which is fine for them but negatively impacts the competitiveness of the league.
I agree with Chris that we are getting too complicated with this option. However, I would like the last option (no trades 7-13 until off season) as opposed to the free market Chris wants. At least if we reel it back to player only dump trades, the trading team is losing something this year and not just putting everything off until the next year.
ReplyDeleteIt probably reads more complicated than it actually is. Really, its essentially the same as the first option, only it provides a controlled two-week reprieve from the pick limitation late in the summer. It won't be a problem from a policing or tracking perspective.
DeleteI see your point, but I also worry about losing teams who are clearly out of it. This would be a good way to keep them engaged until at least the last two weeks of the season.
I prefer the first option if any. Setting lineups and fielding Jason's trade requests take up enough time as it is, no need to overcomplicate things.
ReplyDeleteIt's not complicated really. Other than a two week period, everyone would be limited to trading picks Round 14-24. Just like the first option. The only thing that changes during that two-week period is everyone can deal two of their picks round 7-13. If anything, I expect it will consolidate much of Jason's leg-humping into this open trading period.
DeleteThe more I think of this idea the more I like it. I think it will keep everyone engaged until at least the last two weeks, even if they're not competitive. It also strikes a balance between the interests of non-contending teams, contending teams, and the competitiveness of the league as a whole.
Sorry for my delay in responding. I have been in the shittiest city in America for the past 3 days - Atlantic City......never, ever go there.....ever.
ReplyDeleteI like this idea Adam. It is pretty simple when you think about it. This will accomplish the goal of keeping teams interested for a longer period of time, as well as regulating how significantly better or worse a team could get.
I see your point as well Chris, and believe me, I am not one for regulation in life, and I am a strong believer in a free market, but when it comes to this league, we have seen a trend over the past few years that I don't like (and a lot of other owners don't like). I don't want just 6 or 7 teams fighting for a playoff spot at the halfway point of the regular season. It takes the fun out of the weekly matchups, and causes many owners to lose interest. The trading of draft picks, since it has been implemented a few years ago, has had a direct impact on this "problem".
When a team can get significantly better in the push of a button, and not lose anything, that causes the balance of the league to shift greatly. When you have 6 teams who know they are going to make the playoffs at the halfway point of the season, the other 8 teams essentially stop paying attention, and the league loses its luster. It is similar to a roto league. We have never done a roto league because we don't want the winner of the league determined halfway through the season, and have the rest of the league "tuned out". We are heading down the road of becoming a roto league due to the aggressiveness in which we are trading draft picks, and the strength of each team changing drastically within the season.
Regardless, we will have 3 - 4 options that will be proposed within our vote. This will determine the direction that we head with this issue. I think the recent discussion is giving us some good options to vote on.
I also think that we should look to increase and expand fees that will be paid for finishing in the bottom half of the league.