I don't understand some of the points made in response to my interpretation:
(1) " While it's true that when Cardarelli traded for Ortiz he got the option to keep both players next year, that was really only a side product of the trade. He made the trade in order to win. And sure, while it creates a small loophole it's a very specific one designed to inspire trading."
If I make a trade like the one I'm proposing, it's because I want to win too. Plus, I'm not trading my draft pick just to have Wright slide down to the second round - I'm trading the draft pick so that I can get something for it. Importantly, I will only make the trade if what I get is better than what I would otherwise get in the second round. The "something for nothing" that I'm getting is the marginal quality between what I get for the first round pick and the player available for my second round pick (lost to keep Wright). This is an inherent limitation on the shadiness of these deals.
(2) "don't use the Cardarelli/Ortiz/Crawford situation as evidence for your argument. They are different."
It would be helpful to me if you explained how.
(3) "what you're talking about would effectively destroy the draft."
Why? To me, it makes the draft more important. It makes it easier to trade draft picks.
(4) Finally, the fact that both Omar and Ben are opposed to this make it correct. Come on people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Also, under the Omar-Ben-Pete plan, if I trade my first round pick, I have an extreme incentive to trade Wright for anything that anyone is willing to give me. I've already "lost" him for next season, even if I control him now. The more I think about it, the more I think that this is the most important reason that I'm right.
no no no no no. you haven't "lost him". this is even more tenuous than your other logic. you might be encouraged to trade wright, but think of it this way: you have two separate sets of commodities. draft picks and players. your players stop being a commodity the day before the draft, and the draft picks become a commodity. then you use those draft picks to get a new set of players, which are once again a commodity until next year's draft.
i don't see why the objection voiced above supports either argument specifically. if anything i feel like it supports the omar-ben-pete system. this is an opportunity to leverage value that doesn't destabilize the league. you can deal wright for anything and everything someone will give you, if you decided not to keep him or decided to trade your first round pick-- but, whatever you get for him, you're going to have to "keep" by using a draft pick anyway, or it might be a draft pick itself, in which case, nothing changes.
why haven't i lost him? if i trade my first round pick, i cannot keep him under your logic.
"but, whatever you get for him, you're going to have to "keep" by using a draft pick anyway, or it might be a draft pick itself, in which case, nothing changes."
if i understand this, i don't see why my proposal is objectionable. if i trade my first round pick, to keep wright i "have to keep [him] by using a draft pick anyway."
Post a Comment