04-19-2020, 07:04 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-19-2020, 07:41 PM by mithrandir.)
Disclaimer: I am operating under the principle that no team should be given extra draft picks for free.
In the most recent DSFL draft, the San Jose Sabercats traded their second round pick to New Orleans in exchange for NOLA's second and 2 7th rounders. While this trade may seem fair in practice, as NOLA got to move up and take their QB Slothlisberger and SJS got to acquire more picks, I think SJS exploited a loophole which gave them an unfair advantage. With obligatory GM picks, you must always take the GM with your highest draft pick in the second round. In the case of SJS, this should have been pick 17. Instead, they moved down to pick four, assuming no risk of losing the prospect they wanted because no other team was allowed to take them. Essentially, they received two seventh round picks for free. In principle, every trade should have value gained and value lost that is roughly equivalent. For NOLA, they gained the benefit of moving up, and lost the pair of seventh rounder. SJS assumed no loss in value, only a gain, since no other team could take QB Jack.
I propose that we close this loophole by forbidding teams from trading back in the second round to acquire more value if they have a GM in that draft class. Otherwise, more teams will catch on to SJS's strategy and we will start seeing every team with a GM in the draft class trying to trade back in order to acquire free draft picks.
Edit: After discussion with several people I have a few responses:
1. The "golden rationalization" (everybody does it) is a fallacy and should not factor into this argument.
2. Saying that anyone can trade up for the GM slot pick does not change the fact that a team has to give up value to a team that is not losing value.
3. Whether or not the seventh round picks turn out to be good players should have no bearing on this ruling, that was simply the most recent example.
4. The GMs will never vote on a rule that limits their power, so this will never happen.
In the most recent DSFL draft, the San Jose Sabercats traded their second round pick to New Orleans in exchange for NOLA's second and 2 7th rounders. While this trade may seem fair in practice, as NOLA got to move up and take their QB Slothlisberger and SJS got to acquire more picks, I think SJS exploited a loophole which gave them an unfair advantage. With obligatory GM picks, you must always take the GM with your highest draft pick in the second round. In the case of SJS, this should have been pick 17. Instead, they moved down to pick four, assuming no risk of losing the prospect they wanted because no other team was allowed to take them. Essentially, they received two seventh round picks for free. In principle, every trade should have value gained and value lost that is roughly equivalent. For NOLA, they gained the benefit of moving up, and lost the pair of seventh rounder. SJS assumed no loss in value, only a gain, since no other team could take QB Jack.
I propose that we close this loophole by forbidding teams from trading back in the second round to acquire more value if they have a GM in that draft class. Otherwise, more teams will catch on to SJS's strategy and we will start seeing every team with a GM in the draft class trying to trade back in order to acquire free draft picks.
Edit: After discussion with several people I have a few responses:
1. The "golden rationalization" (everybody does it) is a fallacy and should not factor into this argument.
2. Saying that anyone can trade up for the GM slot pick does not change the fact that a team has to give up value to a team that is not losing value.
3. Whether or not the seventh round picks turn out to be good players should have no bearing on this ruling, that was simply the most recent example.
4. The GMs will never vote on a rule that limits their power, so this will never happen.