Thursday, February 08, 2007
part in parcel
wright IS your first round pick. its that simple. you keep wright, you lose your first round pick. you trade wright, you keep your first round pick (and the person you trade him to loses his first round pick, or the subsequent pick if he already has another first round keeper).how is this complicated?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
it's not complicated, you just aren't being logically consistent. you say wright is my pick, but concedes that trading wright does *not* involve trading my first round pick.
you try to solve this by pointing out the person who trades for Wright loses *his* first round pick by keeping him. Or, the if that person is already using their first round pick, *they get to slide wright down to the second round*
my question remains, if a person that receives wright can slide him down, why isn't the converse true - if I trade my pick I should also get to slide wright down.
because the team receiving david wright and sliding him to the second round has paid for that privilege by trading whatever it took to get wright. in your system, you would not only get the bonus of sliding wright down, but you would wind up with the value generated by trading your first round pick (which is presumably something pretty good).
right, but i "pay" for the slide with my second round pick - also presumably pretty good.
no, you paid for the stuff you got for your first round pick with your first round pick. getting to keep wright at a better round (better for you) is the problem. that's where you're getting something for nothing. really, it doesn't matter how you conceptualize the transaction, what part cancels out what. it's the fact that this kind of transaction gives you something for nothing. what's to stop someone from trading their first ten picks then keeper their 1st, 2nd and 3rd rounder as 11th, 12th and 13th rounders?
the reason it doesnt work is that the original rule (sliding down) is not logical but just the best way to go about allowing there to be trades. its not perfect but its how it had to be done. theory vs. practice. there is a way to solve your problem (i.e. you lose that draft pick when you keep a player who was drafted in that round) but not to solve having two players in one round (unless we want to say only one player can be kept in each round, which i dont think will fly).
"there is a way to solve your problem (i.e. you lose that draft pick when you keep a player who was drafted in that round)"
that is not a solution to my problem. my problem is what do we do if the underlying draft pick has been traded? your "solution" is that i cannot keep the player i drafted in that round in the previous draft. that rule creates a disincentive to trade draft picks - i lose the pick plus any and all ability to keep the player i drafted in that round the previous year.
Post a Comment