Trading 1st round picks in a keeper

[pacotaco27]

In response to RDD15, we probably need to better specify in the rule and state that the owner can trade HIS OWN pick in a round where he keeps a player. That should hopefully clear up the situations you brought up. Also, I think its understood by everyone that you forfeit the pick that you would have been entitled to if you not kept the player, but we might want to clear it up in the rules just in case.

It's also understood in our league that if you have two keepers that were drafted in the same round, you give up a pick in that round and the following round as compensation. If one of those keepers was traded to a team that didn't have another keeper in that round, however, the value of the keeper is based on where they were originally drafted and not the round of pick that was given up to keep someone. So if I kept two first rounders I'd give up a first and a second round pick. If I wanted to trade one of those guys to someone who didn't have another first round keeper, he would have to give up a first rounder to keep that person for the next year.

[HitmanHart]

Paco,

I guess I'm missing something here. You said that the owner receiving Santana was giving up nothing to receive Johan? Couldn't that owner essentially do the same thing the Pujols owner would do with Utley? In other words, if the trade didn't happen, that owner could keep 5 players and redraft Utley as the #1 overall pick, essentially giving him 6 keepers. If he had any value at all in the later rounds, I would bet this owner ends up with a really good roster after the draft. To me, that would be the value that he's giving up. Plus, it seems clear that the #1 overall pick in your guy's league is a hot commodity, so this problem should have been addressed when those rules were put in place. As far as breaking any of the rules though, I don't see where their trade would have violated anything. I'd be curious to know why so many of the other owners voted against it also. The number of picks in all rounds remained the same, assuming the player receiving Johan loses both his 1st (Johan) and 2nd (Utley) round picks.

The second point of your argument is a good one. That example, IMO, would be eliminated because the league/ commish would veto based on collusion/ cruel intentions, even though it would be allowed by the rules.