• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

2019 Offseason Thread

Even if all the picks from those 2 teams are mid-round, Iceman still has enough high-end assets that he could build an absolutely dominant team, if it wasn't for the league rule that any team who develops a young superstar has to trade them to Montana.
 
One trade was literally just him poaching a future Bad News Bears 2022 1st, for a Anti Penguins 2020 1st, late in the year.

Another was Dansby Swanson late in the year for a Stubby 2022 1st.

Those two trades reversed, solves much of this.


....another was Jonathan Schoop for a 2021 1st.....can't really be too upset if your pick is "only" an 11th overall.



These weren't exactly monster values, or foundational pieces given away for these future picks.
 
axlsalinger said:
Even if all the picks from those 2 teams are mid-round, Iceman still has enough high-end assets that he could build an absolutely dominant team, if it wasn't for the league rule that any team who develops a young superstar has to trade them to Montana.
Click to expand...

170902-the-prodigy
bba1721_1024x1024.png

👋
 
UWHabs said:
I would agree here, though, just giving a bunch of midround picks is kind of shitty. But on the other hand, it's really shitty to also bring in all these new owners and have them start with few assets and also not have picks either.

Although we may have a rare opportunity here since iceman literally owns all the firsts, right? We could probably actually assign them as compensation tied to the teams. So like, instead of just getting picks 11, 12, 13 in 2021, we say he gets picks right after each of the bailed teams. Our first round grows by a few picks, and iceman gets slightly screwed in that they each are a bit worse than they otherwise would be, but they may all be in the top half of the round at least.
Click to expand...

I'll piggyback on this idea and spitball a thought that you guys may or may not agree with. I think the idea here is not to punish me (or ANYONE else who traded for future picks,) because a couple other guys who owned those picks left the league. The idea I think we're trying to achieve is not to disadvantage these new owners by taking those future picks away from their reach and out of the dispersal draft pool. We want them to have a decent shot at a fair start, right?

So if we put those 2021 and 2022 picks back in play for them to potentially draft (or even just assign each team its own draft picks without them being part of the dispersal) we're accomplishing that main goal.

Could we not sort of adopt UWHabs' idea, and say that anyone owning a former Bears or Stubby (or Bull, if he ends up being out) pick in 2021 or 2022 (ie mostly, but not only, me lol) gets a compensation pick immediately after where those picks fall? So if Kevin's team finishes the season owning, say, the 4th overall pick, I'd have the 5th. If Jeremy ends up with the 9th pick, I'd have the 10th, etc. Same for anyone else who owned a pick. It could still potentially cost me a first overall pick, but there isn't a perfect solution...just trying to find a good one.

UW is right that some of the rounds would be a few picks longer, but that doesn't seem like a big deal. That seems like it would meet the goal of being fair to the new guys, but at the same time for those of us who traded for future picks, it would reduce the unfairness to a one pick difference, which minimizes the impact to as small as we could get it.

Seems like maybe that would work for the good of the league as a whole without undue collateral damage, unless I'm missing anything?
 
Last edited:
Also, if we do decide we're working out a way to bring in a 19th team, Jason says he'd gladly join in. Understands that the talent pool might be a little thinner with 3 owners instead of 2 coming in, but doesn't mind and would like to play.

It's fine if we don't end up going that route. Just relaying the message that he's in if you guys decide you want to expand by a team.
 
Iceman said:
Also, if we do decide we're working out a way to bring in a 19th team, Jason says he'd gladly join in. Understands that the talent pool might be a little thinner with 3 owners instead of 2 coming in, but doesn't mind and would like to play.

It's fine if we don't end up going that route. Just relaying the message that he's in if you guys decide you want to expand by a team.
Click to expand...

If Bull doesn’t come back wouldn’t that give us the 3 empty teams to fill? Maybe we wouldn’t need to expand to 19, sounds like we’d have to find a 4th guy to accomplish an expansion.
If we have 3 empty teams and 3 new managers can’t we just leave everything status quo and they can do a dispersal draft just like I did when I joined? Bull’s team would add some quality to the player pool for sure; Stanton, Tre Turner, Bellinger, Bieber, etc.

On that note, if anyone hears from Bull tell him he owes me $50 for a football league...lol. He ghosted in that league, I’m guessing this one is next.
 
I'm torn on the whole future draft pick issue. On one hand it's shitty that these picks could potentially be a fair bit worse than expected. On the other hand... that's part of trading for picks 2, 3, 4 years out. Things change... teams get better, teams get worse.

In our hockey league, 2 years ago I traded for what I thought was guaranteed to to a top 3 pick this year. Now I'll be lucky if it's 12th.

The further out the pick is, the more factors there are that can affect it.
 
Iceman likely traded for some picks a couple years out that will turn out better than he expected as well.
 
Habspatrol said:
I'm torn on the whole future draft pick issue. On one hand it's shitty that these picks could potentially be a fair bit worse than expected. On the other hand... that's part of trading for picks 2, 3, 4 years out. Things change... teams get better, teams get worse.

In our hockey league, 2 years ago I traded for what I thought was guaranteed to to a top 3 pick this year. Now I'll be lucky if it's 12th.

The further out the pick is, the more factors there are that can affect it.
Click to expand...

This is true...teams do get better and worse. It's possible I could be arguing for a compensation pick that ends up being worse than mid-round. If a new manager ends up with, say, the 14th pick, I'd end up with the 15th. I'm okay with that possibility because it's tied to team performance and seems like a fair possibility I could/should have been reasonably aware of; Stubby or Bears or Bull could have vastly improved their teams in those years.

What doesn't seem as fair is having to try to account for owner changes as part of the process. Just my two cents.
 
It's a double edged sword. When you trade for picks from "shitty" managers you are expecting that pick to be good because that manager is shitty/less dedicated. Most of the time you'll benefit from that. Sometimes that same shittiness and lack of dedication leads to that team folding.

As Montana pointed out, you got some picks from those guys for pretty cheap.... if that was a steady, reliable manager you likely don't get those picks.

I wish there was a way to make everyone happy. And maybe your suggestion is one that people can get behind. Biggest problem is that the precedent has been set. Previous dispersal drafts have resulted in compensatory picks.
 
11th overall picks are still winning every one of those trades, most by a fairly decent margin even.

....but for me it's what HP & others have said, the precent has been set.

If it keeps managers from thinking twice about exploiting/profiting from bad managers moving long distant picks they might not even be around for? All the better.

Ideally tho, I'd love to find a solution that prevents managers who might not stick around from being able to do this in the future. (GH did us really dirty in this regard if memory serves, trading them all away with the intent of bailing once his team fell off.)
 
Habspatrol said:
It's a double edged sword. When you trade for picks from "shitty" managers you are expecting that pick to be good because that manager is shitty/less dedicated. Most of the time you'll benefit from that. Sometimes that same shittiness and lack of dedication leads to that team folding.

As Montana pointed out, you got some picks from those guys for pretty cheap.... if that was a steady, reliable manager you likely don't get those picks.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day, it's your league and if you guys want to go by precedent, I don't have much recourse. And I'll accept whatever the outcome is. Gotta try my best to make my case that if precedent is poor, a change should be made...if I lose that debate, okay. I may be just too close to this issue to see it the way you guys do.

But, all those arguments you make apply to players too. If the team/manager is good, Kellen (just as one example) likely doesn't get guys like Judge and Gallo and Teheran for pretty cheap. He gets immediate value, which helps him win actual money by finishing in the top 4, and then gets to keep that value into the future despite the team folding. No loss, dropoff, or compensation...just what he actually traded for.

No knock on Kellen, obviously! Kudos for some good deals...we should all be trying to find avenues to make our teams better as often as we can. The discrepancy between player value remaining intact and pick value disappearing is just jarring.

I don't want to be a "GH"...I'm obviously taking a look at the big picture with my building philosophy. I'm okay with forecasting player and pick value 3 and 4 years down the line, whether I'm right or wrong. But if I have to be asked to forecast things like which managers might disappear in the future when I'm evaluating whether a deal is good or bad for me, that doesn't feel like it ought to be a part of fantasy, you know?

If you tell me this is the way it is, and the way you guys like want it to be, that's totally fair. I can try to take more of a win-now philosophy to be a little safer. I just preferred the dynasty/building approach.
 
Montana said:
11th overall picks are still winning every one of those trades, most by a fairly decent margin even.
Click to expand...

You're right of course. It isn't nothing, and compensation is better than nothing! But, say for Bears & Bull, they're in the lottery, 2nd & 3rd overall this year, so IF things remained similar next year, or 2022 (granted they might not), that's an 8 or 9 spot drop in the order, which is pretty significant - and why I am lousy at letting this go. LOL

For example, you've got Altuve, 3rd best second baseman in the league last year. I have Villar, 9 spots down as 12th best overall. Close enough that you'd be willing to swap? Or Baez (5th at SS) for Villar (14th at SS)? I was just trying to trade for a shot at the studs, rather than the decent guys.
 
Just be aware of the value of an 11th pick in the first round in this league. Looking back just at last year's draft:

11. Groshans
14. Bohm
16. Hoerner
17. Luciano

There is always a lot of talent available. The key to winning is in drafting the right guys. You're not comparing Altuve to Villar, you're comparing Joey Bart and Jonathan India to Marco Luciano. Draft results are all over the place.

Plus you do get those 2 lottery picks this year. :)
 
Last edited:
Not that he needs any help, but I would argue that for 2021, since iceman literally holds the picks for the 3 soon to be defunct teams, this is a case where we could make an exception and not simply just give him picks 11/12/13. If we swap out 3 teams for 3 new teams, I would suggest simply assigning his 3 compensation picks to be mapped onto the new team, although picking behind them each time. That way they each essentially have the value they would have otherwise gotten, and it's not too hard to map things. 2022 he only holds 2 of the firsts, so in that case, it's not really fair to map them, so for those compensation picks they should just be the 2 mid-round picks as the only "fair" way to handle them.
 
UWHabs said:
That way they each essentially have the value they would have otherwise gotten, and it's not too hard to map things. 2022 he only holds 2 of the firsts, so in that case, it's not really fair to map them, so for those compensation picks they should just be the 2 mid-round picks as the only "fair" way to handle them.
Click to expand...


This doesn't make much sense to me, given those picks will have no actual association to the new drafted teams vs the team he traded with originally to acquire these picks from.

The teams Stubby & Bull were likely to have in 2021, are likely to be extremely different than the teams one of these start from scratch squads are liable to have, including vastly different team philosophies/focus. (Teams without control of their pending first, are much more likely to go for it, than teams who own their own first and may wish to rebuild, for instance).

[...zero chance imo, Bull wouldn't have been building a contender this off-season, for example.]

We'd be breaking precedent and tying them to the fortunes of new squads that have nothing in common with the teams they were originally traded from.

If these three teams were simply taking over the other three, I'd agree completely (and argue the new guys should maybe get picks directly following the others, so their draft pick cupboards weren't bare).....but tying them to brand new teams makes zero sense at all.


I think people are somewhat overlooking that ~11th picks could very well be upgrades over what a Stubby/Bull pick could have been, as it is.
 
Last edited:
I really do empathize with Iceman... but any bone he has to pick would be with the deadbeats that bailed on the league. Not so much the established rules of the league.

Given the logic that Montana laid out, there's a pretty good chance that the net value of the picks are similar to what they would have been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top