This topic is keeper trade punishments. Last year was the first in effect for our new keeper trade rules. As a reminder:
If you trade a keeper in-season, you: lose an 8th-round (11th overall) draft pick. If you trade a keeper off-season, you lose an 18th round (21st overall) draft pick. Draft picks are allowed in off-season keeper trades.
I thought this was a pretty good rule, as we actually saw more keeper trades last year than ever before (since the first year when draft picks were allowed). But, it was e-mailed by someone who isn't happy with it and wants to discuss possible changes.
So, in the case that others feel the same way, I'm opening this up to discussion. Have at it.
Posts
It was probably me!
ReplyDeleteI don't like penalties for trading top players, especially if there's a push to add another keeper to the mix. That would mean you cannot trade 40 total players without a penalty.
I'm all about making sure the same amount of keepers remain year after year and keeping contacts fulfilled if a 3 year player is traded for a 1 year player, etc.
My two cents.
Are we going to have to deal with this every year? Trading keepers away without penalty really has been hashed and rehashed - I can't believe its even on the table again this year.
ReplyDeleteThese decisions to sign a keeper means you are keeping the player. You should not be able to unwind it with complete freedom. If unclear on definition of keeper and 1, 2 or 3 year terms - we can certainly go over what each of these mean.
Just like when you sign a lease, there is a penalty to break it. When you make decisions that are longer term they are not able to be unwound easily (or at all).
It's just the nature of the beast, and when it was freedom to quit when you were out of it and trade the best players in the current season to try to get better draft picks next season- it was in my view (and others based upon the rules that have been in place) not fair to those of us that are honoring our longer term signings and not quitting mid season because we were out of it and playing for current season positioning.
- JACK
Agree with Jack's points above. We don't need to rehash this every year unless there have been other significant rule changes that would affect this one.
ReplyDeleteThe rule we have in place today is adequate.
-Rick
trading a keeper for a keeper shouldnt be penalized. i mean its almost like a "salary dump" in some cases. Like we see in the NBA to free up cap space. Or if someone is looking to make a final push for the current year, and a team out of it is looking to get better in coming years. I dont see why there should be a penalty. if the trade is unfair, the trade is unfair it the league will have to vote against it.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with there being a penalty for someone cutting a keeper or for resigning one for a longer contract. However I don't see why there should be a penalty for trading keepers in season especially for another keeper. When trading a keeper both managers accept the terms of existing contract. If a keeper has an unfavorable contract that alone should serve as theoretical no-trade clause.
ReplyDeleteAndrew-
ReplyDeleteIf you have a moment, please consider "Emily's virtual rocket" (emilysvirtualrocket.blogspot.com). This is a newsblog, specifically designed with transgender people in mind. Secondarily, it is also of interest to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. This is also a forum for friends and relatives. It consists of news items from around the world. Thank you for checking it out!
Sincerely,
ezs
I hope you considered the blog Andrew hahahaha.
ReplyDeleteLol wtf. Must be the "punishments" in the headline
ReplyDelete