Trading of Draft Picks? (1 Viewer)

[Mr. Fusion]

I want to get some discussion around this point from those of you in the Shark Pool. Please add any comments that you feel support your position. You can read the background or just skip to the explanation of the question at the bottom.

Our league has been around for 11 years, with a core group of owner and the occassional guy who leaves and is replaced by another quality owner. For years we were allowed to trade picks in the draft. For example, I give you my 1st and 2nd round choice for your 1st and 2nd round choice while the rest of the time we maintain our draft position. A few years ago, the commissioner decided that this is no longer allowed and that you must either trade players or trade your pick throughout the entire draft.

It was brought up for vote a couple of weeks ago, with the addendum that you must maintain a pick in each round. This is to prevent homers to trade their entire draft for one player (like Mike Ditka). It passed with only 2 votes against it and the commish gave it thought for a few days and then declared today that trading of individual draft picks will not be allowed because:

"If I allow the trading of individual draft picks, it has the potential to only benefit certain people in the draft. Therefore it is a change that would not benefit everyone. This creates imbalance, and jeopardizes the parity that I strive to

create."

Should owners be allowed to trade individual draft picks as they choose or should they be locked into their spot for the whole draft, and why?

Thanks guys!

 

[Nagle2998]

That makes no sense to me I mean if you picking 3 but your favorite player will be there at 8 why shouldn't you be allowed to move down and add an extra pick or two. If he thinks one of your owners isn't smart enough to make a good decision either boot him or to bad for the other teams who didn't take advantage of him.

 

[massraider]

Perhaps the stupidest rule I have ever heard of.

 

[werdnoynek]

Perhaps the stupidest rule I have ever heard of.

as well as the most ridiculous explaination for the rule being implemented... ALL trades only benefit certain people FFS!

 

[Shock6822]

You should be allowed to trade whatever picks you want haha...there's no rational argument against it

 

[Pickle Rody]

The commissioner of this league has no clue. It doesn't even matter the type of league it is, he is clueless. There are ways to try to insure parity in leagues, but this (not allowing the trading of draft picks) is definitely not one of them. Having the ability to trade draft picks benefits everyone. It just depends on whether or not everyone decides to trade picks or not. Does this league forbid trading of players also? Trading of players only benefits those teams that actually trade players, not the other teams.

In addition, no commissioner should EVER reverse a league-wide vote simply because he doesn't like it. Believe me, this is exactly what he did here, because his excuse is so pathetic. How does this guy even remain the commissioner for 11 years? Why haven't you abandoned this league long ago?

I have bolted from leagues quick-as-crap when a commissioner starts disregarding what the league wants and instead tries to implement what he would rather have. I suggest you do the same. And, while you're at it, start a new league and invite all the owners from the league that you want to keep playing with.

 

[Andrew Garda]

Yeah I agree - this is bunk. If he had a good supporting reason as to why I would listen. But 'because it benefits some' is the lamest of excuses.

HE didn't like the rule - the only question here is - was he one of the two votes against it?

Not saying you couldnt have a good reason to oppose it (I'd like to hear it though) but his reasoning is vague and almost evasive. You can't do either when you go against the majority of the league - you'd better have an air-tight reason.

He doesn't.

:FAIL:

 

[Holy Schneikes]

This has got to be a joke or fishing trip. Why have a vote at all if the league isn't going to adhere to it's results?

If a league as a whole doesn't want to trade draft picks, well then I guess that's OK (though I wouldn't care for it). But doesn't the league have a constitution that says how new rules are going to be implemented?

I would take the 12 teams that voted for the change BACK to where it was in the first place and form your own league and be done with Mr. Dictator altogether.

Woops. Someone already suggested that last bit.

 

[redBourne]

I've always been in favor of it, but have had leagues in the past where the commish decided against trading picks for different reasons than "parity". For us, it's always been an issue of keeping the draft fun and in order. We don't want the complexity of keeping track of 10 different trades and the draft order at a live draft. I also don't think it should all fall to the responsibility of the commish to keep it straight. But then, you have too many people trying to manage what's going on and it becomes a headache. Maybe we're not as "serious" as others, but whatever.

Also, even if I did trade my entire draft for 1 player, what is the recipient of those draft picks going to do with 2x the amount of players on their team than the roster limits will allow? We can only have x number of players on our team. Good luck trading half your team away before the start of the season because your roster is as big as an nfl squad.

 

[FantasyMan]

Perhaps the stupidest rule I have ever heard of.

As if requiring a team to have a pick in every round wasn't bad enough of a rule, the total no trading of draft picks is just terrible. On top of that, it's not the commish's job to dictate what the rules are. It's his job to see that the rules which the league has voted on are followed.

 

[brownhelmets]

There are ways around this I guess. However, trading draft picks during the draft really isn't any different then trading players. I think it is a terrible rule based on laziness.

 

[Andrew Garda]

I've always been in favor of it, but have had leagues in the past where the commish decided against trading picks for different reasons than "parity". For us, it's always been an issue of keeping the draft fun and in order. We don't want the complexity of keeping track of 10 different trades and the draft order at a live draft. I also don't think it should all fall to the responsibility of the commish to keep it straight. But then, you have too many people trying to manage what's going on and it becomes a headache. Maybe we're not as "serious" as others, but whatever.Also, even if I did trade my entire draft for 1 player, what is the recipient of those draft picks going to do with 2x the amount of players on their team than the roster limits will allow? We can only have x number of players on our team. Good luck trading half your team away before the start of the season because your roster is as big as an nfl squad.

See THIS is all arguments I'd buy or at least listen to. Parity isn't the concern. Problems tracking it, complexity, defining parameters - all reasons to maybe say nay - but parity?

 

[FTRWRTR]

Sounds to me your commish is well intentioned but doing the wrong thing in attempt to save ppl from themselves. The best way to learn what to do in ff is by learning what not to do and if someone wants to give up ton of picks for their favorite NFL player who is only a mediocre ff player then let them, I guarantee you that owner won't do that again and if he does the commish has to man up and replace that owner in order to keep the league competitive. Also I'd tell the commish to either reverse that ruling or I'm gone. I couldn't be a part of a league that prevents me from improving my team when I'm not doing anything wrong like misleading an owner about a player's injury status or trying to collude with an owner

 

[GreatLakesMike]

The commissioner of this league has no clue. It doesn't even matter the type of league it is, he is clueless. There are ways to try to insure parity in leagues, but this (not allowing the trading of draft picks) is definitely not one of them. Having the ability to trade draft picks benefits everyone. It just depends on whether or not everyone decides to trade picks or not. Does this league forbid trading of players also? Trading of players only benefits those teams that actually trade players, not the other teams.

In addition, no commissioner should EVER reverse a league-wide vote simply because he doesn't like it. Believe me, this is exactly what he did here, because his excuse is so pathetic. How does this guy even remain the commissioner for 11 years? Why haven't you abandoned this league long ago?

I have bolted from leagues quick-as-crap when a commissioner starts disregarding what the league wants and instead tries to implement what he would rather have. I suggest you do the same. And, while you're at it, start a new league and invite all the owners from the league that you want to keep playing with.

 

[Zoomanji]

In one league that I used to play in...

 

[Mark Wimer]

The commissioner of this league has no clue. It doesn't even matter the type of league it is, he is clueless. There are ways to try to insure parity in leagues, but this (not allowing the trading of draft picks) is definitely not one of them. Having the ability to trade draft picks benefits everyone. It just depends on whether or not everyone decides to trade picks or not. Does this league forbid trading of players also? Trading of players only benefits those teams that actually trade players, not the other teams. In addition, no commissioner should EVER reverse a league-wide vote simply because he doesn't like it. Believe me, this is exactly what he did here, because his excuse is so pathetic. How does this guy even remain the commissioner for 11 years? Why haven't you abandoned this league long ago?I have bolted from leagues quick-as-crap when a commissioner starts disregarding what the league wants and instead tries to implement what he would rather have. I suggest you do the same. And, while you're at it, start a new league and invite all the owners from the league that you want to keep playing with.

No way the arbitrary banning of trading draft picks makes sense. Sounds like a lazy commissioner who doesn't want the hassle of adjusting the drafting software to reflect trades.

 

[JPeso]

I'd be gone.

 

[Grigs Allmoon]

I suppose I could understand it if it were a beginner league (think "what does D/ST stand for?" type of owners) or if there was a non-timed live draft, but the solution to the latter would be to impose a time limit per pick. Other than that, it sounds like a classic case of control-freak commissioner.

 

[fridayfrenzy]

Seems like a dumb rule cause two owners could come to an agreement where they basically trade picks but the original owner would just be drafting the player the other team wanted.

After the draft, they trade the players in question.

If I was an owner in that leaue, I'd probably do this exact scenario with someone in the league out of principle of showing how dumb the rule actually is.

Whats next? No trading of players until Week 3 or all together to deter the above from occurring?

 

[DansRams]

Perhaps the stupidest rule I have ever heard of.

 

[Tchula]

well the only reason i can think of commish's decision to look at the trade dominator. For example picks 1 and 24 are more valuable than picks 12-13, etc. Picks 25 and 48 are more valuable than 36 and 37, etc. In other words, if you dont already use 3rr, you should be.

 

[Sinrman]

Sounds like a dictatorship to me. So a vote is taken, it passes, and he...overrides it?! Is Hugo Chavez playing fantasy football now?

I see no problem with trading picks. Every league is different and each person's view on trading picks is different, but I think it spices up trades. Just because you have certain picks doesn't mean the players you take will pan out. In fact, just like in the NFL, a large % will never pan out. So who cares?

Ditka-esque trades are a bit questionable, as are trades that allow you to trade more than 2 years into the future (like right now being able to trade 2012+ picks). That, I would question, but otherwise...

 

[DoubleG]

This is wrong on so many levels:

1) Obviously, for all the reasons listed, owners (lest they be called puppets) should be allowed to run their team as they see fit.

2) The league voted on the rule. Unless the commish specifically (as stated by league rules) has veto power, the vote should stand - if it doesn't, I'd leave the league. (Actually, I'd leave the league if the commish was allowed to veto something 80%+ of the other owners were in favor of...)

3) Why the qualifier that everyone even has to have a pick in each round? I'm in a dynatsy league. I traded my 3rd round pick away last season to land Mendenhall. I have no 3rd round pick - so what??

BTW, I see your commish has dropped by the thread and voted.

 

[TWP]

Add me to the camp that would respond "You are an idiot. I quit the league."

 

[kurtrudder]

I'd be gone.

exactly. I feel for the OP since this is a long term league of 11 years but you need to get out.....this is rubbish and just a lazy commish IMO

 

[ookook]

Just saying "I would quit" ignores the fact that many of us have interpersonal relationships with other owners.

Although I dislike the context provided of the commish being unilateral, my own preference in a redraft is for ther to be no trading of draft picks. Slows down and complicates matters too much .

Dynasty makes it necessary.

 

[Warrior]

This league sucks.

 

[HenryMuto]

Unless your playing in a high stakes league for lots of money with people you have no idea who they are then you should be allowed to trade picks.

 

[DoubleG]

I want to get some discussion around this point from those of you in the Shark Pool. Please add any comments that you feel support your position. You can read the background or just skip to the explanation of the question at the bottom.

Our league has been around for 11 years, with a core group of owner and the occassional guy who leaves and is replaced by another quality owner. For years we were allowed to trade picks in the draft. For example, I give you my 1st and 2nd round choice for your 1st and 2nd round choice while the rest of the time we maintain our draft position. A few years ago, the commissioner decided that this is no longer allowed and that you must either trade players or trade your pick throughout the entire draft.

It was brought up for vote a couple of weeks ago, with the addendum that you must maintain a pick in each round. This is to prevent homers to trade their entire draft for one player (like Mike Ditka). It passed with only 2 votes against it and the commish gave it thought for a few days and then declared today that trading of individual draft picks will not be allowed because:

"If I allow the trading of individual draft picks, it has the potential to only benefit certain people in the draft. Therefore it is a change that would not benefit everyone. This creates imbalance, and jeopardizes the parity that I strive to

create."

First off, by definition a commissioner is:"an official chosen by an athletic association to exercise broad administrative or judicial authority"

PLEASE NOTE: Nowhere does it say "legislative" - in other words, the commish organizes and makes judgements. Deciding in the face of an 80% majority is not a judicial decision - it is a dictatorship. In your case he is not enforcing rules or deciding how they are fairly applied or interpretted - he is making them and changing them at his whim. Is it not every owner's league?

Secondly, there's a whole bunch of "I" in his reasoning. Typically, when our league changes a rule there's alot more "we" than "I". That also carries with it the assumption that he is smarter than the rest of the league ("I know you all voted but I know what's best here.")

Thirdly, is he not also an owner in the league? In general, I don't like when a fellow competitor demands too much authority. While in this case it may not seemingly work to his advantage, in general it can be a poor path to trod. If the league has voted (incidentally who called for the vote? who allowed it and why? do the league rules or by-laws say anything about the commish's power in this case?)

Fourth, the point was made that the league has been around, many are friends or possible relatives, etc. - then someone knows the commish and should tell him he's coming off as a lazy (or authoritarian) jerk who his going against the wishes of the entire league. If he's friends with the people in the league, he just pissed off 8 of them.

 

[Truman]

Your commissioner can lick my balls. Please let him know.

 

[SSOG]

You should be allowed to trade whatever picks you want haha...there's no rational argument against it

I've got a perfectly rational argument against it. I'm in a league where you aren't allowed to trade individual picks because it's a pretty casual league and the commish simply doesn't want to deal with the administrative nightmare of handling trades of individual picks. Which is fine by me. I love my league-mates, but some of them have trouble keeping track of whose pick it is even without trades muddying the waters. Our commissioner is already devoting enough time to the league and not getting a dime out of it, so I'm not going to raise a fuss if he implements a couple of rules designed to make his life easier.

 

[Truman]

You should be allowed to trade whatever picks you want haha...there's no rational argument against it

I've got a perfectly rational argument against it. I'm in a league where you aren't allowed to trade individual picks because it's a pretty casual league and the commish simply doesn't want to deal with the administrative nightmare of handling trades of individual picks. Which is fine by me. I love my league-mates, but some of them have trouble keeping track of whose pick it is even without trades muddying the waters. Our commissioner is already devoting enough time to the league and not getting a dime out of it, so I'm not going to raise a fuss if he implements a couple of rules designed to make his life easier.

If it's not online I suppose this is a valid reason. Must be tough trading through US Postal service.

 

[SSOG]

You should be allowed to trade whatever picks you want haha...there's no rational argument against it

I've got a perfectly rational argument against it. I'm in a league where you aren't allowed to trade individual picks because it's a pretty casual league and the commish simply doesn't want to deal with the administrative nightmare of handling trades of individual picks. Which is fine by me. I love my league-mates, but some of them have trouble keeping track of whose pick it is even without trades muddying the waters. Our commissioner is already devoting enough time to the league and not getting a dime out of it, so I'm not going to raise a fuss if he implements a couple of rules designed to make his life easier.

If it's not online I suppose this is a valid reason. Must be tough trading through US Postal service.

It's online, but not through MFL or anything. We snail-draft on a message board. We could switch, but we've been snail-drafting on the same board for a decade now, so at this point it's sort of tradition.

 

[Keepers]

While the rule is bad, the real issue is that the commish feels he has the power to do what he wants. He is one team, and only has one vote, if it is run as a dictatorship, get out fast.

 

[Uruk-Hai]

I've always been in favor of it, but have had leagues in the past where the commish decided against trading picks for different reasons than "parity". For us, it's always been an issue of keeping the draft fun and in order. We don't want the complexity of keeping track of 10 different trades and the draft order at a live draft. I also don't think it should all fall to the responsibility of the commish to keep it straight. But then, you have too many people trying to manage what's going on and it becomes a headache. Maybe we're not as "serious" as others, but whatever.

Also, even if I did trade my entire draft for 1 player, what is the recipient of those draft picks going to do with 2x the amount of players on their team than the roster limits will allow? We can only have x number of players on our team. Good luck trading half your team away before the start of the season because your roster is as big as an nfl squad.

For me, keeping track during a live draft and roster limits would be the biggest reasons against allowing trading. However, there are ways to compromise:

1. Select draft order in advance (say, a month) & allow trading picks up until the first player is selected. Once 1.01 goes, no more trading during the draft.

2. Trades have be evenly balanced - a number of picks for the exact same number of picks. As EG said, otherwise you have a guy with too many picks and another with not enough.

The bigger issue to me is your commish overriding the league's wishes. Good luck.

 

[FUBAR]

I've always been in favor of it, but have had leagues in the past where the commish decided against trading picks for different reasons than "parity". For us, it's always been an issue of keeping the draft fun and in order. We don't want the complexity of keeping track of 10 different trades and the draft order at a live draft. I also don't think it should all fall to the responsibility of the commish to keep it straight. But then, you have too many people trying to manage what's going on and it becomes a headache. Maybe we're not as "serious" as others, but whatever.

Also, even if I did trade my entire draft for 1 player, what is the recipient of those draft picks going to do with 2x the amount of players on their team than the roster limits will allow? We can only have x number of players on our team. Good luck trading half your team away before the start of the season because your roster is as big as an nfl squad.

For me, keeping track during a live draft and roster limits would be the biggest reasons against allowing trading. However, there are ways to compromise:

1. Select draft order in advance (say, a month) & allow trading picks up until the first player is selected. Once 1.01 goes, no more trading during the draft.

2. Trades have be evenly balanced - a number of picks for the exact same number of picks. As EG said, otherwise you have a guy with too many picks and another with not enough.

The bigger issue to me is your commish overriding the league's wishes. Good luck.

#2 works for me. Could just go auction and avoid this issue.

 

[TWP]

The big problem with the commish is not the decision he reached, it's the method and the logic that he employed in reaching it. And that is the problem with the league. I mean, if you're not going to care at all about how the league is run, fine, stay in it for the comraderie. But then dont post questions about how the league is run on a message board. If you care about how it's run, leave -- it's run like crap.

 

[soothsayer]

I'd be gone.

 

[soothsayer]

This league sucks.

 

[redBourne]

I don't get why so many people feel that it's easy to walk away from a friendly league that you've spent 11 years in. Regardless, I would express my thoughts openly with the entire league in a forum that everyone can get to and see. Perhaps a mass email. If not, then contacting the commish directly is the way to go. If he was ballsy enough to over rule a league vote, than you shouldn't have any qualms about confronting him in the open about your ideas/thoughts/suggestions.

But don't start going around the league to owners individually before causing an uprising. This will only lead to bitterness. It will look like you were secretly trying to gather troops behind his back. Further, once you do confront the owner publicly some of the other members who individually said they agreed are no where to be found, ducking confrontation.

You don't have to be rude or ugly. Perhaps no one else cares that as much as you that it was overruled but at least your concerns were heard. Perhaps half the league is boiling alone as well and he'll see that he was wrong.

Just let us know the outcome. I'm interested to hear.

 

[massraider]

I don't get why so many people feel that it's easy to walk away from a friendly league that you've spent 11 years in.

Totally agree, and I've put up with crap in long term leagues.What I don't get: Allowing the commish this arbitrary power. Maybe my leagues are all full of opinionated weasels (actually I know that is true), but any rule change that is considered sets off a flurry of emails, full of good opinions, arguments, and some completely off-topic insults. Any change involves a solid majority of the league (In a 12 team league, you need at least 8 votes).

Stuff like FA pickups during the playoffs, scheduling (should we add doubleheaders?), roster increase or decrease, any of that stuff is discussed, and voted on. I want to know how a league of 10-12 guys lets one guy push them around like that. Did no one speak up, and fire off an angry email to everyone?

 

[Saints-Man]

The commissioner of this league has no clue. It doesn't even matter the type of league it is, he is clueless. There are ways to try to insure parity in leagues, but this (not allowing the trading of draft picks) is definitely not one of them. Having the ability to trade draft picks benefits everyone. It just depends on whether or not everyone decides to trade picks or not. Does this league forbid trading of players also? Trading of players only benefits those teams that actually trade players, not the other teams.

In addition, no commissioner should EVER reverse a league-wide vote simply because he doesn't like it. Believe me, this is exactly what he did here, because his excuse is so pathetic. How does this guy even remain the commissioner for 11 years? Why haven't you abandoned this league long ago?

I have bolted from leagues quick-as-crap when a commissioner starts disregarding what the league wants and instead tries to implement what he would rather have. I suggest you do the same. And, while you're at it, start a new league and invite all the owners from the league that you want to keep playing with.

 

[mrip541]

Trading draft picks is just math. It's people taking advantage of others who don't know how it works.

 

[HenryMuto]

I've always been in favor of it, but have had leagues in the past where the commish decided against trading picks for different reasons than "parity". For us, it's always been an issue of keeping the draft fun and in order. We don't want the complexity of keeping track of 10 different trades and the draft order at a live draft. I also don't think it should all fall to the responsibility of the commish to keep it straight. But then, you have too many people trying to manage what's going on and it becomes a headache. Maybe we're not as "serious" as others, but whatever.

Also, even if I did trade my entire draft for 1 player, what is the recipient of those draft picks going to do with 2x the amount of players on their team than the roster limits will allow? We can only have x number of players on our team. Good luck trading half your team away before the start of the season because your roster is as big as an nfl squad.

For me, keeping track during a live draft and roster limits would be the biggest reasons against allowing trading. However, there are ways to compromise:

1. Select draft order in advance (say, a month) & allow trading picks up until the first player is selected. Once 1.01 goes, no more trading during the draft.

2. Trades have be evenly balanced - a number of picks for the exact same number of picks. As EG said, otherwise you have a guy with too many picks and another with not enough.

The bigger issue to me is your commish overriding the league's wishes. Good luck.

I ran leagues using excel spreadsheets and word document and a notebook for the drafts since 1990.Started my FFL in 1990, IFL in 1994 and CFL in 1997 and it wasn't until last year 2009 when I finally went online.

Meanwhile I used to draw picks 1 month ahead of time (still do) and let teams trade all they want. It wasn't very hard to take the name in the notebook and draw a single line through it and write another in for the trade.

Watch it's easy

Minneosta Colorado

 

[ookook]

I should mention that in the leagues I commish there are not votes: What I say goes.

I put up the money for MFL up front. I nag non- and late payers. I handle all disputes. It is my league.

Did the OP say the commish started the vote or s/he did?

My point is that leagues need not be a democracy to function. If you want to leave, please do and I will make another that looks just like you.

And I always plead for somone else to take over...

 

[DoubleG]

I should mention that in the leagues I commish there are not votes: What I say goes.

I put up the money for MFL up front. I nag non- and late payers. I handle all disputes. It is my league.

Did the OP say the commish started the vote or s/he did?

My point is that leagues need not be a democracy to function. If you want to leave, please do and I will make another that looks just like you.

And I always plead for somone else to take over...

Ahh, you must be one of the 4%.You must be loads of fun at parties.

You are correct - leagues do not need to be a democracy to function - but apprently, most people would prefer to be in a league that is.

BTW, the two bolded parts make absolutely no sense in the same post. Of course no one will take over - it's your league and anyone with a brain has already left. There's a song by Metallica called "King Nothing" - you might want to give it a spin. Have a great season guy.

 

[ookook]

I should mention that in the leagues I commish there are not votes: What I say goes.

I put up the money for MFL up front. I nag non- and late payers. I handle all disputes. It is my league.

Did the OP say the commish started the vote or s/he did?

My point is that leagues need not be a democracy to function. If you want to leave, please do and I will make another that looks just like you.

And I always plead for somone else to take over...

Ahh, you must be one of the 4%.You must be loads of fun at parties.

You are correct - leagues do not need to be a democracy to function - but apprently, most people would prefer to be in a league that is.

BTW, the two bolded parts make absolutely no sense in the same post. Of course no one will take over - it's your league and anyone with a brain has already left. There's a song by Metallica called "King Nothing" - you might want to give it a spin. Have a great season guy.

Actually, I have never really had any complaints. I am not a jerk about decisions. I ask for input and make an informed decision. The only time owners have really left is because in one we moved to an IDP dynasty format and it was more complicated than some owners were up for. There were no hard feelings.And of course, the real reason no one takes over is they do not want to do the work, which you probably would realize if you gave it a less condescending thought.

Actually, I have also never had a job where decisions were made by democratic vote. I do not require that leagues I play in have votes on anything. I just need to trust the commissioner to do what they think is best.

For example, do we really believe leagues should get to vote to revoke trades? I don't. As commish, if an owner questions I ask each party to explain their reasoning and if they have ANYTHING about how it improves their team, we are good.

Should they vote to change the rules? I dunno. If they paid a year in advance, perhaps.

 

[two_dollars]

Can you trade picks in WCoFF?

 

[massraider]

I've always been in favor of it, but have had leagues in the past where the commish decided against trading picks for different reasons than "parity". For us, it's always been an issue of keeping the draft fun and in order. We don't want the complexity of keeping track of 10 different trades and the draft order at a live draft. I also don't think it should all fall to the responsibility of the commish to keep it straight. But then, you have too many people trying to manage what's going on and it becomes a headache. Maybe we're not as "serious" as others, but whatever.

Also, even if I did trade my entire draft for 1 player, what is the recipient of those draft picks going to do with 2x the amount of players on their team than the roster limits will allow? We can only have x number of players on our team. Good luck trading half your team away before the start of the season because your roster is as big as an nfl squad.

For me, keeping track during a live draft and roster limits would be the biggest reasons against allowing trading. However, there are ways to compromise:

1. Select draft order in advance (say, a month) & allow trading picks up until the first player is selected. Once 1.01 goes, no more trading during the draft.

2. Trades have be evenly balanced - a number of picks for the exact same number of picks. As EG said, otherwise you have a guy with too many picks and another with not enough.

The bigger issue to me is your commish overriding the league's wishes. Good luck.

I ran leagues using excel spreadsheets and word document and a notebook for the drafts since 1990.Started my FFL in 1990, IFL in 1994 and CFL in 1997 and it wasn't until last year 2009 when I finally went online.

Meanwhile I used to draw picks 1 month ahead of time (still do) and let teams trade all they want. It wasn't very hard to take the name in the notebook and draw a single line through it and write another in for the trade.

Watch it's easy

Minneosta Colorado

'keeping track' must be the silliest reason I have heard for not allowing it.

 

[renesauz]

You should be allowed to trade whatever picks you want haha...there's no rational argument against it

I've got a perfectly rational argument against it. I'm in a league where you aren't allowed to trade individual picks because it's a pretty casual league and the commish simply doesn't want to deal with the administrative nightmare of handling trades of individual picks. Which is fine by me. I love my league-mates, but some of them have trouble keeping track of whose pick it is even without trades muddying the waters. Our commissioner is already devoting enough time to the league and not getting a dime out of it, so I'm not going to raise a fuss if he implements a couple of rules designed to make his life easier.

I voted "YES" to trading draft picks, but completely understand this reasoning. If it were the reasoning given by the commish, I would even be inclined to accept it...but if this were the commish's real reasoning, he should have said NO BEFORE IT WAS VOTED ON. To over-rule a significant majority vote is over-stepping the boundsa of any commish. If he doesn't want to deal with the headaches, he should step down, not over-rule.