As Dave Barry would say, we have a question for Mr. Language Person.
Today’s banner headline in the Cleveland Plain Dealer read, “Whom should the Cavs draft?”
That seems wrong to me to use “whom” instead of “who” but what do I know.
For context, the headline refers to tonight’s National Basketball Association player draft. The Cavs are the local NBA team, and they have 2 of the top 4 picks.
Does the fact that they have plural top picks make “whom” correct?
Or ain’t using whom incorrect? 
I’m not sure, but spelling grammar correctly would be a good start. 
I’m sure I screwed up something in that sentence.
Grammar.
Edit: Damn, ninjaed!
:smack::smack::smack::smack:
Mods, please fix my misspelling of grammar.
I is so ashamed. 
In formal grammar, it should be “whom”, because it’s the object of the verb “draft”. Which is correct?:
The Cavs should draft he.
The Cavs should draft him.
Most people would choose “him”, not “he”, and so “whom” is formally correct. However, most people don’t use “whom” either in speech or in writing, so (in my opinion) “who” is perfectly acceptable these days: grammar changes, and this is an example of how it does.
“Whom” is correct but “who” is common and probably can’t be fairly described as incorrect.
A quick way to determine this is to ask yourself if you would need to substitute (him/her) or (he/she) for the word (who/whom) in the sentence.
If you would say “The cavs should draft he” it would be “who”
If you would say “The cavs should draft him” it would be “whom”
ETA: ‘What **Giles **said’
What him said.
I had a lot of trouble with “who” and “whom”, until I learnt that simple rule of thumb - turn the sentence around and replace it with “he/him” and see which one sounds right. Then remember that “who” is the equivalent of “he” (a subject) and “whom” is the equivalent of “him” (an object) - easy as they even sound more alike.
Unfortunately, knowing this isn’t much help because if you use “whom” outside the most formal contexts you tend to come across as a pretentious pedant.
Kyrie Irving and Enes Kanter?
Whom should the Cavs draft?
Carl Edwards. He’s the points leader.
Well sure, but in Carl Edwards’ world of NASCAR one only “drafts” when one is trying to pass the car in front of him. “Who” or “Who” doesn’t apply. If the Cavs want someone who can pass then they’ll draft Kyrie Irving. 
This is pretty good advice. As a matter of formal grammar, “whom” is the objective case of “who” It asks questions for which the answer is “him” (or her), while “who” does the same for “he” or “she.” Who broke the window? He broke the window. Whom did the bullies beat up? They beat up him.
However, more and more in informal usage, and sometimes even in formal writing, a disjunctive *whom (expected by “proper grammar”) is rendered with “who.” “Who did he say I should give the letter to?” Insisting on a whom here sounds pedantic. though it’s the correct frorm and, to my ear at least, not overly fusty if it is used. Notice, however, that this is in cases of disjunctive structure, where the pronoun is separated from whatever it is the object of. “Whom” remains the only good choice in sentences like “The judge demanded to know for whom the property was held in trust and by whom it was administered.” You can only get away with “to who” if you’re an owl.
Another note of caution: Sometimes “who” is the proper form when there’s a sense that “this is one of those ‘whom’ situations, isn’t it?” For example, “…the man who he seemed to think was in charge” properly takes “who” – it’s the subject of “was in charge”, not the object of “seermed to think”; the entire clause is the object. “Whom” is as incorrect here as “Between you and I.”
Rules of thumb:
Replacing the sentence with he/him is no good because you are just learning a shortcut and not the actual rule. If you knew the grammar behind it you could figure anything out.
That’s the general way that native speakers learn grammar of their first language: by what sounds right, not be what follows rules. But, if you want to follow “the actual rule”, what is “the actual rule” here?
The formal rule is (as Polycarp stated) that “whom” is the objective case of “who”. (i.e. when it is the object of a verb or preposition). Colloquial usage may vary.
The problem is that modern English has such a degenerate case system (with the exception of plural and posessive forms, very few words inflect at all - other than pronouns) that most native English speakers don’t actually know what a case is, or think of it in that context unless they have experience with other foreign languages that do have extensive case systems.
Yes, but how do you know it’s the object? It comes before the verb. The rule needs to explain how you recognise a subject and an object in the various sentence patterns in English – and that’s a rule that native speakers grow up learning without knowing the rule explicitly. Compare, “Who should draft?” – a similar sentence pattern, forming a question, but now the first word is the subject, not the object. The rule isn’t that simple, and you could probably write a whole book on sentence patterns in English.
“Whom” is obsolete at this point. We know this because of all the confusion surrounding its use; were it in active use, people would know how to use it and these questions would not come up. Therefore, let it rot: It has had its day and, much like “thou” before it, its day has passed.
Wait—if something’s in active use, people hardly ever get confused about it?? I don’t think so!
It’s true that “whom” is being replaced by “who” in some situations where “whom” is the traditionally grammatically correct word. But what about something like Polycarp’s example:
The normal way to say that would be:
“The judge demanded to know who the property was held in trust for and who it was administered by.”
or even:
“The judge demanded to know who the property was held in trust for and who administered it.”
That’s true, and as you note the disjunctive “who” is common and almost expected in your first example and the first part of your second. The latter part of it, though, you’ve recast the clause to demand a nominative “who” – you might as well say “The judge demanded to know the names of the beneficiary and administrator of the property in the trust” and avoid relative pronouns altogether. My intent is to show an example where “whom” comes naturally in common written English.