Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I figured this would come up. It's a league of friends so we don't have the strictest written bylaws. It's written as "waivers go in reverse of draft order".
#1 exchanged spots throughout the draft with #12. #12 gave #1 his 5th round draft pick as compensation.
Unless it was specified at trade time. Easy.
That's unfortunate. Without a more clearly written rule I can easily make a very strong argument for either side.
This was not specified earlier. I thought it was just the first rounder that was swapped. I would change my vote to the guy who traded for #12 in that case.
So say you have the 1st overall pick and I have the 12th overall pick. I trade you my 2nd and 3rd rounders for your 1st rounder. Since I now have two first round picks, and you have zero, do I also get two picks in the waiver order, and you get zero?
In that case, given how the rule is worded, I think they also exchanged waiver priority.EDIT: You should probably edit the OP. From you initial post, it wasn't perfectly clear if they exchanged all their picks or just their 1st round pick, and it seems like most of the commentators took it to be the latter.
That's absurd. The guy with the #1 pick got an extra 5th round pick out of it, he doesn't also get the better waiver wire position.
It's very tricky to parse the intention of the rule. Consider this scenario: The guy with the 1st overall pick trades 5.01 to the guy with the 12th overall pick for something else (a 2013 pick, a box of donuts, whatever - the point being that the only pick changing hands in this draft is a 5th rounder). Would you do anything to change the waiver order in this situation?
How can I be more clear than "So, they effectively traded draft spots and the original pick #1 owner got an extra 5th round pick."I think most people are reading this correctly from a comprehension standpoint. They just disagree with your logic.
Why? You could equally say the other guy gained #1 pick, so he shouldn't also get better waiver wire position.Since the rule only says "waivers go in reverse of draft order", you have to try to figure out what "draft order" means. In this case, I'd say the simplest and fairest interpretation is that "draft order" means the position that the teams made most of their picks in. Team A traded a pick in the draft to exchange overall "draft order" position with Team B. And since waiver wire priority is determined by draft order, Team A also gave its original waiver wire priority position to Team B as part of the trade.
And yet both of those people agree with your position. It's reasonable to assume that they would have come to the opposite conclusion if they'd realized that the OP meant that they swapped all of their draft picks, so it's funny that you quoted them. Usually these commissioner threads sound complicated but are actually pretty simple. This one is the opposite, I think. When you really think about it, there isn't a satisfying solution, though at the moment if I had to rule I'd say you're wrong. the guy getting the 12th overall pick should get the waiver priority that comes with it. But like I said, I could make a pretty strong argument either way, which is why it's tricky.
No problem. I hadn't even looked at what side those guys were on. I just quoted them to show the OP that his post was ambiguous and/or being mis-interpreted. Like you say, this one's tricky. If I had to settle it, I'd follow the logic I laid out above. But I can see good arguments for the other side too.And yet both of those people agree with your position. It's reasonable to assume that they would have come to the opposite conclusion if they'd realized that the OP meant that they swapped all of their draft picks, so it's funny that you quoted them.
Usually these commissioner threads sound complicated but are actually pretty simple. This one is the opposite, I think. When you really think about it, there isn't a satisfying solution, though at the moment if I had to rule I'd say you're wrong. the guy getting the 12th overall pick should get the waiver priority that comes with it. But like I said, I could make a pretty strong argument either way, which is why it's tricky.
ETA: I think I got my posters mixed up. Hard to keep track of who's arguing for what here. Apologies if I had you on the wrong side of the debate.
No, the point of doing waiver priority this way is to help the owner whose draft spot meant he had an overall worse group of picks to start with.If the owner with pick #1 made a fair trade, he still has a more valuable set of picks after the trade is done. If he doesn't, well that's his fault and it doesn't really change matters for the waiver priority. He had the better fortune to start with, he blew it on his own.
This is the same idea I just had and it convinced me that the owners should keep their original waiver priorities. To rule otherwise would effectively be valuing the sides of the trade, which is not something a commissioner should do. We have to assume that the price of keeping the waiver priority is built into the fifth rounder that was exchanged; however, if the owner who traded down was under the impression that he'd be getting the better waiver priority as part of the deal, he may have misvalued this and has a somewhat legitimate gripe. There's little you can do about it now, though, except to write a better rule for next year.I know the OP's pretty much decided already, but I'll just add that this is a strong point. I'd been thinking about this case only, where I think it's reasonable to talk about the teams trading their position in the "draft order". But if teams trade individual picks all over the place, then there really isn't any clear "draft order" left post-trading.
I think there are a lot of strong cases for retaining the original waiver order. This is one. This went how I expected it to go. Sorry for not making it a bit clearer but it was worked out and most see it the way I expected it to be seen.
I, too, got caught up in trying to interpret the "spirit" of the rules, which led me down the road to thinking the waiver prioirities should be swapped. But in reality it would be totally ambiguous how and when to swap waiver priorities whenever a trade involving draft picks occurred. I'm not usually a fan of slippery-slope arguments but in this case there would really be no way to rule in favor of swapping the waivers and then generalize that into a useful rule that could apply to all situations.
I also think this is an excellent point. I got caught up in thinking that because the rule was ambiguously worded, then either interpretation was equally valid, but I think Greg's interpretation is more reasonable than the alternative.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/m/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}
This is all the explanation needed. I don't understand the confusion.
This is tricky. I would think that the draft order was determined before the trade happened. Otherwise, there could not have been a trade of draft order. Unless the waiver position was explicitly specified as part of the deal, all that was traded were the picks. This seems to me to be an extension of any other trade - if I trade someone round 1 picks, it doesn't mean we're also trading round 2 picks unless we specify that. Thus, if we trade a series of picks, we're not also trading waiver order unless it is specified.That being said, because of the ambiguity of the rules, I think a reasonable case could be made for both sides. One could argue that there is a difference between "the owner who is alotted the 12th pick in the draft" (i.e., this is determined before the trade)and "the owner who drafts the 12th pick" (i.e., this would suggest the actual drafting owner)and"the owner with the 12th pick" (which could be either)The tiebreaker to me is what would have happened if they had just traded round 1 picks? My guess is that the guy who gave up an extra pick for the #1 pick would still get the waiver slot, but whichever way you rule on that question would give you the spirit of the rule, I think. Good luck!
I agree. they traded draft picks. not waiver wire positions.in most leagues, Those are untradeable even if the draft pick moves, the waiver wire order should remain the same.
I always thought the waiver order wasn't really determined until after week 1 results anyway. Teams are 'racked and stacked' based upon W-L, then least pts scored, etc. Another topic for another thread I guess
If you have waivers before week 1, then you can't use week 1 results since they haven't happened yet. So people use something like draft order, or previous season worst to first.I always thought the waiver order wasn't really determined until after week 1 results anyway. Teams are 'racked and stacked' based upon W-L, then least pts scored, etc. Another topic for another thread I guess
ah yes, sorry...I've always used first come first serve prior to season starting.If you have waivers before week 1, then you can't use week 1 results since they haven't happened yet. So people use something like draft order, or previous season worst to first.I always thought the waiver order wasn't really determined until after week 1 results anyway. Teams are 'racked and stacked' based upon W-L, then least pts scored, etc. Another topic for another thread I guess
Would your answer change if it was 30 or 40 picks were traded?This was NOT a one pick for one pick trade a 5th round pick as a sweetner. It WAS two draft slots exchanged for the ENTIRE draft.Amazing how few people read and comprehend before responding. The poll is completely invalid because of the poorly explained OP.'[icon] said:
Same here. Why should anyone get special treatment when the draft itself is fair?'CokeZero said:ah yes, sorry...I've always used first come first serve prior to season starting.'Greg Russell said:If you have waivers before week 1, then you can't use week 1 results since they haven't happened yet. So people use something like draft order, or previous season worst to first.'CokeZero said:I always thought the waiver order wasn't really determined until after week 1 results anyway. Teams are 'racked and stacked' based upon W-L, then least pts scored, etc. Another topic for another thread I guess'PatsFanCT said:
This. And I can't believe 15 people voted the other way. Wow.
I voted that way as I read it as they did trade draft spots. Don't really care either way but it seems to me if you trade draft spots with someone and don't specify what happens with the waiver priority that it should go with the guy who ended up drafting in the draft slot. Though I can see both sides of the arguement...the two people involved should've laid that out when they did the trade.
This thread is funny. There is no "effectively" about it as the two people did trade draft slots for the entire draft. So they actually traded draft slots and the person who had the 1st pick received a 5th as compensation to do so.
But that 5th round compensatory pick is exactly why it's "effectively" and not "actually". Look at it this way: we assume that drafting out of the 12 hole is worse than drafting out of the 1 hole - that's why the guy with the 12th pick gets the earlier waiver priority, to make up for this difference. Say drafting #1 overall has a "value" of 100, and drafting #12 overall has a "value" of 80. Getting the first waiver pick is how you make up that missing 20 points of "value."
They didn't agree to swap draft slots. They agreed to trade a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, etc for a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, etc.
