|
|
Post by Blue Jays GM (Stephen) on Aug 27, 2019 17:57:56 GMT -5
Back in October of last year this was discussed, and a slight majority of the league was in favor of allowing MiLB picks to be traded, but the vote was split between how to handle two different options for skips that were included in the poll. I would like to propose the poll I have included in this post which only handle whether MiLB picks can become tradable or not. The consequences for skipped owners can be determined at a later date.
I think previously when ownership were as active in this league and maybe even some opted to not participate in the MiLB draft, but I see a couple of things that have changed even since I have joined the league.
1. Activity seems to be at an all time high and pretty much everyone is engaged.
2. If an owner anticipates not wanting to participate in the MiLB draft, they are likely to trade all of their picks away. Owners in need of a new owner should have just been addressed though with the activity check that we could do a month before the draft.
3. We just completed a draft and other than the cardinals, there were only a few auto picks and those were just forgetting what time they had until. We have fixed the Cardinals issue and we should be able to add this as a tradable asset.
4. I know this draft was originally designed to "replenish the farm", but if teams don't want to replinish the farm they are going to set up deals for each of their picks anyways. Might as well have this done in the open.
Basically, I think we are at a point in this league that these picks should be tradable because of the amount of activity we do have, the competitiveness of the league, and the different approaches to roster management that many people take part in. Now if you want to put parameters on when you can trade these assets that is fine with me, but I think we need to figure out the simple yes or no first (the majority was Yes last time) then determine the rules around their eligibility.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Aug 27, 2019 23:39:31 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of this. I like that MiLB picks are one of the constants in the league. The reality is that (if you've looked at past drafts) there are some GMs that are disproportionately better at scouting/using picks, and because you can find great prospects with a 4th or 5th rounder, it allows for asymmetric trades that pass because "the guy wasn't going to use the pick anyway." We'd begin approving lots of deals where teams are "just happy to get something" and diligent GMs proceed to get quality prospects for basically nothing.
Summer draft picks are already the trade asset with the most non-consensus values on the trade market, so I'm not in favor of introducing an even more "unsteady" commodity that will just stand to create more competitive imbalance.
|
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Aug 28, 2019 8:08:15 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of this. I like that MiLB picks are one of the constants in the league. The reality is that (if you've looked at past drafts) there are some GMs that are disproportionately better at scouting/using picks, and because you can find great prospects with a 4th or 5th rounder, it allows for asymmetric trades that pass because "the guy wasn't going to use the pick anyway." We'd begin approving lots of deals where teams are "just happy to get something" and diligent GMs proceed to get quality prospects for basically nothing. Summer draft picks are already the trade asset with the most non-consensus values on the trade market, so I'm not in favor of introducing an even more "unsteady" commodity that will just stand to create more competitive imbalance. We already have this happen. Will takes advantage of this every year by getting guys to trade MiLB picks for small value specs only because they weren’t going to pick anyone anyway. The only difference is he has to wait until the round is over to post the trade. If we allow MiLB pick trading then we open another asset for buyers to use to help improve their team for a playoff push. Meanwhile it gives rebuilding teams another asset to build out for the next season. Otherwise you do in fact have picks that don’t be used for anything but they could’ve been used to help facilitate a trade. |
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Aug 28, 2019 14:05:59 GMT -5
I'm not a fan of this. I like that MiLB picks are one of the constants in the league. The reality is that (if you've looked at past drafts) there are some GMs that are disproportionately better at scouting/using picks, and because you can find great prospects with a 4th or 5th rounder, it allows for asymmetric trades that pass because "the guy wasn't going to use the pick anyway." We'd begin approving lots of deals where teams are "just happy to get something" and diligent GMs proceed to get quality prospects for basically nothing. Summer draft picks are already the trade asset with the most non-consensus values on the trade market, so I'm not in favor of introducing an even more "unsteady" commodity that will just stand to create more competitive imbalance. We already have this happen. Will takes advantage of this every year by getting guys to trade MiLB picks for small value specs only because they weren’t going to pick anyone anyway. The only difference is he has to wait until the round is over to post the trade. If we allow MiLB pick trading then we open another asset for buyers to use to help improve their team for a playoff push. Meanwhile it gives rebuilding teams another asset to build out for the next season. Otherwise you do in fact have picks that don’t be used for anything but they could’ve been used to help facilitate a trade. While that's true, I at least like the fact that they have to post the players that are in the swap head-to-head. While some of these deals still pass (which I've had some issue with - not with the GMs involved, because they're just doing their jobs, but with the system), I prefer to create some accountability by at least allowing the trade review voters to see the full extent of the deal. Doing research to find MiLB picks is part of being in this league, so we should move away from allowing "I'm just happy to get anything for the pick" reasoning, since they should be actively working to get something. That's part of how this works, not "going above and beyond" like we've allowed some folks to treat it for a while. To me, this is an issue we should resolve, not actively work to take further steps to make it more possible. |
|
|
|
Post by D'backs GM (Kyle) on Aug 28, 2019 14:50:09 GMT -5
By your logic we shouldn't allow Amateur Draft Pick trading. I really don't see how the MiLB draft should be treated any differently than the Amateur Draft. They're picks that some GMs value highly, while others would prefer to use them as trade chips. I don't see a problem with allowing GMs to use any and all assets to make their teams better. Keeping things the same doesn't make certain GMs want to do research and make picks for the MiLB draft. Honestly I think this is the best solution to make it where the MiLB draft has just as much activity and involvement as the Amateur Draft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orioles GM (Michael) on Aug 28, 2019 16:04:25 GMT -5
By your logic we shouldn't allow Amateur Draft Pick trading. I really don't see how the MiLB draft should be treated any differently than the Amateur Draft. They're picks that some GMs value highly, while others would prefer to use them as trade chips. I don't see a problem with allowing GMs to use any and all assets to make their teams better. Keeping things the same doesn't make certain GMs want to do research and make picks for the MiLB draft. Honestly I think this is the best solution to make it where the MiLB draft has just as much activity and involvement as the Amateur Draft. Yeah I mean my perspective is coming from a guy who isn't a fan of the fact we can trade picks (I do it, but only because it's allowed), and would honestly love to see MiLB players restricted to MiLB draft and let the summer draft be a pure amateur draft. So this is fueled by that view. And at this point we can't "trade cash", cover 100% of contracts, trade "future considerations", etc., so clearly we're not a "purist" league in the "you can use everything you have" sense either. And I'm not personally a fan of going in that direction. |
|
|
|
Post by Nationals GM (Tim) on Aug 28, 2019 16:36:13 GMT -5
By your logic we shouldn't allow Amateur Draft Pick trading. I really don't see how the MiLB draft should be treated any differently than the Amateur Draft. They're picks that some GMs value highly, while others would prefer to use them as trade chips. I don't see a problem with allowing GMs to use any and all assets to make their teams better. Keeping things the same doesn't make certain GMs want to do research and make picks for the MiLB draft. Honestly I think this is the best solution to make it where the MiLB draft has just as much activity and involvement as the Amateur Draft. Yeah I mean my perspective is coming from a guy who isn't a fan of the fact we can trade picks (I do it, but only because it's allowed), and would honestly love to see MiLB players restricted to MiLB draft and let the summer draft be a pure amateur draft. So this is fueled by that view. And at this point we can't "trade cash", cover 100% of contracts, trade "future considerations", etc., so clearly we're not a "purist" league in the "you can use everything you have" sense either. And I'm not personally a fan of going in that direction. Mike is the new Gene |
|
