I thought this was a worthy topic for discussion. This poll is only for discussion purposes, not a referendum.

Two coaches have contacted me since the season began, asking if there should be a limit on the number of future draft picks a team can trade. The question is raised because some coaches go "all-in," trade most of their picks, then abandon their team. When that happens, the next coach finds his rebuilding process hindered by the lack of draft picks.

I am leaning toward adopting this. My responsibility is the health of 32 franchises. I don't want any potential coach to look at a team in the USFL/WFL and see no hope for competing any time soon. Competitive balance has been one of the distinctives of this league.

Let me conclude by saying this discussion was not provoked by the actions of any single owner here. The first PM I received on this matter was weeks ago, and it was about another league.

Tell me what you think.

What would be the cap? You must keep a minimum of 4 of your picks every year? 5?

That would be part of the discussion, certainly.

I'd say no. Good owners trade those picks regularly, most commonly to alleviate salary cap issues in certain seasons or getting a player of need who won't be available with just that seasons picks that is up for trade or drafting. You would be seriously handcuffing owners in both directions and will likely force a few quits as teams can't improve their rosters to competency especially those who are in no mood to gamble on picks. While I understand about rebuilds the whole point to a trade of future picks is to upgrade the team in the fashion of getting more value than you would for the pick for your team and the pick worth more to the other team. This coming from someone who regularly trades them in both directions as the situation warrants it.

When I was a young GM (hahahahah, nope, I was old even then) I took over a team in CUST10, which was the most active league at the time. I took over a good, but aging team and I noticed (after taking the team) that the previous owner had traded away the 1st and 2nd rounders for the next 3 seasons! I don't know if it was a last ditch effort to win a championship, but I felt a little ripped off, because not only is it damaging to the long term of the team, but drafting is fun and I didn't get to do that. The other side of the coin is that I ended up winning a championship, no doubt in part to the players that the trading away of picks got me. That being said, had I noticed that my picks had been traded, I wouldn't have taken over the team...

I don't mind trading away a pick or picks to get a player that will make a difference, but I do agree that there should be some balance to it. A guy shouldn't be able to trade away ALL the valuable picks for the foreseable future and then quit when it doesn't go his way. And you can't stop a guy from dropping his team. So if the measure wasn't too drastic, I'd be in favor of it.

I think there should be an element of realism as compared to the NFL. Teams don't trade away multiple picks in one year for future picks or players. It just doesn't happen where a team trades their 1st, 2nd and or 3rd round picks for future picks, especially over and over. The fan base would mutiny as they can easily see that the team is "giving up" before the season even starts. Building a team isn't supposed to be easy, and trading away and up for future 1st and 2nd round picks makes it very easy. I joined MFN7 with New Orleans. NO made 5 picks total in the last 3 seasons and they were all in the 6th and 7th round, and didn't have much in the way of players to show for that. A guy offered me a trade of his current 2nd round pick for my 2nd round pick 3 season later. Looking at that guys trade history he was making 4-6 picks in rounds 1 and 2 in every draft for the last 10 seasons. That's ridiculous and would never happen in the NFL.

In short tanking should not be allowed at all, massive roster dumping and trading away picks for future picks should be closely monitored. Every player should be trying to put the best football team they can on the field every single season, not kicking the can down the road to make it easier later. A simple solution would be you can't trade picks for picks without at least one player being involved in the trade, even then you would still have to make sure both teams are trying to be competitive for the current season.

It’s a catch 22. Good owners have no problem going all in and if it doesn’t work they deal with the lean years. New or crappy owners go all in and then quit when it doesn’t work. I’m having a hard time finding a middle ground here. You don’t want to curtail the freedom of owner that are in it for the long haul, but you’ll never know the flip with guys that will just quit.

Addition to the discussion;
Draft will help fill holes of about 2 spots every year. An active owner can fill those spots with the free agency signings of veteran players every year if he doesnt get draftees worth of filling those spots for temporary fix.

I think common sense should prevail here. Monitor a trade/GM that has tendencies to off-load picks consistantly. He/She might have the most genuine reason to do so versus another(s). To put a "cap" is a restraint on others that might normally not do this, but might need this facility up the track...perhaps for a bowl run, or to ease a cap burden that may not have been of their doing...etc.

I think this league and it's GM's seem to be clued in enough not to become too tight on such.

I tend to use the opposite strategy, I do well in free agency and then trade my picks for proven players at positions of need that I didn't get lucky filling in free agency (and happily sleep through draft days).