|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 17, 2014 14:43:41 GMT -5
Would that not be 44 matchups by the end of 22 weeks? what is this 44 matchups we have 22 matchups don't we And for this reason, I stated elsewhere that 1 GM/week vs. 2 GM/week is relative. You stated elsewhere you would not mind a 2GM/week model. I assumed you saw it as relative as well. Let me not assume. I would much rather hear your pros and cons at this point. Let's get down to the get down people.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 17, 2014 16:04:29 GMT -5
** OFFICIAL START OF DRAFT TALK: constriction and vacated 2013 draft picks **
1. Constriction draft. I hope form talks, we will be able to determine a date for the draft as well as draft order. I think since Rhys and the new guys will get better teams, we should not go by reverse order of standings. I don't think performance has any weight here. We're eliminating junk teams. I think a random draft lottery is acceptable in this case. All players: PRO and PROSPECT are game.
As far as when the draft takes place, I'm ready whenever but know we need to get e new guy in here and check his schedule to get an "official" date together. We are probably best served to focus our attention to that of the draft order first. Suggestions on how to determine order?
2. 2013 Draft picks. As of now, we need to figure out what to do with the old CBJ and MTL draft picks in the 2013 draft. There are 18 teams and 11 picks. That's not good math. I am looking for suggestions. Again, I opt for the names of all 18 teams picks be rewarded in the very order the generator spits out our names. Suggestions on how to determine the order?
* since we are maxed out with our rosters, GMs will have to drop a player to add one.
|
|
|
Post by Blake on Apr 17, 2014 16:35:14 GMT -5
We should definelty go something around reverse order of the standings. What good will it do the league if the top teams are getting all that much better than the bottom teams? As for their draft picks I think they should either be added to the constriction draft or just omitted completely from the entry draft.
|
|
|
Post by Steve (Mtl) on Apr 17, 2014 16:51:34 GMT -5
I'm with OTT... I don't see why them inheriting better teams should affect us using a reverse order draft... I mean, obviously they'd be slotted where their new team sits, so... what effect would that have?
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 17, 2014 16:54:55 GMT -5
We should definelty go something around reverse order of the standings. What good will it do the league if the top teams are getting all that much better than the bottom teams? As for their draft picks I think they should either be added to the constriction draft or just omitted completely from the entry draft. Playing devils advocate with constriction... I don't have a problem with this per se' but I am leary of having too many drafts be based on one season's results or punishing GMs who have done a good job of putting their team together -- thinking out loud. The later would be the only reason I could see a lottery being valid. Clearly, however, it would not be ideal to have a top team(s) get the best player from either, and the only way to stop that is to do it the way you stated. Ultimately, there is not real way to stop the good teams from getting better in this scenario. Everyone will improve. That is likely all I will have to say from a debate standpoint. Long way of saying I'd be fine with reverse order. I, too, mentioned doing away with them. Adding them constriction did not enter my mind, but then the issue becomes, how do they get added in - who are they rewarded to?
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 17, 2014 17:14:34 GMT -5
Not sure there is anything other ideas to poll other than reverse order of the standings... Lottery... Anyone have any other "route" to determine constriction draft order?
|
|
|
Post by Blake on Apr 17, 2014 17:20:37 GMT -5
My suggestion is break the 18 teams into 3 tiers based on standings and have a weighted lottery among these tiers. I will break it down further as to what I mean early in the morning as I'm about to start work.
|
|
|
Post by Blake on Apr 17, 2014 17:21:46 GMT -5
We should definelty go something around reverse order of the standings. What good will it do the league if the top teams are getting all that much better than the bottom teams? As for their draft picks I think they should either be added to the constriction draft or just omitted completely from the entry draft. Playing devils advocate with constriction... I don't have a problem with this per se' but I am leary of having too many drafts be based on one season's results or punishing GMs who have done a good job of putting their team together -- thinking out loud. The later would be the only reason I could see a lottery being valid. Clearly, however, it would not be ideal to have a top team(s) get the best player from either, and the only way to stop that is to do it the way you stated. Ultimately, there is not real way to stop the good teams from getting better in this scenario. Everyone will improve. That is likely all I will have to say from a debate standpoint. Long way of saying I'd be fine with reverse order. I, too, mentioned doing away with them. Adding them constriction did not enter my mind, but then the issue becomes, how do they get added in - who are they rewarded to? It's not punishing teams it's creating league parity which I would assume is the the goal of most leagues.
|
|
|
Post by Ian (Pit) on Apr 17, 2014 17:51:43 GMT -5
My suggestion is break the 18 teams into 3 tiers based on standings and have a weighted lottery among these tiers. I will break it down further as to what I mean early in the morning as I'm about to start work. Funny you mention. 3 tiers because that was my exact thought on how to reconfigure teams per conference.
|
|
|
Post by mbravet (Wpg) on Apr 17, 2014 22:58:42 GMT -5
WOW, i have been reading for an hour to catch up. Damn, there is some passion here! I dont want to act like i have a tremendous amnt of clout amongst the vets in this league, nor do i claim to be a fantasy guru, but, negotiation and establishing business parameters are the same anywhere. I have a few comments and i hope i dont get a "kiss my ass" comment or go to hell, but if i do so be it! It seems the passion is around change, Ian, you dont want tremendous change to a league that you are commissioned to maintain and some of our GM's (at least some who will admit it) seem to desire some change. For example, +/-, quite a few have said they prefer it to be separate cats and that makes 13, Ian is concerned it will turn our value system upside down and wants to preserve what his and a few others perception of the league stands for. Tom you have come out "guns a blazin", while i agree with much you have said, i respect what Ian's perception and protection of the league. With that said, if this is truly a democratic league with decisions to be made by the populous, i suggest we simply state in 2 or 3 sentences our perspective of the issues at hand and take it to a vote. it appears the banter is getting us nowhere except upset. maybe its just me but i dont see where anything is truly being resolved in reality, its my perception, purely from not being involved for 2 days and then reading what has been stated, some want change, a few want minimal and a few want to ride the fence. here's what i mean and if you tell me go to hell, im ok with that
#1. +/- personally i feel it should be 2 cats giving us 13 and that solve the tie breaker issue. PERIOD. I like giving players like Luke Schenn relevance, it gives us more players to use and more long term thought. yes, values change, there is no reason to scrap and start all over again. the real world changes strategies based on changes in the industry all of the time, like it or not, my opinion
#2. transaction cap-3 per week solves in my opinion the cycling problem that some seem to think is an issue, personally i think it is as Tom stated earlier "a solution looking for a problem". kills 2 birds with one stone.
#3. playing 2 GM's/wk- i dont like it, personal preference, ties breakers are addressed with #1
#4.constriction draft- reverse order of finish. there are a ton of pro's and con's, if you want true parity its the only way. maybe its true that you dont want to penalize the good teams for building but how many teams that suck have the original GM? my opinion.
Sorry if i offended anyone, maybe i have had to many after dinner cocktails, but maybe we simplify all of the banter and truly say what you feel not ride the fence. the discussion is great but is seemingly becoming unproductive. make a decision, yes or no and go with it. Fire me, but i wont quit!
|
|
|
Post by mbravet (Wpg) on Apr 17, 2014 23:08:56 GMT -5
guess my timing was impeccable! haha. good decision Ian!
|
|