Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted36
Absolutely. Otherwise you could say "I drafted so and so and traded him to someone else" and I want to keep him and what if the other guy wants to keep him as well? Well if we let that go then whom ever drafted someone has rights to him which I don't thinks fair. I think if you trade someone or drop someone you lose your rights to keep that player. And if you want to keep someone you traded for you get to keep him at the position he was drafted at, minus one round.
Anyway so if you dropped Harvin and we know you drafted him in the 4th round and I wanted to keep him for myself I could pick him up and use my 3rd round pick on keeping him I could. Once you drop or trade a player you no longer have any rights to that player. What ever your final roster is at the end of the year are the players you are eligible to keep. If they aren't on your roster you can't keep them but in your case if we go with a worst to first serpentine draft order even if you end up losing in the first round I think you'd be crazy not to keep Rodgers next year baring some freak injury anyway and Harvin in the 3rd round next year doesn't seem like as good of a deal to you as Rodgers in the 12th hole anyway 
[/B] |
Well, I must be crazy because I value Harvin about as much as I value Rodgers given this is a PPR league, especially when it's the difference between losing my first round pick or third round pick. I hope you're right and I'm picking 12th, lol, but picking in the 12 hole isn't as bad as it seems since I'm betting at least a few folks are going to keep their first/second round pick making that 12 hole pick probably in the top 5-7.
Given the timing, I move that whoever was on your roster at the end of the REGULAR season should be fair game to keep, at least for this season. I'd at least like the option to keep Percy even if I go with Rodgers.
This is all assuming we make this a keeper league, we should put that to official vote. If we do it, I want to call the regular season roster rule the "Percy clause".
Anyways, I vote no on the keeper idea. It's a weak no though, I won't be too upset if it goes the other way.
