Lucky17's Yahoo! FBB H2H League: 2011-12 season: Draft on Wed, Oct 12, noon EST?

[The Walker Wiggle]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

[Roy H.]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

Looks like we have a majority (11 votes) for expanding the lottery.  Now, it's determining how far to expand it.

[mkogav]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

I am only really interested in who you draft in the second round and then waive. THAT player will be the real deal.

[Lucky17]

Voting will be locked this Friday, 5 PM, Pacific time.

[The Walker Wiggle]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

I am only really interested in who you draft in the second round and then waive. THAT player will be the real deal.

Listen I resigned Landry Fields as soon as he passed through waivers. And we're NOT talking about that other guy or my JaVale McGee and a 1st for A.I. trade.

Whatever DRAFT DODGERS 2nd place SUCKcesses.

[Birdman]

Here's my roster;

Rajon Rondo
Tyson Chandler
Luol Deng
J.J. Hickson
Rodney Stuckey
Leandro Barbosa
Eric Bledsoe
Paul George
Glen Davis
Patrick Patterson
Martell Webster
Dante Cunningham
Shaun Livingston
Larry Sanders
Sheldon Williams
Ed Davis
Like to get into top 3 picks, so hit me up for a trade. Also have 9th, 22nd, and 29th pick

[Lucky17]

Anyone know what's happened to RebusRankin? He's gone off the grid, not responding to my emails or PMs.

I believe I'm going to have to replace him. Was prepared to do so in the points league, where he was MIA for much of last season, but I thought he'd been more active in the H2H league.

[Gainesville Celtic]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

Looks like we have a majority (11 votes) for expanding the lottery.  Now, it's determining how far to expand it.

I realize it's late in the game, but what would people think about this as a way to combat tanking:

#1 pick goes to #9 (best non-playoff team)
#2 pick goes to #10 team
#3 pick goes to #11 team
#4 pick goes to #20 team
#5 pick goes to #19 team... and so on.

PROs: It's positive reinforcement. Gives teams something to play FOR instead of randomly slotting teams. Really bad teams still get good picks, they're just not as good, i think there's a greater incentive to get better than tank.

CONs: Maybe the #8 team tanks to get the #9 spot and the #1 pick instead of going up against overall #1 team in the playoffs. Personally (a) i think this'd be easier to spot and (b) would be stupid of #8.... Our champ this year was #7, the year before #8 lost in the finals to #2.

[fairweatherfan]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

Looks like we have a majority (11 votes) for expanding the lottery.  Now, it's determining how far to expand it.

I realize it's late in the game, but what would people think about this as a way to combat tanking:

#1 pick goes to #9 (best non-playoff team)
#2 pick goes to #10 team
#3 pick goes to #11 team
#4 pick goes to #20 team
#5 pick goes to #19 team... and so on.

PROs: It's positive reinforcement. Gives teams something to play FOR instead of randomly slotting teams. Really bad teams still get good picks, they're just not as good, i think there's a greater incentive to get better than tank.

CONs: Maybe the #8 team tanks to get the #9 spot and the #1 pick instead of going up against overall #1 team in the playoffs. Personally (a) i think this'd be easier to spot and (b) would be stupid of #8.... Our champ this year was #7, the year before #8 lost in the finals to #2.

I'm a big proponent of the old "all lottery teams get an equal chance at each pick" system.  The only incentive to tank, as you mention, is to drop out of the playoffs, and most teams won't want to do that.  Alternately we could do something similar but only draw for the top-3 or top-5 picks (with all lottery teams eligible) and do the rest by record. 

I'm not a big fan of slotting the very best lottery teams up top, as it gets really tough for the truly bad teams to improve.  The worst teams should have a chance at the best picks, but not be guaranteed those picks.

[Roy H.]

I'm not a big fan of slotting the very best lottery teams up top, as it gets really tough for the truly bad teams to improve.

I agree.  

Also, if I was a truly mediocre team, and had the choice between the #8 seed (playoffs) and #9 seed (1st pick in the draft), I'd subtly tank every time.  A potential star is worth a lot more to me than a first round playoff loss.

[barefacedmonk]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

Looks like we have a majority (11 votes) for expanding the lottery.  Now, it's determining how far to expand it.

I realize it's late in the game, but what would people think about this as a way to combat tanking:

#1 pick goes to #9 (best non-playoff team)
#2 pick goes to #10 team
#3 pick goes to #11 team
#4 pick goes to #20 team
#5 pick goes to #19 team... and so on.

PROs: It's positive reinforcement. Gives teams something to play FOR instead of randomly slotting teams. Really bad teams still get good picks, they're just not as good, i think there's a greater incentive to get better than tank.

CONs: Maybe the #8 team tanks to get the #9 spot and the #1 pick instead of going up against overall #1 team in the playoffs. Personally (a) i think this'd be easier to spot and (b) would be stupid of #8.... Our champ this year was #7, the year before #8 lost in the finals to #2.

I'm a big proponent of the old "all lottery teams get an equal chance at each pick" system.  The only incentive to tank, as you mention, is to drop out of the playoffs, and most teams won't want to do that.  Alternately we could do something similar but only draw for the top-3 or top-5 picks and do the rest by record. 

I'm not a big fan of slotting the very best lottery teams up top, as it gets really tough for the truly bad teams to improve.  The worst teams should have a chance at the best picks, but not be guaranteed those picks.

I agree with FWF. I don't like the idea of no. 9 team guaranteed the first pick and so on.

[hpantazo]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

Looks like we have a majority (11 votes) for expanding the lottery.  Now, it's determining how far to expand it.

I realize it's late in the game, but what would people think about this as a way to combat tanking:

#1 pick goes to #9 (best non-playoff team)
#2 pick goes to #10 team
#3 pick goes to #11 team
#4 pick goes to #20 team
#5 pick goes to #19 team... and so on.

PROs: It's positive reinforcement. Gives teams something to play FOR instead of randomly slotting teams. Really bad teams still get good picks, they're just not as good, i think there's a greater incentive to get better than tank.

CONs: Maybe the #8 team tanks to get the #9 spot and the #1 pick instead of going up against overall #1 team in the playoffs. Personally (a) i think this'd be easier to spot and (b) would be stupid of #8.... Our champ this year was #7, the year before #8 lost in the finals to #2.

I'm a big proponent of the old "all lottery teams get an equal chance at each pick" system.  The only incentive to tank, as you mention, is to drop out of the playoffs, and most teams won't want to do that.  Alternately we could do something similar but only draw for the top-3 or top-5 picks and do the rest by record. 

I'm not a big fan of slotting the very best lottery teams up top, as it gets really tough for the truly bad teams to improve.  The worst teams should have a chance at the best picks, but not be guaranteed those picks.

I agree with FWF. I don't like the idea of no. 9 team guaranteed the first pick and so on.

I agree as well. I like the idea of all non-playoff teams having an equal chance at the #1 pick.

[Lucky17]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

Looks like we have a majority (11 votes) for expanding the lottery.  Now, it's determining how far to expand it.

I realize it's late in the game, but what would people think about this as a way to combat tanking:

#1 pick goes to #9 (best non-playoff team)
#2 pick goes to #10 team
#3 pick goes to #11 team
#4 pick goes to #20 team
#5 pick goes to #19 team... and so on.

PROs: It's positive reinforcement. Gives teams something to play FOR instead of randomly slotting teams. Really bad teams still get good picks, they're just not as good, i think there's a greater incentive to get better than tank.

CONs: Maybe the #8 team tanks to get the #9 spot and the #1 pick instead of going up against overall #1 team in the playoffs. Personally (a) i think this'd be easier to spot and (b) would be stupid of #8.... Our champ this year was #7, the year before #8 lost in the finals to #2.

I'm a big proponent of the old "all lottery teams get an equal chance at each pick" system.  The only incentive to tank, as you mention, is to drop out of the playoffs, and most teams won't want to do that.  Alternately we could do something similar but only draw for the top-3 or top-5 picks and do the rest by record. 

I'm not a big fan of slotting the very best lottery teams up top, as it gets really tough for the truly bad teams to improve.  The worst teams should have a chance at the best picks, but not be guaranteed those picks.

I agree with FWF. I don't like the idea of no. 9 team guaranteed the first pick and so on.

I agree as well. I like the idea of all non-playoff teams having an equal chance at the #1 pick.

I will put another poll up after this one closes. It seems expanding the lottery pool is desired, and the question is by how much.

Also, just to be clear, we're going to use the same weighted system that the NBA uses, not give everyone an equal chance at the #1 pick. I'm sure that's what you meant, hpantazo?

[hpantazo]

Draft Dodgers want to trade into the first round.

Also more managers need to vote in the poll up top. We've got a three way tie going.

Looks like we have a majority (11 votes) for expanding the lottery.  Now, it's determining how far to expand it.

I realize it's late in the game, but what would people think about this as a way to combat tanking:

#1 pick goes to #9 (best non-playoff team)
#2 pick goes to #10 team
#3 pick goes to #11 team
#4 pick goes to #20 team
#5 pick goes to #19 team... and so on.

PROs: It's positive reinforcement. Gives teams something to play FOR instead of randomly slotting teams. Really bad teams still get good picks, they're just not as good, i think there's a greater incentive to get better than tank.

CONs: Maybe the #8 team tanks to get the #9 spot and the #1 pick instead of going up against overall #1 team in the playoffs. Personally (a) i think this'd be easier to spot and (b) would be stupid of #8.... Our champ this year was #7, the year before #8 lost in the finals to #2.

I'm a big proponent of the old "all lottery teams get an equal chance at each pick" system.  The only incentive to tank, as you mention, is to drop out of the playoffs, and most teams won't want to do that.  Alternately we could do something similar but only draw for the top-3 or top-5 picks and do the rest by record. 

I'm not a big fan of slotting the very best lottery teams up top, as it gets really tough for the truly bad teams to improve.  The worst teams should have a chance at the best picks, but not be guaranteed those picks.

I agree with FWF. I don't like the idea of no. 9 team guaranteed the first pick and so on.

I agree as well. I like the idea of all non-playoff teams having an equal chance at the #1 pick.

I will put another poll up after this one closes. It seems expanding the lottery pool is desired, and the question is by how much.

Also, just to be clear, we're going to use the same weighted system that the NBA uses, not give everyone an equal chance at the #1 pick. I'm sure that's what you meant, hpantazo?

Sorry Lucky, I should have been more clear. I meant I support the idea of all non-playoff teams having an equal chance at the 1st pick, then go with a weighted lottery for the rest of the top ten picks. This should help prevent tanking, as all non=playoff teams have the same shot at #1, but then also helps the poorer teams recover from having weak talent.

[The Walker Wiggle]

(b) would be stupid of #8.... Our champ this year was #7, the year before #8 lost in the finals to #2.

Also, if I was a truly mediocre team, and had the choice between the #8 seed (playoffs) and #9 seed (1st pick in the draft), I'd subtly tank every time.  A potential star is worth a lot more to me than a first round playoff loss.

Except aren't you the low seed in both of G.C.'s examples, Roy?

I'm not making an argument either way. The fact just tickled my funny bone.