In real life, when a team offers a free agent a no-trade clause, the free agent tends to prefer that over similar offers which do not include said clause.
Why can't ICA owners place bids that include no-trade clauses?
Say we had this rule in effect for the upcoming draft. Adam selects, whoever, Billy Wagner at pick 7. The owner within one pick -- at pick 8, in this case Feigh -- could offer his own pick along with a notrade clause. Thereafter, the original drafter (Adam) could match the no-trade offer to Wagner, or give Wagner to Feigh in return for Feigh's own pick 8.
If Wagner is offered a no-trade clause by either Feigh or Kirby, he is bound to appear on his owners' 13-man team until he retires, dies, or mandatorily released. So, it's a pretty hardcore commitment.
Not too complex, and would definitely add a twist to draft day. What do you all think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Presumably, the no-trade clause would allow for a player to be released, no? Assuming that's the case, I'd be open to considering such a twist.
Of course, this could have the potential of devastating the futures of owners who make bad calls on offering the no-trade clauses. While I do feel owners should be held accountable for dumb moves, I'm also in favor of parity as much as possible, and I worry about how parity might be impacted by a couple bad no-trade clauses.
Still, I'm open to further debate on this. It's intriguing.
what's the risk involved with offering a no-trade clause if the player can be released? assuming a player with a no-trade clause can be released, let's say I offer a no-trade clause to a player, and his performance does not meet my expectations. in order for the no-trade clause to hurt my team, the players performance would have to be below expectations, but not so far below expectations to the point where I would outright release the player AND not so above the point where I would outright release the player so that I think I could get something for the player in a trade with another owner. If that makes any sense at all, my fear is that you would have owners offering no-trade clauses just to move up a spot in the draft and forcing the owner with the previous pick to do the same just to protect something they already have. will there be a limit on how many no-trade clauses can be offered? Tom's statement that "it's a pretty hardcore commitment" leads me to believe he was not thinking players with no-trade clauses could be released.
I am against the no-trade clauses. Roster flexibility is key and I think this would only encourage owners who are out of contention to be less involved if the season goes on and they have a bunch of no-trade players.
My idea was that no-trade clause players could not be released.
If an owner knew that they couldn't trade or release a player, that they were bound to placing said player on their 13-man team until retirement or their next MR round (or death, I guess), giving a player a no-trade clause would be rare and serious.
To Meer's point about appreciating a team's flexibility, these would be totally voluntary. No one would ever force you to offer a no-trade.
I don't think a limit on notrade offers is a bad idea.
As far as Feigh's point, there would be a small administrative hassle. I guess the 2 or 3 players that have been given a notrade might have to have asterisks by their names on the commissioner's note.
The big deal -- good or bad -- is that it adds a risk/reward dynamic to the draft. You plop down a risk, roster inflexibility, you get a reward - a player you couldn't have otherwise drafted.
If you're naturally risk-averse, this might not be something you want to consider, and that's ok. I'm just throwing it out there. More things to think about is not a bad thing.
Since roster flexibility is my trademark, this is something I'd probably never use. I'm personally not interested in the concept of marrying yourself to a player, so I wouldn't be interested in pursing this ...
Post a Comment