Suggestions to changing next year's CB NBA Draft to make it better.

[Rondo2287]

Some of the bickering was in good nature.

However, I really didn't like the bickering that hijacked non-relevant threads and carried on between two or three threads at a time.  That was ridiculous, IMO. 

Was there really a need to carry on an argument between two East teams in a West press conference?

I dont remember the situation you are talking about, but does it matter what they are talking about?  Like would it be ok if two east teams are arguing about west teams in a west press conference?  Or would you like those teams to take a back seat and let the west people control the convo in the press conference. 

(Honest question not trying to be difficult.)

I think that the issue is that 2 east teams are arguing with each other over their teams during the west's press conference.  Sort of a stealing their thunder type debate.

Ok well I dont remember a chicago Toronto debate during a west press conference.  Im sorry if this did happen and stole the thunder of west teams trying to present.  

[bucknersrevenge]

An opinion out of Dallas...


First of all, i don't think i've expressed this completely yet...Dons, you did an absolutely terrific job and i'm frankly astounded that you were able to keep your cool throughout and handle all job tasks seemingly seamlessly.  I honestly am not sure if things could've run any smoother, even despite the Minny situation and whatnot.

That brings me to my second point.  The biggest "turn-off" for me this year was the constant banter and bickering between two teams (we know the parties involved) in public forums.  Really it just cluttered the forums and and was a nuisance to read through and listen to.  I'd say we establish more defined policies regarding the "integrity of the game."  I don't mean to sound so serious, but parties involved were warned several times about their behavior but ultimately never suffered any significant consequences.

Another great transition - that brings me to my final thought.  Perhaps every GM should establish an official "assistant."  Ideally they would be members of CB, too.  This would allow every GM to have a safety net if they "get caught in traffic" or whatever; it also helps with the "integrity of the game" idea - basically if a GM needs to be booted, his understudy/assistant would be ready to take over the team immediately.

I'm not sure what you mean by 2. If by 2 you really mean 6 or 7 I agree. Moot point for me though because I didn't mind the distraction. The only person who got as big a kick out of it as I did is Champ. In the end though I think open voting may have ended up becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy when it comes to strategic voting or accusations of such.

[Gainesville Celtic]

a couple of things from today --- assuming we/the Mods refer back to this thread next year --- that maybe we can build on for next year, since it's very difficult on the commish to change in season.(i think Don's done a great job, btw)

DECORUM:

1a. loved the "signing the rules" idea this time. Add in "golden rule" next time --- treat others as you want them to treat you.

1b. a 3-strikes (or even 2 strikes) policy... GMs can be warned 1x offlist by the commish to "cool it", a 2nd warning goes public on the list, 3rd time their booted...

or something like this so we don't get to the point where someone takes it too far, then someone else quits... no one wins in that circumstance.

1c. Maybe there's even a positive reinforcement thing where if soemthings getting heated (that's non-basketball, I mean bickering about rules, or a he said/he said situaiton), the GM that says "Let's just agree to disagree and leave it alone" or something appropriately DE-ESCALATING gets like 10 TPs....

I think some GMs could have walked awwy from some of hte arguments during this years' draft... and when some did I felt like they still tried to "get a last word in" (heck, i probably even did this once myself).


PLAYOFF VOTING -- also LOVED the playoff voting idea and think it went just about as smooth as it could be expected....


2. In the case of a playoff vote tie, some sort of tiebreaker --- i suggest most "Playoff" votes (i.e. 1st-8th place votes)?

2nd tiebreaker could be highest # of highest votes (i.e. if neither got a !st place, then 2nd place, votes, if neither got 2nd, then 3rd place, and so on)

(could do division winner votes as the 1st tiebreaker, but if Team A gets none but was on everyone's ballot as a plyoff team and Team B got 1 (their own) but was on all but say 3 ballots, i'd say the tie should go to Team A).

[Roy Hobbs]

a couple of things from today --- assuming we/the Mods refer back to this thread next year --- that maybe we can build on for next year, since it's very difficult on the commish to change in season.(i think Don's done a great job, btw)

DECORUM:

1a. loved the "signing the rules" idea this time. Add in "golden rule" next time --- treat others as you want them to treat you.

1b. a 3-strikes (or even 2 strikes) policy... GMs can be warned 1x offlist by the commish to "cool it", a 2nd warning goes public on the list, 3rd time their booted...

or something like this so we don't get to the point where someone takes it too far, then someone else quits... no one wins in that circumstance.

1c. Maybe there's even a positive reinforcement thing where if soemthings getting heated (that's non-basketball, I mean bickering about rules, or a he said/he said situaiton), the GM that says "Let's just agree to disagree and leave it alone" or something appropriately DE-ESCALATING gets like 10 TPs....


PLAYOFF VOTING -- also LOVED the playoff voting idea and think it went just about as smooth as it could be expected....


2. In the case of a playoff vote tie, some sort of tiebreaker --- i suggest most "Playoff" votes (i.e. 1st-8th place votes)?

2nd tiebreaker could be highest # of highest votes (i.e. if neither got a !st place, then 2nd place, votes, if neither got 2nd, then 3rd place, and so on)

(could do division winner votes as the 1st tiebreaker, but if Team A gets none but was on everyone's ballot as a plyoff team and Team B got 1 (their own) but was on all but say 3 ballots, i'd say the tie should go to Team A).

Good suggestions.

There are a few ways to handle a tiebreaker:

1.  Runoff

2.  Most playoff votes

3.  Most high votes

4.  Median vote

5.  Average vote after throwing out the high and low vote received.

6.  Average vote after discarding the ballot the GM cast for his own team.

As for the "decorum" rule, I pretty much agree.  There's no reason for any GM to get more than one official warning before they're sanctioned, in my opinion.

[Rondo2287]

I think the point of the matter is that when discussing/debating teams and their merits you stay on the players themselves.  Problems really arose on here when things went above the players to the GM's.  Whether it be bad deal offers(Which I was a part of and Im sorry), reneging on deals, or getting on people for overvaluing their own players and devaluing yours, it should not go above the teams that each person has constructed.  When you look at friendly/constructive arguments they center around the players.  When you look at childish bickering it starts with accusations and name calling. 

So I think a good rule of thumb for next year might be leave it on the court and dont worry about other front offices. 

[Roy Hobbs]

I'd also suggest that people cool down some of their competitiveness before next year.

Yes, this is a "game".  However, it's about having fun, rather than competition.  The first year, we didn't even have votes, because it's supposed to be a congenial exercise.

This year, we had approximately a dozen major skirmishes involving various parties.  We had people allegedly sabotaging others behind their backs.  We had some voters who appeared to vote based upon personal conflicts, rather than for who in their mind had the best mind.  We had members whose first priority seemed to be to curry favor with fellow GMs.  We had people back out of trades, after giving their word on them.  We had people make trades, because an opposing GM threatened to talk bad about their team in public.

None of that is necessary.  GMs should participate in the draft, and then evaluate their fellow GMs.  A certain amount of good natured trash talk is to be expected.  However, for some GMs to treat this like Survivor, complete with the same sort of conniving and back-biting, is disappointing.  The winner doesn't get any sort of prize here.  Rather, the reward is supposedly in the journey.  You may pick up some TPs along the way, but the idea here isn't for people to walk away with some tangible prize.

[johnnyrondo]

Best advice to make the game better is to worry about one's own team. Talk about how great you are and don't spend so much time trying to bash other teams. Starting stuff usually gets stuff thrown back at you. Also misleading posts on another team's players is another dangerous thing imo.

[Gainesville Celtic]

a couple of things from today --- assuming we/the Mods refer back to this thread next year --- that maybe we can build on for next year, since it's very difficult on the commish to change in season.(i think Don's done a great job, btw)

DECORUM:

1a. loved the "signing the rules" idea this time. Add in "golden rule" next time --- treat others as you want them to treat you.

1b. a 3-strikes (or even 2 strikes) policy... GMs can be warned 1x offlist by the commish to "cool it", a 2nd warning goes public on the list, 3rd time their booted...

or something like this so we don't get to the point where someone takes it too far, then someone else quits... no one wins in that circumstance.

1c. Maybe there's even a positive reinforcement thing where if soemthings getting heated (that's non-basketball, I mean bickering about rules, or a he said/he said situaiton), the GM that says "Let's just agree to disagree and leave it alone" or something appropriately DE-ESCALATING gets like 10 TPs....


PLAYOFF VOTING -- also LOVED the playoff voting idea and think it went just about as smooth as it could be expected....


2. In the case of a playoff vote tie, some sort of tiebreaker --- i suggest most "Playoff" votes (i.e. 1st-8th place votes)?

2nd tiebreaker could be highest # of highest votes (i.e. if neither got a !st place, then 2nd place, votes, if neither got 2nd, then 3rd place, and so on)

(could do division winner votes as the 1st tiebreaker, but if Team A gets none but was on everyone's ballot as a plyoff team and Team B got 1 (their own) but was on all but say 3 ballots, i'd say the tie should go to Team A).

Good suggestions.

There are a few ways to handle a tiebreaker:

1.  Runoff

2.  Most playoff votes

3.  Most high votes

4.  Median vote

5.  Average vote after throwing out the high and low vote received.

6.  Average vote after discarding the ballot the GM cast for his own team.

interesting suggestions, Roy...

IIRC, we went to this model (just conf. voting) to avoid the problems we had with 2 sets (division then conf. voting) last year (when someone's team won the division then got left out of the playoffs IIRC).

I just think a runoff reintroduces too much additional subjectivity, etc. I think, for example, CLE and WASH are really close this year, but if was on the losing end (after thinking I was in) i could see thinking "Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline."?

And there's of course the chance that we have tie, say, for 3rd or 5th place. I'd rather the commish break the tie with a formula, than say have a sep. poll for that seed.

[KCattheStripe]

Less Roy Hobbs quitting.

[Roy Hobbs]

a couple of things from today --- assuming we/the Mods refer back to this thread next year --- that maybe we can build on for next year, since it's very difficult on the commish to change in season.(i think Don's done a great job, btw)

DECORUM:

1a. loved the "signing the rules" idea this time. Add in "golden rule" next time --- treat others as you want them to treat you.

1b. a 3-strikes (or even 2 strikes) policy... GMs can be warned 1x offlist by the commish to "cool it", a 2nd warning goes public on the list, 3rd time their booted...

or something like this so we don't get to the point where someone takes it too far, then someone else quits... no one wins in that circumstance.

1c. Maybe there's even a positive reinforcement thing where if soemthings getting heated (that's non-basketball, I mean bickering about rules, or a he said/he said situaiton), the GM that says "Let's just agree to disagree and leave it alone" or something appropriately DE-ESCALATING gets like 10 TPs....


PLAYOFF VOTING -- also LOVED the playoff voting idea and think it went just about as smooth as it could be expected....


2. In the case of a playoff vote tie, some sort of tiebreaker --- i suggest most "Playoff" votes (i.e. 1st-8th place votes)?

2nd tiebreaker could be highest # of highest votes (i.e. if neither got a !st place, then 2nd place, votes, if neither got 2nd, then 3rd place, and so on)

(could do division winner votes as the 1st tiebreaker, but if Team A gets none but was on everyone's ballot as a plyoff team and Team B got 1 (their own) but was on all but say 3 ballots, i'd say the tie should go to Team A).

Good suggestions.

There are a few ways to handle a tiebreaker:

1.  Runoff

2.  Most playoff votes

3.  Most high votes

4.  Median vote

5.  Average vote after throwing out the high and low vote received.

6.  Average vote after discarding the ballot the GM cast for his own team.

interesting suggestions, Roy...

IIRC, we went to this model (just conf. voting) to avoid the problems we had with 2 sets (division then conf. voting) last year (when someone's team won the division then got left out of the playoffs IIRC).

I just think a runoff reintroduces too much additional subjectivity, etc. I think, for example, CLE and WASH are really close this year, but if was on the losing end (after thinking I was in) i could see thinking "****"?

And there's of course the chance that we have tie, say, for 3rd or 5th place. I'd rather the commish break the tie with a formula, than say have a sep. poll for that seed.

Yeah, in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting those options be the tie-breaker order.  Rather, they were various options that could be employed as the first tie-breaker.

It's interesting to see how these would have played out:

1.  Runoff -- TBD

2.  Most playoff votes -- Washington wins

3.  Most high votes -- Cleveland wins

4.  Median vote - Washington wins

5.  Average vote after throwing out the high and low vote received. - Washington wins

6.  Average vote after discarding the ballot the GM cast for his own team. - Washington wins

[Roy Hobbs]

Since it came up in another GM's post above, let me remind everyone that "he attacked me first" isn't a valid reason to break Celticsblog rules.  The "if you come at me, I'm going to come at you harder" philosophy isn't permitted around here.

[Rondo2287]

Best advice to make the game better is to worry about one's own team. Talk about how great you are and don't spend so much time trying to bash other teams. Starting stuff usually gets stuff thrown back at you. Also misleading posts on another team's players is another dangerous thing imo.

Yes but there needs to be a level of criticism in this game.  And when there is if you keep it focused on the teams and not GM's it will avoid a great deal of Drama.  And a GM shouldn't have to worry about the threat of having something thrown back at them if they post criticism about another GM's team.  

I forget who said it, but this is like a test when you already have the answers.  For the most part people should know where they are going to get voted because of the criticisms and praise they receive during the process which is something I wouldn't like to see change. Hence why I traded Arenas and got a SG

[Roy Hobbs]

Less Roy Hobbs quitting.

Eh...  let's look at it less like me quitting, and more like Edgar gaining control of the team in a hostile takeover.

[Roy Hobbs]

Yes but there needs to be a level of criticism in this game.  And when there is if you keep it focused on the teams and not GM's it will avoid a great deal of Drama.  And a GM shouldn't have to worry about the threat of having something thrown back at them if they post criticism about another GM's team.  

I forget who said it, but this is like a test when you already have the answers.  For the most part people should know where they are going to get voted because of the criticisms and praise they receive during the process which is something I wouldn't like to see change. Hence why I traded Arenas and got a SG

I agree completely.  There are certain GMs who are better salespeople than others.  GMs should be able to put things in perspective and criticize each other's teams, without criticizing one another. 

It would make for a pretty boring game, if folks couldn't comment on each other's teams except in a 100% positive tone.

Team A:  My team is perfect, and has no flaws!

Team B:  I concur that your team has no flaws, and neither does mine!

Team C:  I agree.  You both have perfect teams.  Also, the rookie I just picked up who was drafted in the second round of the 2009 NBA draft is going to win MVP!

Team A:  Agreed!  But co-MVP, because this guy I picked up in the 9th round deserves consideration, too.

Teams B and C:  Deal!

As you said, the key is to make sure the criticism and jabs are directed at one another's teams, rather than at the GMs themselves.

[Gainesville Celtic]

a couple of things from today --- assuming we/the Mods refer back to this thread next year --- that maybe we can build on for next year, since it's very difficult on the commish to change in season.(i think Don's done a great job, btw)

DECORUM:

1a. loved the "signing the rules" idea this time. Add in "golden rule" next time --- treat others as you want them to treat you.

1b. a 3-strikes (or even 2 strikes) policy... GMs can be warned 1x offlist by the commish to "cool it", a 2nd warning goes public on the list, 3rd time their booted...

or something like this so we don't get to the point where someone takes it too far, then someone else quits... no one wins in that circumstance.

1c. Maybe there's even a positive reinforcement thing where if soemthings getting heated (that's non-basketball, I mean bickering about rules, or a he said/he said situaiton), the GM that says "Let's just agree to disagree and leave it alone" or something appropriately DE-ESCALATING gets like 10 TPs....


PLAYOFF VOTING -- also LOVED the playoff voting idea and think it went just about as smooth as it could be expected....


2. In the case of a playoff vote tie, some sort of tiebreaker --- i suggest most "Playoff" votes (i.e. 1st-8th place votes)?

2nd tiebreaker could be highest # of highest votes (i.e. if neither got a !st place, then 2nd place, votes, if neither got 2nd, then 3rd place, and so on)

(could do division winner votes as the 1st tiebreaker, but if Team A gets none but was on everyone's ballot as a plyoff team and Team B got 1 (their own) but was on all but say 3 ballots, i'd say the tie should go to Team A).

Good suggestions.

There are a few ways to handle a tiebreaker:

1.  Runoff

2.  Most playoff votes

3.  Most high votes

4.  Median vote

5.  Average vote after throwing out the high and low vote received.

6.  Average vote after discarding the ballot the GM cast for his own team.

interesting suggestions, Roy...

IIRC, we went to this model (just conf. voting) to avoid the problems we had with 2 sets (division then conf. voting) last year (when someone's team won the division then got left out of the playoffs IIRC).

I just think a runoff reintroduces too much additional subjectivity, etc. I think, for example, CLE and WASH are really close this year, but if was on the losing end (after thinking I was in) i could see thinking "****"?

And there's of course the chance that we have tie, say, for 3rd or 5th place. I'd rather the commish break the tie with a formula, than say have a sep. poll for that seed.

Yeah, in case I wasn't clear, I wasn't suggesting those options be the tie-breaker order.  Rather, they were various options that could be employed as the first tie-breaker.

It's interesting to see how these would have played out:

1.  Runoff -- TBD

2.  Most playoff votes -- Washington wins

3.  Most high votes -- Cleveland wins

4.  Median vote - Washington wins

5.  Average vote after throwing out the high and low vote received. - Washington wins

6.  Average vote after discarding the ballot the GM cast for his own team. - Washington wins

Yeah i think it got that, i was mostly responding to that I think the move away from the runoff--- in most circumstances --- would be my preference...

the other options all seem perfectly fine/reasonable with me.