Wichita/Texas

[dberner30]

WIC sends to TEX pick 1-29 in return for pick 1-26 which was used by Texas to select LB McKnight.

This will fix the selection issue for TEX and bring another MLB to the fold in WIC.

[sovstar]

Re: Wichita/Texas

WIC sends to TEX pick 1-29 in return for pick 1-26 which was used by Texas to select LB McKnight.

This will fix the selection issue for TEX and bring another MLB to the fold in WIC.

Texas gotta sign that boy first.

[dberner30]

i dont think that is a fair response. The picks are not entered into the game so there is nothing wrong with swapping the pick slots and i get the player and he chooses who he wants at 1-29.

Gonna need a commish response on this one I guess.

[sovstar]

Can't just go making new rules in the middle of the draft. We've never allowed swapping picks like this before.

[Kobeck]

I'll admit I'm slow.

Texas owns McKnight at this time so WIC is swapping 1.29 for McKnight correct?

[Cringer]

Not happening. Rules are rules.

He missed his pick, the pick was made for him. It was not a utility bug or mess up, that is the only thing I would try to change.

[Coder]

I think what they would like to, is to make it so that there was a pick-switch rather than a trade involving the actual player.

FWIW, it doesn't really matter to me.

[sovstar]

Allowing a trade like this would open a Pandora's box. It would basically mean that any players already picked could be traded as long as Cringer hadn't already entered them into the game. Cringer and I talked about this our first offseason and decided it wasn't something we wanted to allow - maybe it needs to be written down.

[Warhammer]

I understand where Cringer and Jeff are coming from. What the two parties can do is draft who each wanted to draft, sign the contracts and then trade the players.

[dberner30]

I wont be doing a sign and trade. Cap ramifications for that approach are not acceptable. I guess we are temporarily on hold for the time being.

[MrBigglesworth]

I understand where Cringer and Jeff are coming from. What the two parties can do is draft who each wanted to draft, sign the contracts and then trade the players.

That's genius.

Until, of course, one busts on Volatility Day.

[Warhammer]

I understand where Cringer and Jeff are coming from. What the two parties can do is draft who each wanted to draft, sign the contracts and then trade the players.

That's genius.

Until, of course, one busts on Volatility Day.

Actually dberner is right because of the cap hit in the second year of the deal when the bonus money gets brought forward.

[Kobeck]

Just out of curosity how much CAP differance is there from 1.26 to 1.29?

I assume it is something but would still think they would be comparable CAP wise.

But I think I get it now. Cannot be TRADED till after TC but if picks swapped then trade goes down BEFORE TC

[Warhammer]

Just out of curosity how much CAP differance is there from 1.26 to 1.29?

I assume it is something but would still think they would be comparable CAP wise.

But I think I get it now. Cannot be TRADED till after TC but if picks swapped then trade goes down BEFORE TC

Main issue with the trade later is the bonus money. The later year's bonus comes due in the second year.

[dberner30]

Just out of curosity how much CAP differance is there from 1.26 to 1.29?

I assume it is something but would still think they would be comparable CAP wise.

But I think I get it now. Cannot be TRADED till after TC but if picks swapped then trade goes down BEFORE TC

no you wouldnt do sign and trade because while the overall deals would be similar the cap consequence could be ugly. Assuming its a 4 or 5 yr deal then you get yrs 2-4 or 2-5 bonuses accelerated into next years cap. That is why you would either do it as pick swap or not at all. The commish has decided this isnt allowed so this post isnt to argue that issue but to make sure you understand the cap consequences of cutting a freshly signed draft pick.