So if I'm reading this correctly, this trade shouldn't have been voided.

This trade could have been challenged, but not voided.

Exactly the same thing happened with the Atlanta trade. Those trades got voided because they were after those teams had picked with their current year 1st rounders. Tampa Bay had yet to do that.

Not disagreeing with you at all jouameng. Guess this is just a murky situation. (That's why I have never like this rule of always having to have a first round pick listed in your future picks screen.)

CORRECTION!!!!

Bingo 415 is correct.

I should NOT have voided this trade based on the lack of 1st rd draft selections. The trade participants may repost the trade - subject to it being challenged and considered by the Trade Committee. I apologize for voiding it in the first place.

Tampa Bay did have a 1st rd pick in this draft - which he exercised. Therefore, Tampa Bay could trade its other 1st rd picks because after this draft is concluded it will have a 1991 1st rd draft choice (none in 1989 and 1990).

The point of the rule is that at all times up to and including the beginning of a draft, a GM must project to have at least one 1st rd draft choice at some point during the current draft and next two drafts. If a GM exercises its 1st rd draft choice in the current draft, he is free to trade any and all other 1st rd draft choices he is projected to have during the next two seasons.

After a draft is completed, each GM is then replenished with another 1st rd draft choice for the third following season. After a draft is completed, if a GM has no other 1st rd picks projected on the board for the next three seasons, unless that GM trades for at least one other 1st rd draft pick before the next draft, the GM will not be able to trade its only 1st rd draft choice heading into or during the next draft.

This is always controversial, but is intended to keep the league competitive. Bear with us.

Ok. We'll go back to that.

Is Tampa Bay in violation, if this trade goes through, at the present moment? Yes.
The trade should not be allowed, if it will put a team in violation of the agreed rule at any point during the draft.

Correct. See my explanation above.

You are correct. See my explanation posted above.

Sorry, jgcruz. That scenario you just described is why my one trade got voided. Jets made two picks in the that current draft and then traded away future ones during the that same draft. And the trade was voided. (If I have my facts correct.)

But that's not what happened with Cleveland. That's why we lost the original admin. It was such a controversial issue.
If this is the way the rule is to be interpreted from this point forward, that is acceptable.

It isn't fair to Cleveland, but Warthog can voice his own opinion on this.

I too lost a trade because of the way the prior administration interpreted the rule. It might not be fair to Warthog (or me for that matter), but I think our intent should be that a team cannot at anytime be projected to be without a first rd draft choice in each of the next 3 consecutive drafts following the current season. That doesn't mean a team must exercise a first rd draft choice at least once every three seasons. It just means that if a GM abandons a team, the successor GM will have at least one 1st rd draft choice at its disposal during the next three seasons.

If we collectively want to tighten or loosen the rule further, we'll do so during the next offseason. I think we've created enough controversy this time around. Sorry for the angst this has caused. Thanks.