Rules, Regs, and Scoring

[aaawall91]

Why can't be draft less than 30 players? I'm just thinking it will be trading a bit complicated, especially when future picks come into the picture.

[Calyxes]

I like playoffs in weeks 14-16 as well.

I like this and the the TD's fumble return shouls get 6

[Devil Doc]

Why can't be draft less than 30 players? I'm just thinking it will be trading a bit complicated, especially when future picks come into the picture.

We are all a pretty smart group, I think we can handle it.

[thriftyrocker]

DD,

If you let the conditional draft pick trade go through, might be good to set some guidelines for what conditions are acceptable. No rush, but would be nice.

Like I sometimes see "1st if a playoff team, 2nd if not a playoff team" conditions. This could be hard to manage for sure, so I want to see what all you're willing to put up with

[Cowboys 4 life]

DD,

If you let the conditional draft pick trade go through, might be good to set some guidelines for what conditions are acceptable. No rush, but would be nice.

Like I sometimes see "1st if a playoff team, 2nd if not a playoff team" conditions. This could be hard to manage for sure, so I want to see what all you're willing to put up with

Agreed. I completely forgot about the drafting 30 players. All the trades of 2012 picks have to be equal to ensure you draft 30 players. You can throw whatever 2013 picks you want but the 2012 must be equal.

What Indi meant by better of the 2 was instead of the 2013 1:03 I traded DD for he wanted the 1:02. Technically those will most likely be a different number because they depend on where the original owner finishes in this case that would be me since the 1:02 was mine.

I think the trades should be specific with no clauses like mentioned above.

[aaawall91]

Not a clause fan personally, but I can move with majority rule.

[Devil Doc]

I would much rather have it be a straight forward trade. Part of the risk of recieving/sending a future draft pick, is being unsure where it may land. I understand that desire to want the higher draft pick without a doubt, but to me that's one of the risks taken. Having a clause in a trade can get complicated in the future, and I would like to avoid as many complications as possible.


Edit:

After further thinking about this, I would have to be convinced fairly hard to allow "conditions" in trades.

Trading players/draft picks is taking a risk, regardless of who/what is involved. At this point, I can't allow "conditions" to be part of trades, as I said before, that I believe it will cause much confusion and eventual complications.

[joejlitz]

I would much rather have it be a straight forward trade. Part of the risk of recieving/sending a future draft pick, is being unsure where it may land. I understand that desire to want the higher draft pick without a doubt, but to me that's one of the risks taken. Having a clause in a trade can get complicated in the future, and I would like to avoid as many complications as possible.


Edit:

After further thinking about this, I would have to be convinced fairly hard to allow "conditions" in trades.

Trading players/draft picks is taking a risk, regardless of who/what is involved. At this point, I can't allow "conditions" to be part of trades, as I said before, that I believe it will cause much confusion and eventual complications.

I would like to make it more specific and remove all confusion.
When trading picks, we need to say (for example)
C4L gives
2013 third round pick (owned by C4L) and 2013 first round pick (originally from Devil Doc)

joejlitz gives
OTC, 2013 2nd round pick (owned by joejlitz) and 2013 5th round pick (originally from aaawall91)

That way, there is no confusion on either side as to who gets what. In the trade Indi and C4L made:

Indibuck gives
2012 9.08
2012 11.11

Cowboys 4 life gives
2012 10.10
2012 30:11
2013 conditional 1st round pick (best pick of the 2 available)

confirmed

Indi's receipt of the "best of 2 available" is too vague and should be disallowed. Plus, if C4L acquires three more first rounders by the end of the year, would Indi get the best of 5 first rounders, then? That would cause a lot of confusion. Especially, as C4L trades away some of those other first rounders. What order would people get for those in the upcoming draft? If he traded three more to Calyxes, MetSkinWar, and Dolfan19 they would all be fighting over who got the higher pick in their trades. If we designate a team, there is no confusion.

I just agreed to a trade with C4L for one of his other first rounders. I should know now what team that originated from. That is how they do it in the NFL. That should be mirrored here.

What do you say?

[Indibuck]

Sorry for the confusion, guys.

I would like to make clear that I want the 1st round pick that originally belonged to Devil Doc.

Doc, please make the appropriate change on flea before processing this trade.

[Devil Doc]

Thanks Joe, this is very well put.

I would much rather have it be a straight forward trade. Part of the risk of recieving/sending a future draft pick, is being unsure where it may land. I understand that desire to want the higher draft pick without a doubt, but to me that's one of the risks taken. Having a clause in a trade can get complicated in the future, and I would like to avoid as many complications as possible.


Edit:

After further thinking about this, I would have to be convinced fairly hard to allow "conditions" in trades.

Trading players/draft picks is taking a risk, regardless of who/what is involved. At this point, I can't allow "conditions" to be part of trades, as I said before, that I believe it will cause much confusion and eventual complications.

I would like to make it more specific and remove all confusion.
When trading picks, we need to say (for example)
C4L gives
2013 third round pick (owned by C4L) and 2013 first round pick (originally from Devil Doc)

joejlitz gives
OTC, 2013 2nd round pick (owned by joejlitz) and 2013 5th round pick (originally from aaawall91)

That way, there is no confusion on either side as to who gets what. In the trade Indi and C4L made:

Indibuck gives
2012 9.08
2012 11.11

Cowboys 4 life gives
2012 10.10
2012 30:11
2013 conditional 1st round pick (best pick of the 2 available)

confirmed

Indi's receipt of the "best of 2 available" is too vague and should be disallowed. Plus, if C4L acquires three more first rounders by the end of the year, would Indi get the best of 5 first rounders, then? That would cause a lot of confusion. Especially, as C4L trades away some of those other first rounders. What order would people get for those in the upcoming draft? If he traded three more to Calyxes, MetSkinWar, and Dolfan19 they would all be fighting over who got the higher pick in their trades. If we designate a team, there is no confusion.

I just agreed to a trade with C4L for one of his other first rounders. I should know now what team that originated from. That is how they do it in the NFL. That should be mirrored here.

What do you say?