Actually, I want to go back and address the point made by DaBods against my proposal.
The question deals with the value of someone like a Duncan or a Garnett, and how easily they're traded, along with the "loophole" which Derek refers to of trading a Duncan with no more eligibility left for a player who has two seasons of eligibility left.
The first is that you've mentioned how many times some of the top level players in our league have changed teams: McGrady was traded, Dirk Nowitzki, etc. My response is that you should examine the results of the teams that traded these guys away versus the results of the teams who acquired them. In getting McGrady, you finished 2nd...Skander finished 10th (or maybe 9th...I forget). Ziggy acquired Nowitzki and stays near the top...who gave up Nowtizki - BBF. His teams have been middle of the pack. I've kept Duncan, and acquired Nash. With Duncan and Nash, I've finished 1st, 3rd in the season I didn't have them both all year long, and 1st. Stud players make for stud records. In other words, if you want to be bad...trade away a stud like a Duncan or a Garnett. Doesn't matter what you get in return in this league...no one has IMPROVED themselves by trading away their studs.
Now comes the point where I address the idea of trading a Duncan with no eligibility left for two lesser players: say an Iverson and an Okafor, each with one season left (assuming all are kept).
Under your system, I would lose Iverson and Okafor at the end of the year. So why trade Duncan? And, in fact, assuming I'm in the running for this year, I'm not GOING to trade Duncan, because the objective is to win, and I'm not going to get closer to winning by trading my stud away. Instead, what I'll do is KEEP my stud and play to win, and at the end of the year, I'm facing a long rebuilding process.
However, let's say I'm not in competition at all. NOW, I'm going to want to get a jump-start on building for the future. In this case, I'll trade Duncan, trying to upgrade my keepers for next year's draft. And no other player in a rebuilding process is going to want Duncan - only the elite level teams with a chance at the championship would be willing to get him as a missing piece - guys who can sacrifice depth for studliness.
Finally, the idea that there are only 2 keepers puts an additional limit on me. If I've got Duncan and Nash, trade them both away for four players with great eligibility toward the end of the season when folks can see where they stand in the stretch run, I'm not going to get to keep all four of those players! At most, I can only keep 2.
Right now, as it stands, I wouldn't trade Duncan for, say, Wade and Okafor and Nash for Kirilenko and Redd. I have a better chance of winning with Duncan and Nash. To acquire these guys, people are going to have to make the deal incredibly sweet. At the start of the year, no one is going to offer me Wade and Okafor for Duncan, because they're going to want to see where they stand before trying to acquire a this-year-only guy. They'll be looking at acquiring Duncan near the trade deadline, when they know where they stand and how easy/difficult it will be for them to win. And if I'm doing poorly, I'm going to try to deal Duncan as early as I can. It's supply and demand at work.
There's no way I trade Duncan for two players that have no eligibility. None whatsoever...well, unless it's like for Garnett and another similar stud. Yet that's exactly the choice you're leaving me with. If my team does poorly (although I maintain it won't, simply because I have a player like Duncan), I'm looking at dealing Duncan ONLY if I'm getting a future out of it.
Finally, consider the initial draft of the league. I had THREE players on my wish list, and as the #3 pick, I knew I'd get one of them. Those three players were - in order, 1) Dirk Nowitzki, 2) Tim Duncan, and 3) Kevin Garnett. In that first season, Duncan and Nowitzki's teams battled for the championship, and the finish of the 3 teams involved were 3, 4, and 7 - you being the odd case because of Kidd's injuries. Also, if you look at the two people at the top of the league, you're looking at Skander and Drom - who made some incredibly risky picks at the top of the draft that panned out BIG. If you look at last season, where did Duncan/Garnett/Nowitzki's teams finish? 1-2-3 in the regular season. Now while I'd like to claim sheer brilliance in my picks, the truth is that it's the difference of having Duncan versus not having him.
Caleb isn't going to turn around and give me Stoudemire/Howard for Duncan unless he's trying to build THIS YEAR'S championship team, and if he offered it, I'm not going to take it...UNLESS I'm in rebuilding mode. It all boils down to just how badly you want to win - as all good competition should.
Does this adequately explain why I don't like the idea of keeper eligibility maintaining with the drafting manager? Not to mention, when multi-player deals get involved, the situation becomes EXTREMELY complicated. Say Caleb sent a keeper and a non-keeper for two keepers, and then traded on of those guys for two more non-keepers. Given that there are people with 0/1/2 seasons of eligibility left, how will it be decided? The system is unduly complicated.
Instead, owners will de-value the stud - Duncan - because he's a this-year-only guy. He's no longer WORTH two near-superstud keepers with two years of eligibility left. He becomes less tradeable, and therefore, more likely to go through the draft.
Because we've got fewer "stud" keepers in this upcoming year's draft than we will in next, shuffling to build a franchise is a bit tougher right now. But that will change as time goes on. Last year, Wade wasn't a super-stud...this year, he is. Folks like Al Harrington and Carmelo Anthony were proven to be mistakes. But *EVERY* year - except those that they're forced to go through the draft, folks like Shaq, Duncan, Nowitzki, and Garnett will be keepers. And the idea is that we *DO* want to force them to go through the draft from time-to-time.
Anyway, that's my considered response.
