Lucky17's Yahoo! FBB H2H League: Trading picks/Playoff roster moves

[hpantazo]

Which package would be easier to deal and land a solid player come 2012 draft day?

Tim Duncan

or

Tim Duncan + 2012 first +2013 fist

Exactly. Allowing the trading of next year's picks would also help the teams who have old but talented players. They can easily trade off older guys for young talent when packaged with a couple of 1st rounders. Otherwise they likely watch the player retire and get nothing in return, or trade him for a benchwarmer.

If the team trading away Duncan is a contender, getting Duncan and their 1st is ok, but getting Duncan and 2012 plus 2013's 1st gives you the possibility that in 2013 their 1st may be a top 10 pick instead of a late 1st.

In any case, at least we are actually getting ready for a season and can see how each of our strategies fair instead of going back and forth on hypotheticals during an endless lockout.

[Lucky17]

Which package would be easier to deal and land a solid player come 2012 draft day?

Tim Duncan

or

Tim Duncan + 2012 first +2013 fist

GM can still package the 2012 first with Duncan, so that's a little bit of a strawman argument.

Is trading a 2013 first rounder to move from the #5 to the #2 pick in the 2012 draft a fair deal? I don't think there's any way to definitively answer that. What if that 2013 1st ends up being the #1 overall? What if it's the 20th overall?

I understand the self-determinist/libertarian point of view: GMs should be able to make whatever moves they believe will improve their team. However, I think the aforementioned Ted Stepien thought he was doing the same.

I'm still not convinced trading picks on draft day is a good idea, but if the votes support a change, I'm not going to stand in the way.

[barefacedmonk]

Which package would be easier to deal and land a solid player come 2012 draft day?

Tim Duncan

or

Tim Duncan + 2012 first +2013 fist

GM can still package the 2012 first with Duncan, so that's a little bit of a strawman argument.

Is trading a 2013 first rounder to move from the #5 to the #2 pick in the 2012 draft a fair deal? I don't think there's any way to definitively answer that. What if that 2013 1st ends up being the #1 overall? What if it's the 20th overall?

I understand the self-determinist/libertarian point of view: GMs should be able to make whatever moves they believe will improve their team. However, I think the aforementioned Ted Stepien thought he was doing the same.

I'm still not convinced trading picks on draft day is a good idea, but if the votes support a change, I'm not going to stand in the way.

When the older guys are about to retire, a first rounder alone may not be enough to get any value...tack on two firsts and the same player becomes more attractive.

[barefacedmonk]

Assuming only GMs have voted, 12 of them are already in favour.

[barefacedmonk]

Another thing I don't understand is, why is rebuilding being frowned upon by some GMs...yet a "win now" approach is not. Take for example, Kane's team...he is going to have a hard time moving a lot of the players next year (a 34 year old Dirk Nowitzki will be his best asset)...as they get older, his team's production will continue to decline...a rebuilding team will at least have young players that could potentially turn into solid players and/or stars.

[Lucky17]

Another thing I don't understand is, why is rebuilding being frowned upon by some GMs...yet a "win now" approach is not. Take for example, Kane's team...he is going to have a hard time moving a lot of the players next year (a 34 year old Dirk Nowitzki will be his best asset)...as they get older, his team's production will continue to decline...a rebuilding team will at least have young players that could potentially turn into solid players and/or stars.

I have no problem with rebuilding. However, I'd prefer to do it through young players, rather than through the draft.

[hpantazo]

Another thing I don't understand is, why is rebuilding being frowned upon by some GMs...yet a "win now" approach is not. Take for example, Kane's team...he is going to have a hard time moving a lot of the players next year (a 34 year old Dirk Nowitzki will be his best asset)...as they get older, his team's production will continue to decline...a rebuilding team will at least have young players that could potentially turn into solid players and/or stars.

It's all a matter of opinion, and no offense to Kane, he may do a better job as a GM than I will, but looking at his roster I don't see his team wining now or in the near future. I think my roster before going into full rebuild was actually better than his is now. I didn't want to get stuck in mediocrity, so I went the other way. We will see how things work out.

[barefacedmonk]

Another thing I don't understand is, why is rebuilding being frowned upon by some GMs...yet a "win now" approach is not. Take for example, Kane's team...he is going to have a hard time moving a lot of the players next year (a 34 year old Dirk Nowitzki will be his best asset)...as they get older, his team's production will continue to decline...a rebuilding team will at least have young players that could potentially turn into solid players and/or stars.

I have no problem with rebuilding. However, I'd prefer to do it through young players, rather than through the draft.

That's fine...but some GMs may decide to do it by acquiring picks in a loaded draft. Who is to say their approach is not as good as yours?

[Lucky17]

Another thing I don't understand is, why is rebuilding being frowned upon by some GMs...yet a "win now" approach is not. Take for example, Kane's team...he is going to have a hard time moving a lot of the players next year (a 34 year old Dirk Nowitzki will be his best asset)...as they get older, his team's production will continue to decline...a rebuilding team will at least have young players that could potentially turn into solid players and/or stars.

I have no problem with rebuilding. However, I'd prefer to do it through young players, rather than through the draft.

That's fine...but some GMs may decide to do it by acquiring picks in a loaded draft. Who is to say their approach is not as good as yours?

I've never said anything negative about what any GMs have done. I've also never claimed that my approach is better.

I may have used HP's team to make a hypothetical point, but there was no intent to criticize his strategy. I've very pleased to have an active GM like him in the league.

[barefacedmonk]

Another thing I don't understand is, why is rebuilding being frowned upon by some GMs...yet a "win now" approach is not. Take for example, Kane's team...he is going to have a hard time moving a lot of the players next year (a 34 year old Dirk Nowitzki will be his best asset)...as they get older, his team's production will continue to decline...a rebuilding team will at least have young players that could potentially turn into solid players and/or stars.

I have no problem with rebuilding. However, I'd prefer to do it through young players, rather than through the draft.

That's fine...but some GMs may decide to do it by acquiring picks in a loaded draft. Who is to say their approach is not as good as yours?

I've never said anything negative about what any GMs have done. I've also never claimed that my approach is better.

I didn't mean "yours" as in your approach...I was talking in general. Sorry if that came across the wrong way.

[Kwhit10]

You know as long as an owner is active and is enjoying being in the league, I find it hard to question whatever their doing with their team as long as they have a reason they believe in.  There is a reason it's called fantasy.

[hpantazo]

You know as long as an owner is active and is enjoying being in the league, I find it hard to question whatever their doing with their team as long as they have a reason they believe in.  There is a reason it's called fantasy.

well put Kwhit

[Roy H.]

You know as long as an owner is active and is enjoying being in the league, I find it hard to question whatever their doing with their team as long as they have a reason they believe in.  There is a reason it's called fantasy.

well put Kwhit

+1 as well. 

[ChampKind]

Seriously? Five pages of debate on this in the past day, including the bulk of a weekend of college football conference championships? I don't know if it makes things better or worse knowing that most of you have wives and girlfriends at home .

If Lucky can handle the paperwork behind tracking deals, I'm fine with trading any and all picks that a team is entitled to. The only concern would revolve around absenteeism and drawing new owners into a league if the only teams available have been ravaged (to be fair, not really a concern in the past, but could be going forward).

If the commish can handle tracking, then I'm fine with whatever. Consider me abstaining for now.

[Roy H.]

Seriously? Five pages of debate on this in the past day, including the bulk of a weekend of college football conference championships? I don't know if it makes things better or worse knowing that most of you have wives and girlfriends at home .

Most of the debate seemed to be between midnight and 2:00am on a Friday night, if that makes you feel any better.