CB Draft exits interviews: What did you like, what could be better?

[Roy H.]

So, since we have nothing else to talk about...  more draft stuff!

I think IP did a tremendous job this year.  Everything ran smoothly, and some of the minor tweaks made (such as the rule that a GM can't have a top-5 pick two years in a row) really improved the experience.

That said, there can always be additional improvements.  Some ideas:

Vetoes 

I think vetoes are a necessary evil, and they have to run through the entire draft.  I personally like having them be solely in the Commissioner's discretion; it's the only way things can really be handled in a timely manner (i.e., asking everyone to vote doesn't work).  I also don't think any sort of "value system" works, but if anybody wants to suggest one, that would be something worth talking about.

Modified snake

I think the modified snake works well.  However, another GM suggested that guys who pick around 10th get screwed, and that the third round should start at pick #10 (i.e., pick 10 has the first pick, you go until the end of the GMs, and then go in reverse order down to #1 to complete the round).  I'm not a huge fan of this idea, but again, it's worth discussing.

Coaches

Thoughts on increasing the importance of coaches?  They're kind of an afterthought at this point, with some guys making relatively silly picks (i.e., Shaq) just because they like the guys.  I can relate -- Norman Dale was my coach for two years running.  At the same time, coaching is a large part of NBA success (maybe, what, 10%?)  An idea to make coaches more important:  allow people to trade up / down in the coaches round, just like regular draft picks.  The only caveat would be that you can't completely trade out of the round.

I also like the idea of doing the coaches round draft order in a "spiral" down from the middle of the draft.  In other words, the 13th pick in the first round would pick 1st in the coaches round, the 12th pick would pick 2nd, the 14th pick would pick 3rd, etc.  It gives those who pick in the middle a bit of a bonus.  (The criticism here, though, is that GMs with the last pick of the 1st round don't pick their coach until 23rd).

Rosters

I'd like to see a 13-round draft, but allow up to 15 man rosters (with a minimum of 13 players).  This emphasizes free agency, and rewards GMs who accumulate additional draft picks.

Team of the Future

I loved that IP put a bit more of an emphasis on this in the voting stage this year.  Next year, I'd like to see it get even more attention.  I also liked opening it up to everybody put the four Conference Finalists.

Superlatives

One idea I toyed with this year is awarding GMs superlatives, such as Rookie of the Year or MVGM (most valuable GM).  The downside is that it could devolve into a popularity contest; the upside is that it rewards people for their hard work, even if they don't reach the Finals.  For instance, this year Gainesville would probably be my vote for MVP.  He started the draft with a poor pick, but really reworked his roster through some very smart trades.  To me, that was a very impressive feat that deserves some level of recognition.

Contraction

I liked contraction this year; it made for stronger, more entertaining teams, without allowing anybody to be *completely* stacked.  However, I think adding a couple of teams -- maybe a 26 team league -- would be a good idea.  It would allow more GMs to participate, while still allowing greater depth than the "real" NBA.

Anybody have houghts on any/all of the above, or additional ideas?

[Gainesville Celtic]

Some interesting thoughts here Roy, my comments are below.

Here are my 2-3 most important feedback items:

1. CB Draft 5.5 in October -- I know its a lot of work for commishes, etc. but I propose that we have another CB Draft in October if/when the lockout has cancelled training camp. And CBD 5.75 in February if the whole season is gonna be cancelled.

Yes. I'm serious.

(In small part b/c i'd love to get one more CBD in before our baby comes in Feb.)


2. 26-30 teams - 24 was too few IMO -- and yes I know that we had a hard time reaching even that. I still contend that that was b/c of the lockout and people not visiting CBlog as much (though someone could refute that who sees visitation stats obvs).

I think the fewer teams meant less trading b/c there was a higher level of value with each pick.

I know I'm in the minority, but I prefer 30. But since I think talentewise the real NBA could stand to lose 2-4 teams I'm fine with going to 28 or 26.


3. 14 rounds, 15 man rosters - I know that we tend to lose folks as the draft goes along, but in some ways that's their loss (I know too that it makes more work for the commish).

I love to see how people use or don't use those late picks... young teams can get veteran presences, old teams add young guns, etc.

Maybe I'm just sentimental b/c in my first year (the 2nd draft) I grabbed Marcin Gortat in the 15th and was legitimately p---ed for missing out on Randy Livingston (yes that Randy Livingston).


4. 3 weeks of drafting instead of 2 -- again I know that this was somewhat born of necessity, but I'm not a huge fan of the 2 rounds a day. It makes them seem less important in a way. Maybe we could test this out in CBD 5.5 (see above)


5. Picking teams -- I know it may have been done to save time, cut down on bickering but I liked being the Magic (living 2 hrs away) and competing against Lucky and KC the first couple of years. I'm sure there was a good reason for assiging teams, but i liked the ol' days. (Heck I just miss arguing against Lucky this year).


6. More scolling text/images -- I didn't do my part but overall the CBD felt a twitch more serious this year, less jokey. There were times in the past that 



Overall this was another great year and everyone should throw TPs at IP!

So, since we have nothing else to talk about...  more draft stuff!

I think IP did a tremendous job this year.  Everything ran smoothly, and some of the minor tweaks made (such as the rule that a GM can't have a top-5 pick two years in a row) really improved the experience.

Totally agree -- great job IP. The only downside was that with IPs added commish duties I feel he had less time to entertain which is always one of the high points of the draft for me (there were still plenty of IP-goodness, but I want more)

Vetoes 

I think vetoes are a necessary evil, and they have to run through the entire draft.  I personally like having them be solely in the Commissioner's discretion.

completely agree. I think the only time this usually even comes up is with newer GMs who haven't really grasped relative value yet.

Modified snake

I think the modified snake works well.  However, another GM suggested that guys who pick around 10th get screwed, and that the third round should start at pick #10 (i.e., pick 10 has the first pick, you go until the end of the GMs, and then go in reverse order down to #1 to complete the round).  I'm not a huge fan of this idea, but again, it's worth discussing.

having had picks in the 20s the last 2 drafts, i can't really speak to this other than it sounds unneedlessly complicated. I think the 3rd round will become a confusing mess as folks try and remember what pick they have.

IP got to the finals as 10th pick. IMO at 10 you're still getting a player that can legitimately lead (if not carry like picks 1-8 or so) your team to a Finals run. You're getting an Deron/Amare/Rondo.

Coaches

Thoughts on increasing the importance of coaches?  They're kind of an afterthought at this point, with some guys making relatively silly picks (i.e., Shaq) just because they like the guys.  I can relate -- Norman Dale was my coach for two years running.  At the same time, coaching is a large part of NBA success (maybe, what, 10%?)  An idea to make coaches more important:  allow people to trade up / down in the coaches round, just like regular draft picks.  The only caveat would be that you can't completely trade out of the round.

I'm torn on this.

On the one hand, I think good coaches *do* help makes teams better (Thibs in CHI etc). And it seems like it could help "break a tie"... ie. btween evenly matched teams Thibs is the difference over Shaq.

On the other hand, I have to admit I don't follow coaches as much and it seems harder to define their impact. Was Doc as bad as his early Celtic teams or as good as his later ones?

Team of the Future

I loved that IP put a bit more of an emphasis on this in the voting stage this year.  Next year, I'd like to see it get even more attention.  I also liked opening it up to everybody put the four Conference Finalists.

i've never liked the term "team of the future", but that has more to do with my outlook --- i try and win each year or go down trying.

Superlatives

One idea I toyed with this year is awarding GMs superlatives, such as Rookie of the Year or MVGM (most valuable GM).  The downside is that it could devolve into a popularity contest; the upside is that it rewards people for their hard work, even if they don't reach the Finals.  For instance, this year Gainesville would probably be my vote for MVP.  He started the draft with a poor pick, but really reworked his roster through some very smart trades.  To me, that was a very impressive feat that deserves some level of recognition.

This is a HORRIBLE idea... that guy Gainesville is a moron and a cheat. Oh wait. 



sniff... you like me, Roy.... you really, really like me. 

kidding aside, i like the spirit here Roy --- thre are GMs who do good things that don't make it all the way to the top. Nice to recognize them.

A few other superlatives: Most Ubuntu (the GM who displays the best spirit for keeping things going/togehter); Funniest (always a 2-horse race between ChampKind and IP).

But I also agree it coudl be a popularity (or unpopularity) contest. Maybe we could get a group of 3 folks to act as a judges panel who miss the playoffs or something?

Or ask Jeff Clark, Bill Simmons, and the Deli Guy to serve as that panel?

[mgent]

Modified Snake:

I really really like that idea.  I know last year it was pretty hard for me to build around KG with two 19th picks.  Picks 10-15 don't get a superstar but still get punished.  An early 3rd round pick would be much more even.


Coaches:

Not that big deal in my mind, I probably couldn't name one coach on the correct team right now.  The top 5 picks get a huge advantage, and by the end there's no great choices (I know I could've picked Jerry Sloan, but oh well I like McHale better).  It's a players' league so it's not a huge factor in my opinion, but if others really like that part then a rule change is fine with me.


Rosters:

Another great suggestion.  There were still good end of roster players left after the drafting was over, and I'd love to participate in FA.


Contraction:

I think I'm in the minority, but I'd say less teams worked better.  Easier to rank and memorize everyone's teams.  Plus having better players to choose from made it a lot more fun, especially in the later rounds

[mgent]

I personally disagree with GC about making it longer.

Two weeks is already a ton of time spent on the computer (at least an hour a day), and most of that time ends up coming from your personal life.

[indeedproceed]

Contraction: I'd go as high as 26 teams, but I think 24 worked out really well.'we have only one GM who outright 'quit', and that wasn't until the 12th round.

I'm on board with a 15 man roster, but I really think limited the # of players added in the fa period this year was a solid ideas. Savvy GMs will hoard players. C'est une fact.limiting the # of players added, and limiting the amount of players added helps both those situations.

Two 'duh' moves that are no-brainers: make the FA PERIOD coincide withthe trade and roster deadline. Veto for all 13 rounds and up until the roster deadline. I listened to critiques of the veto and tried a more relaxed system. Didn't work.

[mgent]

24 is also nice because all the divisions are even.

[StartOrien]

More Pacers wins, less Pacers losses.

[KCattheStripe]

More Pacers wins, less Pacers losses.

Nice of you to wish that on next year's Pacers GMs.

[dark_lord]

i cant really speak about the process, as i wasnt involved.  i guess i would recommend involving more "outsiders", like myself, to get involved in discussion/voting.  not quite sure how u go about doing it.  for me, i somewhat read about the picks, trades, etc when they were happening.  i started to read once teams were finalized and voting was going to start.

to involve more outsiders, one idea would be to have less threads, if possible.  if your not in the draft, it is easy to be overwhelmed and confused by all the threads.  by condensing them, it may attract more people to get involved in discussion and voting.

just my 2 cents.  not sure how people felt about my involvement or voting.

[nickagneta]

I don't like the idea of the super modified drafted with the third round starting at GM 13 or whatever. Two years ago, Roy and Edgar traded out of the 1st round and won it all. This year GC started low and IP started pick ten and both were conference finalists. Last year I started 26th and was considered a top three Eastern Conference team with Chicago and Milwaukee and made it to the Eastern semis.

Time and again you see people with relatively low starting points going to the conference semis. Its harder, requires savvy drafting and the ability to make trades, especially after players have already been chosen, like in the mid to late rounds where trades include players. it's part of the game. It's part of the real NBA.


How about a CB Draft semi-keeper league in which the order of the next draft is determined by the regular season finish of the year before so long as we have the same people drafting.

So

24. Rondo/Nick
23. mgent
23. IP
22. etc.
21. etc.

It would encourage participation of the GMs who didn't do as well the previous year and make things have meaning for the next year. That way if you go strictly for a TOTF team knowing you are going to be voted low in the regular season standings, the next year you know you will have a high draft pick. People can keep their team names or juggle them. People who drop out, co-GMs are given first preference for their teams then if more teams want to participate they can be added in a lottery system. If you add two teams put numbers 1-26 in the bag and draw a number for each team, that team gets that spot and the teams that were at that spot or lower get moved down.

Re-install the veto but assign a panel that includes the commish and two GMs. The commish has the discretion to first question the trade, the panel votes and majority rules. A GM can not be a decision make if his team is involved and abstains while the commish makes his vote for him.

I just think relative value left in the hands of one person is a mistake while relative value left in the hands of the entire group of GMs is a bigger mistake.

For instance, IP has binkies and is the commish. Someone decides to trade Jonny Flynn for Kyle Lowry straight up. IP might decide to veto that because of his high opinion of Lowry whereas, as we have seen, not everybody feels so highly of Lowry. I just thin a couple more opinions need to be at least consulted on. And please don't take this the wrong way but I don't mean two other mods. I mean GMs. Maybe the Finalists from the year before, if they are mods so be it.

[Lucky17]

So, since we have nothing else to talk about...  more draft stuff!

I think IP did a tremendous job this year.  Everything ran smoothly, and some of the minor tweaks made (such as the rule that a GM can't have a top-5 pick two years in a row) really improved the experience.

That said, there can always be additional improvements.  Some ideas:

Vetoes 

I think vetoes are a necessary evil, and they have to run through the entire draft.  I personally like having them be solely in the Commissioner's discretion; it's the only way things can really be handled in a timely manner (i.e., asking everyone to vote doesn't work).  I also don't think any sort of "value system" works, but if anybody wants to suggest one, that would be something worth talking about.

Agreed: a necessary evil, and while I see it as a nuclear option, I think it's one that the commissioner absolutely needs at his disposal.

It shouldn't be solely up to the commissioner, though. Random polling of other GMs not involved in the trade? Minimum number of dissenting GMs to enact a veto? Needs discussing.

Modified snake

I think the modified snake works well.  However, another GM suggested that guys who pick around 10th get screwed, and that the third round should start at pick #10 (i.e., pick 10 has the first pick, you go until the end of the GMs, and then go in reverse order down to #1 to complete the round).  I'm not a huge fan of this idea, but again, it's worth discussing.

I liked the modified snake. Changing it seems unnecessarily complicated. If GMs want to improve their draft position, they should make trades.

Coaches

Thoughts on increasing the importance of coaches?  They're kind of an afterthought at this point, with some guys making relatively silly picks (i.e., Shaq) just because they like the guys.  I can relate -- Norman Dale was my coach for two years running.  At the same time, coaching is a large part of NBA success (maybe, what, 10%?)  An idea to make coaches more important:  allow people to trade up / down in the coaches round, just like regular draft picks.  The only caveat would be that you can't completely trade out of the round.

I also like the idea of doing the coaches round draft order in a "spiral" down from the middle of the draft.  In other words, the 13th pick in the first round would pick 1st in the coaches round, the 12th pick would pick 2nd, the 14th pick would pick 3rd, etc.  It gives those who pick in the middle a bit of a bonus.  (The criticism here, though, is that GMs with the last pick of the 1st round don't pick their coach until 23rd).

I do think coaches should matter somewhat, but the coaches' round should be kept completely separate from the remainder of the draft. Completely different (random) order, and no trades involving players/picks can involve coaches' round picks. I don't like the idea of trading coaches, either.

Rosters

I'd like to see a 13-round draft, but allow up to 15 man rosters (with a minimum of 13 players).  This emphasizes free agency, and rewards GMs who accumulate additional draft picks.

I do like the idea of larger rosters. 13 rounds seem fine to me. A slightly longer FA period?

Team of the Future

I loved that IP put a bit more of an emphasis on this in the voting stage this year.  Next year, I'd like to see it get even more attention.  I also liked opening it up to everybody put the four Conference Finalists.

Team of the Future (TotF) always seemed to me like a good secondary option for GMs who didn't think they could assemble a playoff-caliber roster. I do think it should get continued emphasis/discussion.

Superlatives

One idea I toyed with this year is awarding GMs superlatives, such as Rookie of the Year or MVGM (most valuable GM).  The downside is that it could devolve into a popularity contest; the upside is that it rewards people for their hard work, even if they don't reach the Finals.  For instance, this year Gainesville would probably be my vote for MVP.  He started the draft with a poor pick, but really reworked his roster through some very smart trades.  To me, that was a very impressive feat that deserves some level of recognition.

Perhaps just a single GMoY award, for whatever criteria? Not necessarily for the GM who assembles the championship team, obviously.

Contraction

I liked contraction this year; it made for stronger, more entertaining teams, without allowing anybody to be *completely* stacked.  However, I think adding a couple of teams -- maybe a 26 team league -- would be a good idea.  It would allow more GMs to participate, while still allowing greater depth than the "real" NBA.

Fewer GMs this year meant a deeper pool of talent for GMs to draw from. I think it made things much more competitive. Expanding just a little might be OK, but no more than to 26 team, IMO.

Also, I have to say it: if it were up to me, there's at least one GM who shouldn't be invited back next year. Either that, or he needs to have an assistant GM lined up to take over when he decides to bail on us again.

Other suggestions:

A reopened trade period, perhaps during the pressers, or before the playoffs begin? This would allow GMs to react/respond to their peers'/competitors' feedback and moves.

Greater encouragement of non-GM involvement in voting and critiquing. I love seeing people wander into these threads to give their two cents. Perhaps non-participating mods could be recruited to offer their two cents (for TPs, karma, etc.)? The more voters, the better, I think.

Pressers should be streamlined, short, and sweet. Lots of people confessed they couldn't get through all of them this year. I think simple arguments/profiles about your roster should suffice for initial presentations; get into the nitty-gritty details when other GMs ask the right questions.

[dark_lord]

Pressers should be streamlined, short, and sweet. Lots of people confessed they couldn't get through all of them this year. I think simple arguments/profiles about your roster should suffice for initial presentations; get into the nitty-gritty details when other GMs ask the right questions.

as an outsider, i agree with this. 

[Lucky17]

Re-install the veto but assign a panel that includes the commish and two GMs. The commish has the discretion to first question the trade, the panel votes and majority rules. A GM can not be a decision make if his team is involved and abstains while the commish makes his vote for him.

I like this idea, but with a larger pool of GMs involved. Obviously, GMs involved in a questionable trade shouldn't be involved; likewise, perhaps the GMs in the same divisions as those GMs making a suspect trade might not the best choices for panelists.

Perhaps designate one GM from each division to weigh in on trades, plus the commissioner, plus a couple non-participating mods? A pool of 7-10 to draw from ought to provide a critical mass of panelists for any suspect trade.

[Roy H.]

Interesting suggestions, Lucky.  My instant reaction:

A reopened trade period, perhaps during the pressers, or before the playoffs begin? This would allow GMs to react/respond to their peers'/competitors' feedback and moves.

In my mind, the press conferences are the opportunity to present your final roster.  I think those GMs who want feedback can normally get it from the "how's my team" thread that people discuss in.

It's a noble idea, I just wonder if it would lead to more confusion / less finality.

Greater encouragement of non-GM involvement in voting and critiquing. I love seeing people wander into these threads to give their two cents. Perhaps non-participating mods could be recruited to offer their two cents (for TPs, karma, etc.)? The more voters, the better, I think.

I definitely agree with this.  Maybe more front page promotion would help.  Maybe writing up a primer for newbies would be good.  I understand DL's point about the number of threads being intimidating, but at the same time that helps prevent confusion for those who are participating, I think.  I don't know the answer, but this should be talked about.

Pressers should be streamlined, short, and sweet. Lots of people confessed they couldn't get through all of them this year. I think simple arguments/profiles about your roster should suffice for initial presentations; get into the nitty-gritty details when other GMs ask the right questions.

Probably for traditional reasons as much as anything else, I like GMs having the freedom to do whatever they want with the pressers.  While many skim over them, I think they're a fun thing for a lot of GMs to do.

However, a good idea might be to ask everybody to include a 150-200 word summary of their team plus their roster, which could be posted in a summary thread for those who want to only read that.  That way, people who are just watching from afar can go in and get a quick glimpse of all 24 (of 26, or 30) teams.  I'm going to strongly recommend this to next year's Commish.

I also like what we did last year (I think) in terms of playoff matchups having an opening statement and a rebuttal from each GM.  Two bites at the apple in easy to read format, separate and apart from the comments thread.

[StartOrien]

So, I really do enjoy the whole Celticsblog draft. I want to make that clear. The zings, the picking of the players, analyzing how teams would work together, all a lot of  fun. I thought 24 teams really worked out perfectly.

Here's what I don't like:

- In the 'hows my team thread' there are some people who really seem to abuse the thread asking for advice without returning the favor. IP ran the entire draft, and is writing 1500 word breakdowns on how he thinks teams would work and he has to beg people to give him some input. I think going forward there has to be some kinda rule, past just general ethics, that you've got to actually give people some input if you're going to ask for people's advice.

- Similarly, and this is clearly coming from a team who lost in the playoffs much earlier than expected: It's disheartening to lose in an 'upset' without people really giving an explanation on why they voted for a lower seeded team. I think we all work pretty hard on this draft, it's nice to see at least some kind of feedback. Something like "I know Gasol/Zbo just killed Duncan/Blair BUT....'  

-Totally agree with what was said before, there's gotta be a way to streamline some of the pressers and matchups so outsiders could get more involved. Even for owners it's hard to keep track of what players are where, how owners plan to run their teams, etc. I can only imagine how much work it must be for outsiders like DarkLord to get themselves up to speed.