Friday, February 5, 2016

Seattle's Thoughts on the Proposed Ban on Trading Draft Picks and Prospects

Yeah, I know. Nobody wants to hear from me on this issue. I've accepted the fact that there is overwhelming support for the rule. I accept that there is no chance I could convince a majority of owners to vote against the proposal. Some of you may immediately dismiss any argument I might make simply because I am the one who made it. Some of you may say I am arguing against the rule because I believe allowing people to trade draft picks offers me a competitive advantage. That’s not true, but if you believe that, there's nothing I can write in a blog post to change your mind.

That said, there are a few things that I want to say before we vote on the rule. I've gone back and forth on saying anything at all. In the end, probably due to an internal personality defect, I decided to go ahead and set out my position before the vote.

I am against the rule, for three main reasons.

First, I fundamentally disagree with the concept behind the proposed rule. A rule against trading draft picks and certain prospects is, in my opinion, inappropriately paternalistic. The underlying motivation is a lack of trust in other owners to make intelligent assessments about the value of draft picks and prospects. We’re telling teams, in essence, that we don’t trust your judgment about what is best for your team. And that’s kind of insulting.

Second, I don't think the rule should be adopted because it restricts the already limited set of actions that owners can take. There’s so much that we can’t do in this game. We can’t control line-ups very well. We have almost no control over in-game decisions. We obviously can’t control player performance during games. The only things we get to do are sign contracts, draft players, and make trades. That's pretty much it. Imposing additional limits on what we get to do in playing the game seems to me to make the game less fun.

Third, I think the costs of the proposed rule outweigh its benefits. In many situations, the only effect of the rule will be to delay the announcement of a trade. In others, it may stop a trade but only at the cost of creating hard feelings between owners. 

If the rule is implemented, I expect that some people will make deals involving prospects ineligible to be traded and simply delay announcing the trades until the one year has passed, or whatever the ban on trading newly drafted prospects ends up being. Even if the commissioners won’t enforce a deal until that deadline passes, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be situations where one owner makes a deal involving prospects that can’t yet be traded, thinks later that he doesn’t really like the trade, but then goes through with it to avoid poisoning the future relationship with the other owner. Maybe some people will back out of prearranged deals, but my expectation is that most secret handshake deals will go through, with only a delay. And if teams are going to be making trades and the only effect of this rule in most situations is to cause a delay in announcing it, then why bother having the rule at all?

In those instances where the rule does have an effect, where handshake deals are made but one owner later backs out, then the rule will have "succeeded" in preventing a trade, but only at the cost of bad feelings between those owners. The owner who wants to go through with the trade will be angry at the owner who does not go through with it. A rule that, when it does work, ends up creating enmity between owners does not seem wise to me.

And that's why I think the proposed rule is a bad idea. I recognize this will likely sway exactly no one. The fact that I oppose the proposal may even make some of you more eager to vote in favor of it. But I do think it's a bad idea.

6 comments:

  1. I would strongly disagree with your first sentence.

    That being said, you're certainly just as entitled to an opinion (and to voice it) as anyone else. The fact that it was your success has sparked the discussion regarding the proposed rule change doesn't change that at all.

    Zev

    ReplyDelete
  2. Agreed with Zev, your opinions are just as valuable as anyone's on this, and all matters.

    I'm only going to comment on the "hidden deals" aspect. I certainly wouldn't make a deal for a player I can't get now. The risk of injury is too great, and we've had too much ownership turnover to really say that an owner would risk things to renege on a deal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I have to agree with Mark on this topic.... He is right we have very little to do with the game besides trades and signings and taking away part of trading will make this a bit boring. When it comes to trading 1st rounders I could have gotten Mark's in our last trade but opted to want a player who I felt could help in the short term(Sharp OF). I'm new and feel I shouldn't talk but I feel this way about trading picks, If you don't like what Mark is doing than maybe you should be thinking like him and what I mean is beat him to the punch to try and get picks or prospects from teams who might not be into either drafting or waiting to develop players. Michael I'm not picking on you but, I'm going to use our trade during the season as an example. I traded Michael my 1st rd pick #1 overall and at the time the #3 prospect Kerr for players I thought might be good. If Mack hadn't won the championship would we be talking about this topic? Now Michael you have the 1st 2 picks in the 2028 draft and a #13 prospect and not 1 owner at the time said hey John that's a bad trade...I feel like if I make a deal I have to live with the consequences and only my team. so because Mack's teams are so good he has to be penalized?? I feel that of the 11 owners left maybe 3 will vote to keep it as it is(Mack,John and Thomas).

    ReplyDelete
  4. Since joining the league, I for one have always traded my picks away for players and I said that in my intro to the league. I think that we should have the choice to make building our team the way we want and not the league making the choice mandatory. This is different than the DH where it's about in-game stuff, the trades become more about trading veterans than about youngsters and most vet's are high priced and I for one try to stay away from big names who are getting paid past there prime. I've traded my first picks the last two years to Seattle without anyone getting mad, how do we know that those first rounders are going to be good??? it's a roll of the dice when it come to players on this game. Like John and Mack I would vote to keep it as it is and hope we all step up our game and try to match Mack's skills.

    ReplyDelete
  5. After thinking about it and listening to what was said i have changed my mind and voting to keep the draft picks the way they were...what you trade for when using your picks is your choice and that is up to the individual owners to keep up..I know in the beginning i made a lot of poorer choices when doing trades and would love to get some back..but when it comes down to it I made the choice..i have learned since then

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, all. Please note that this is not the official voting thread... it's just a discussion started by Mack. I'll be putting up the official voting post soon. :)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.