The Stepien Rule requires teams to have at least one future first-rounder in every other draft. Another way to put is that you are not allowed to make trades if it results in the possibility (however remote) of not having a first round pick two years in a row. The first rounder can be the team's original pick or one acquired via trade. As long as you 100% control it, the Stepien rule is fulfilled if you don't 100% have a pick in the two years surrounding that pick. But there are two loopholes. One loophole is trade swaps. Thus a team might trade five first rounders but pick swap every other year to fulfill Stepien rule. The other loophole is that you can make an agreement to pick on behalf of another team. So say I have no pick two years from now but own a pick this year. While I can't outright trade this year's pick (or even trade it top 29 protected), I can tell Team A to give me player X and in return I will technically make the pick this year but on Team A's direction and then give Team A player X right after the pick. So if that is the case, why can't teams just sidestep the Stepien rule completely with this second loophole? Instead of doing a pick swap every other year, why not just say that every other year, you will technically make the pick but then trade that player to Team A? And what prevents a team from just making trades every year for their pick. As long as they make the pick on behalf of another team, they could in theory be trading their first round pick every year indefinitely. Anyone understand why teams don't just use this second loophole to sidestep the Stepien rule completely?
Essentially you are having faith that a front office stays the same in the long run or the ruse will be exposed and you essentially get McHaled and lose picks for breaking the rules under the table
