3.12 Jack Bech WR LV
@Omniscient is on the clock
I love/hate this aspect of the draft: 2 picks before my next selection and 2 guys I’d love to draft. Never a dull moment.
Make that 1 pick and 1 guy.
Nice pick, @RetroVertigo. Mumblegrumble…
There’s a lot of talent left that I didn’t expect to slip to this pick. But I’m going to ignore that and take the guy who I had pencilled in at this pick since pretty much the start.
4.01 Pat Bryant, WR, Den
@Hamlet is on the clock.
4.02 D.J. Giddens, RB, Ind
@Justin_Bailey is on the clock.
Giddens was the other guy I considered, but I’d already invested a bunch at RB. And Bryant is a guy I expect to blow up with Payton.
I was hoping to take Marks here, but I guess that was unrealistic. But I’m gonna stick with RB and go with…
4.03 - Tahj Brooks (RB, Cin)
Apparently he reminds folks of Emmett Smith.
@dalej42 is on the clock
Just woke up here, since it’s the middle of the night back in the USA, I’ll have a pick in after breakfast so a couple of hours
First three rounds
1.01 Jules - Ashton Jeanty, RB, LV (from Omni)
1.02 Hamlet - Omarion Hampton, RB, LAC
1.03 Justin - TreVeyon Henderson, RB, NE
1.04 RNATB - RJ Harvey, RB, Den
1.05 Jules - Travis Hunter, WR, Jax
1.06 Gaffer - Tetairoa McMillan, WR, Car
1.07 Mundi - Emeka Egbuka, WR, TB
1.08 Omni - Quinshon Judkins, RB, Cle (from Jules)
1.09 Ellis - Jaxson Dart, QB, NYG
1.10 Jules - Matthew Golden, WR, GB
1.11 Beef - Colston Loveland, TE, Chi
1.12 Retro - Kaleb Johnson, RB, Pit
2.01 Omni - Bhayshul Tuten, RB, Jax
2.02 Hamlet - Tyler Warren, TE, Ind
2.03 Beef - Jayden Higgins, WR, Hou
2.04 RNATB - Luther Burden III, WR, Chi
2.05 dale - Terrance Ferguson, TE, LAR
2.06 Gaffer - Cam Ward, QB, Ten
2.07 Peteys - Jacory Croskey-Merritt, RB, Was
2.08 Omni - Tre’ Harris, WR, LAC
2.09 Ellis - Cam Skattebo, RB, NYG
2.10 Omni - Jaydon Blue, RB, Dal
2.11 Beef - Dylan Sampson, RB, Cle
2.12 Retro - Jaylin Noel, WR, Hou
3.01 Jules - Dont’e Thornton Jr., WR, LV
3.02 Hamlet - Elic Ayomanor, WR, Ten
3.03 Justin - Elijah Arroyo, TE, Sea
3.05 Omni - Jarquez Hunter, RB, LAR
3.06 Gaffer - Mason Taylor, TE, NYJ
3.07 Mundi - Isaac TeSlaa, WR, Det
3.08 Peteys - Harold Fannin Jr., TE, Cle
3.09 Ellis - Ollie Gordon II, RB, Mia
3.10 Jules - Woody Marks, RB, Hou
3.11 Beef - Kyle Williams, WR, NE
3.12 Retro - Jack Bech, WR, LV
4.01 Omni - Pat Bryant, WR, Den
4.02 Hamlet - DJ Giddens, RB, Ind
4.03 Justin - Tahj Brooks, RB, Cin
4.05 dale -
4.06 Gaffer -
4.07 Jules -
4.08 Peteys -
4.10 Jules -
4.11 Justin -
4.12 Retro -
5.01 Omni -
5.02 Hamlet -
5.06 Gaffer -
5.07 Mundi -
5.08 Peteys -
5.10 Jules -
6.01 Jules -
6.02 Hamlet -
6.06 Gaffer -
6.10 Mundi -
7.01 Jules -
8.04 RNATB -
Regarding next year’s trades, do Omni’s last two picks (that go to Jules) count as Jules’ picks for the purposes of sending back his last pick to keep the counts even?
If the trades are executed in the order they were made, and Omni drafts more players than Jules does next year, Omni’s last will be a later round pick than Jules’ last. Which one goes to Peteys as “Jules last”?
I don’t care either way; was just curious.
4.05 Oronde Gadsden II- TE LAC
@Ol_Gaffer is on the clock
I think last picks used for balancing are whatever last pick you have at that moment, and trades process in the order they were made. That’s what has been happening every year, but especially this year with 7.01.
That makes sense to me - but I hate the “future last pick” trade concept. I think it muddies all kinds of things, and would prefer to just make it a firm “X round pick” which naturally evolves forward if the owner chooses to not clear X roster spots. This would still allow for the “last pick” concept if people simply must have it, but I think is otherwise cleaner.
We are not having this argument again. You essentially cannot trade a pick alone the way our rosters, draft, and keepers work. And you don’t lose anything by giving up your last pick because your roster is full because you would ever spend that pick. The alternative is that one player doesn’t use a draft pick they have, and another player finishes the draft with one less player on their roster for every trade. There is no reason to be bothered by this, and we have spent roughly 900 posts demonstrating that over and over.
How is this any different practically from “and your last round pick”? This is not a desirable outcome from the player giving the balancing factor in the trade to give anything but their last round pick. This is a solution in search of a problem.
Good question. I know we’ve dealt with trades before in previous years where there were several “and so and so’s last round pick” in sequence. We processed them in the order they were made, so the first guy to have traded with that owner might get their 7th rounder, the second guy to make a trade for the last pick would get the 6th rounder, etc.
Let’s examine a potential example. In order:
Team A sends Jules a first round pick next year for Jules last
Team B receives Jules 2nd round pick and sends back Team B’s last
Team C sends Jules a third round pick and receives Jules last
Let’s say Jules cuts 6 players. Team A sends the 1.01, and Jules sends back the 6.12.
Now Jules sends his 2.12 to player B, and receives Player B (who cut 7 player)'s last round pick, the 7.02 pick.
Now player C sends Jules a third round pick and Jules sends back his last pick. Is his last pick his natural pick at 5.12? Or the last pick he now possesses at 7.02?
It seems more consistent and intuitive to me if he sends back his last natural pick, the 5.12. It’s more predictable and benefits rather than punishes the person receiving the balancing pick. That person probably shouldn’t get the lower pick just because of the order the trades were processed in, and the coincidence that the other team’s last pick was a 7th rounder rather than an earlier pick. I feel like there’s a better explanation as to why that makes more sense but I can’t quite find the logic. It feels right but I can’t quite put my finger on why.
In the way I’m proposing, Jules sends his 6.12 to player A and his 5.12 to player C, and he keeps the 7.02 and drafts with it.
In this scenario, Jules 6 picks are: Team A’s first, Jules’ natural first, Team C’s third, Jules’ natural 3rd, his natural 4th, and the 7.02. His natural 2nd goes to team B as part of the trade, his 6th goes to team A, and his 5th goes to Team B.
Does that make sense to you, or would you do it another way?
Edit: Anyone else can feel free to chime in on this too, but it’s a bit of a headache and it’s probably not something that will affect any decisions you make, so don’t worry about it if this doesn’t interest you.
If the last pick is always the person’s natural last pick (after previous trades), that is essentially a cap on how many trades a person can make involving picks. Instead of being the actual last pick, it gets progressively worse to make more than one trade until you can’t trade anymore because your “last pick” has climbed to the 2nd or 3rd, instead of the later round picks you actually own.
If we make rules to prevent that, we are now adding two levels of additional complexity to this that don’t need to be there. We don’t need to reward a team for taking a last pick, as no one cares enough about it to even specify what it is. This is also a (very poor) solution in search of a problem
I am confused by this response:
- I was not arguing anything
- The question was specifically about trades involving future year draft picks. By definition, the resolution of those has exactly zero implications for rosters or draft picks this year.
How is this any different practically from “and your last round ”?
- It creates a clear expectation of value for the player receiving the pick
- It removes any ambiguity about sequencing of trades impacting the selection
- It makes it clear that the asset being traded is the players natural draft pick, not any other pick he may receive in subsequent (or prior) trades
That is a fair point.
I would assume that in my example, you’d send the 7.02 pick to team C, right?
What happens if the order of the trades is different – let’s say that your trades with team A and C occur first, and then your trade with team B. In that case, would you send your 6.12 to A, 5.12 to C, and then receive the 7.02 to keep? just from swapping the order of the trades, which pick is your last at the moment the trade is processed would change. Is that how are proposing/would expect it would be handled?
Alright, so you may or may not know this, it’s been a contentious issue from time to time for what I think is no good reason. But here’s how it works.
Let’s say that two teams have 3 draft picks each. A first, second, and third rounder. Team A traded a player last year for Team B’s first round draft pick. That means in our league that they both kept 22 players. So team A now has their own first round pick, team B’s first round pick, and their own second and third round pick. So team A has 22 players on their roster, and 4 picks. Everyone needs to finish the draft with 25 players. So when Team A drafts with their first, Team B’s first, and then Team A’s 2nd round pick, their roster hits 25 players. They cannot use their third round pick, it would give them 26 players, which is impossible. So that 3rd round pick is worthless to them. They can’t use it. It would go empty.
On the other side of it, Team B has 22 players and only 2 draft picks. They will finish the draft with 24 players when they require 25. Also impossible. We’d have to just add a random placeholder player to their roster to even finish the draft.
But there’s an obvious solution to this: let’s take that third round pick that team A cannot possibly use, and give it to team B, who needs an extra pick to be able to fill up their roster. Great, everyone finishes the draft with 25 players. Team A didn’t lose anything - they couldn’t use that draft pick anyway. Player B is able to fill out their roster with whatever draft pick team A can’t use.
But here’s the thing – we don’t know how many players we’re going to cut next year. Maybe 3, maybe 8. So that last pick could be a third or any 8th. But the important thing is, it doesn’t matter to the person giving up that pick. It’s their last pick and therefore was useless to them anyway. They’re not giving up anything to balance trades in this way.
However, with your proposal, they very well could be giving up something. If you make them declare that it will be a third roudner or a 6th rounder or whatever, then they may lose a draft pick that they could have used. If they say ok, I’ll give you my 6th rounder, and they cut 7 players, then they lose their pick in the 6th round and draft in the 7th instead. They’re no longer swapping something they can’t use anyway, they’re giving up something of value, so it’s no longer just for balancing the roster sizes/picks, it’s forcing them to negotiate a specific value to return.
Now, to be clear, people absolutely CAN make trades like that. There’s nothing stopping them from saying I’ll trade my first next year for your third. The “and your last round pick” is specifically for the situation in which we’re balancing out an unbalanced situation automatically by giving one team something that has no value to the other team. If we used your system, we would either require players give up something of value to them – a draft pick that they could’ve used themselves – or people will just say “ok I’ll give you my 10th round pick” in return and then when they cut fewer than 10 players it just becomes their last round pick. Which is exactly how the current system works, just with an extra step.
I get what you’re saying here, but since I think everyone would just start saying “okay, I’ll give you my 25th round pick” which would automatically get rounded up to their last pick, we’d still have the same system we have now. The system now is an automatic throw-in with no cost to the player making the trade, and you want to potentially make it cost something to them. That would disincentivize trades and add complexity I think.
It’s important to note that not only is the player giving up the “and my last round pick” not really giving anything up because they couldn’t use it anyway, the receiving player is also getting a freebie. Because if you didn’t have that clause, they’d simply give up their own draft pick and not receive one in return. Like if you agreed to send me your first rounder next year, and there was no balancing swap to it, you’d simply have 24 players on your roster at the end of the draft. You getting any pick, whether it’s my 5th rounder or 8th rounder is still beneficial to you, and it’s essentially a freebie. So I don’t think it’s necessarily problematic or an injustice if the player receiving the balancing pick can reasonably predict where it will be in the draft.
That said, if you insist on getting a certain value back because you think that’s a fair trade – say, I swap a good player for a mediocre player this year in exchange for your first round pick next year – you are absolutely free to demand my second round pick in return because you feel like that’s the proper value. The “and his last pick” balancing method only comes into play when no return pick is demanded or specified and it’s automatic.
So if it matters to you which pick you get back, absolutely specify that as part of the trade. If it doesn’t because the real meat of the trade is the future pick you’re giving up and you don’t need anything specific in return in terms of draft picks (for instance, if you’re trading a player for a first round draft pick next year), then the “and his last round pick” is just an automatic balancer that’s elegant and works fine. One team isn’t losing anything, the other team is getting a freebie, everyone should be happy whichever way it works out.
Trade to announce:
Jules gives up:
Pick 4.07
2026 3rd round pick
Mundi gives up:
Pick 6.10
2026 2nd round pick