San Diego Chargers sends:
1981 Round 1
1982 Round 2

Pittsburgh Steelers sends:
Joseph King (RB)
1982 Round 4 (Pittsburgh Steelers)
1982 Round 5 (Pittsburgh Steelers)


(This is an automated message. If you believe this trade warrants additional investigation, please contact the league admin.)

This trade will need to be revoked based on the recently passed rule in which a team may not trade away it's next 3 year's 1st rounders without still having a 1st rounder. With the completion of this trade San Diego would be left without any 1st rounders for the next 3 years.

I don't think so. The rule is as follows:

"Team owners aren't allowed to trade away all three of their 1st round picks in a single season."

This is your comment on 3/9/19 about the intent of your rule proposal:

"The rule is more so about stopping teams from trading their 1978, 1979, 1980 1st round picks all in one season unless they have another 1st round pick in those 3 seasons. Not necessarily to keep teams from trading 3 1st round picks in general away. The hope is to keep a new owner from joining and completely trading away their draft picks for players. Don’t get me wrong, some owners have success in this but more likely than not the team doesn’t break the playoffs. This would help ensure the team having some sort of future for that new owner or even an owner that then has to take over the team."

San Diego traded two 1st round draft choices this season - not three. If the intent was that at no time could a team be without at least one 1st round draft choice during the next 3 seasons, it should have been more clearly stated. Anyway, let's see how Beercloud rules. Thanks.

I get what you're saying but I feel as though the rule's overall intention is to keep teams from trading away all of their 1st round picks. This is crucial in the prestige of an organization to a potential future owner. Without 1st round picks, teams could struggle to rebuild and become an unattractive team such as the Dallas Cowboys back in the beginnings of the league where even Beercloud had trouble rebuilding the team(Props to OffensiveTaco for being able to turn that organization around).

I hear you. But to be fair, the true intent was to prevent a newbie from trading number ones before they new what they were doing and being taken advantage of by veteran GMs.

I’m with you if you want the rule to be changed. In fact, I’d restrict trading even more if we started over. (Unfair to do so now, I think.)

I understand both views and the teams involved had no ill intent. But Im going to rule that this trade be voided. Now I think Im dealing with a lawyer here so I have to try and word my ruling correctly and precisely.. :) jk

I understand that the rule could be interpreted both ways. But it would be incredibly taxing to keep track which teams traded away their 1st rounders in what year. So when a trade is made with a first rounder involved, we need to be able to look into the future picks section and see if a team has a first round pick in the next 3 seasons or if they don't.

Normally a GM would have the option to appeal and the CC would review it. Buuuuut since we didn't have any Conference Rep nominee's step forward this season, and our Head of Football Operations is involved in the trade, I have to be King here. If I dont make somebody mad, Im prolly not doing my job right. :)

But don't let that stop anybody from posting up their thoughts on the ruling or the rule itself. Fire away. You just can't pick on my grammar. lol

Either way this ruling will stand. Court adjourned.

I have to respectfully disagree. First, your interpretation of the actual language of the rule violates both the literal meaning and spirit of the rule. The rule was adopted to prevent a newbie from trading away a franchise’s future for fool’s gold. Well, I’m no newbie and I got good value for the trades. That was the spirit of the rule, pure and simple.

More importantly, as was the case this time, it was not necessary for you to initiate the challenge to the trade So, you do not have to monitor every trade involving a 1st round draft choice to see if it is permitted. The community is well equipped and incentivized to challenge trades.

In addition, once you were alerted of the reason for the challenge, it had to have taken you all of one or two minutes to determine whether I had traded all of my 1st round draft choices this season. Which is what the rule literally forbids.

Finally, the irony of not even considering an exception to the rule under the circumstances the trade was made, i.e, devastating injuries at one position, is disappointing to say the least. Add to that, the fact that GM’s are able to stockpile a dozen or more draft choices season after season without question or justification makes your decision all the more unsatisfactory.

I appreciate all you do and don’t question your sincerity. But you’re wrong on this one.

It is a game, move on

What the **** are the Chargers doing?
Trading away their future.........for what???
It’s just ain’t the SD way, (San Diego btw, means whale’s ******).
Who am I to criticize another team especially one that has done much better than my team in the past, but wow I’m surprised about the boldness coming out of the state of California these last few weeks, all these trades are quite surprising!

Valid points by jg and a constructive argument. If anyone is going to disagree with something that is how you do it imo.

Bottom line for me is, if we look at a teams future picks on their team page and a trade will leave them with 0 first rounders the trade will have to be denied. Regardless if the team is under a rookie GM or one of the top GM's in MFN such as in this case. Nobody is accusing jg of trading away its future etc... If anyone has been in Paydirt or followed it for a while they've seen this.