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

[mgent]

What worked for me last year:  defense

What didn't work too well:  Yi and Reggie Evans as my backup bigs 

[Kane3387]

My dirty little secret, Yoki, is that I was a horrible GM my first two years.

All I know is that if I go up against you next year, and I hope I do, is that I am looking up some of your recent CBL teams. Had I known you had argued strongly in support of Big Al a couple years ago it would have helped my cause.

That being said, assuming it's not too much work, I will do that to any playoff opponent I go up against in the future.

This league was tight though. It was a lot more intense then any fantasy league I have played in. Props too a TON of knowledgeable people not only in our league but on this blog in general.

[Roy H.]

One reason not to cut down on the press conferences:  they're a ton of fun to go back and reminisce with.  I was just reading IP's 2009 edition (Link).  Fun stuff, especially comparing IP's "anticipated stats" to the real ones in hindsight.

[Gainesville Celtic]

Bottom line is it's harder for picks 10-15 than it is for picks 16-30 to catch up to the superstars.  You even admitted that it's harder and teams need the ability to make trades in their favor.  They shouldn't have to be forced to make moves.  You think it's savvy GMing to make trades and move up, but some people just like taking what they're given.

Again, I just think the DRAFT should be more about who you draft than trading around.  Too many people are just sending out unfair offers hoping they can trick somebody into helping them out (at least that's what the majority of the PMs I got were).

If we took out trades altogether I'd be gone -- it's what separates this from a mock draft on yahoo or something. Of the 2 blockbusters I pulled this year, one was proposed to me (and I therefore imagine the GM thought he liked what he getting better than what he was giving) and the other was a follow up to a post (repeated many times) that player x was available. I sent ONE offer for him and the GM accepted. This is not to say that you may not have been deluged with bad offers but that is just part of the game. A polite "no thanks" seemed to work well for me.

I just cant buy this stuff about it being harder for folks w a #10 pick than a lower pick. If that's true I'll gladly trade ALL my picks next time I start w #21 and you or anyone else gets #10.

I suspect that as with the real NBA it's just hard to build a team without flaws whether your pickin 1st, 10th or 21st.

[Gainesville Celtic]

I will say the one thing I'd love to work on changing is the overly hyperbolic nature of the playoff threads.

Look everyone loves their own team --  and everyone but Who votes for their own team  -- that said it feels like sometimes it becomes just either too much "yes Tim Duncan WILL average a triple double!!" or "my 4 advantages destroy your 5 advantages"

Sometimes those are fun/interesting. As often they become tiresome

One suggestion I had was that we'd have to argue for another team (obvious downside being you know best how/why the guys you picked would fit together).

Another idea might be to mandate that we answer something about our teams weaknesses ("my team wins if x, losses if y". A few GMs do this but it's rare. I can see though that it could be sort of like "I care too much" as ananswer to "what are your weaknesses" during a job interview.

I just want it to be that the team that advances isn't just the one that argues best/most. (especially since it should be the team that Photoshops the best/most )

[indeedproceed]

For the record, I'm not ashamed of any of my projected stats, they're based very firmly in rational logic, and not all of them have been wrong.

And also, there is a reason nick and rondo didn't bring up my arguments with Lebron, miller, or Jennings last off-season. That's because frankly, a lot can change in a year, let alone two.

[Edgar]

for example when a veteran quality full of knowledge tankingg, 20  10 oh well 18 9 player is a bad pick at 4th round and not the biggest hit ever

[The Walker Wiggle]

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.

Good suggestion, Lucky. As I recall, Nick put together a three man panel for the first (or second?) historic draft, and it struck me as great addition then.

The panel wouldn't have to be moderators only. I suspect there are some eloquent trade thread regulars that could become CB Draft devotees and only don't know it yet. It might not even be that difficult to recruit a five member panel. Anyway, it's always nice to asked. A personal invite from Roy is how I ended up in the first Pick Two Draft.

And following the thought through, it might work well to dedicate a thread to debate with or just amongst the panel?

Or,  out of respect for the push to limit the number of threads - I can see the value in that - another thought would be to allow only the panel to comment in the draft thread as the picks are made? That's likely a step too far, but there is something to be said for a clean-ish draft thread.

Division debate limited to teams within the division and the panel?

[The Walker Wiggle]

3)  I would want trades open up sooner then the end of the 1st round.  

Yeah, it's worth talking about.  Perhaps allow people to complete trades the day before the draft.

We put the trade in place because in early years, savvy (or blood-thirsty) GMs would prey on weaker / less experienced managers and would stack their team before draft value could be established.  For instance, one particularly evil GM started with the 8th and 53rd picks in the draft, and somehow ended up with the 9th, 26th, 32nd, and 43rd picks.  Cutting down on pre-draft trades prevents stuff like that from happening.

Count me as somebody who's liked the change. As I remember it, in the early drafts that featured a week or more of predraft trades, invariably one or two GMs would hamstring their teams chances before the first pick and then meekly slip away around the fourth or fifth round.

And if we're discussing ideal length, I'd much rather see a day or two added back to the press conferences and playoffs versus predraft. Although this year the balance was clearly very close to perfect.

[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.

I think this is the biggest for me. Having people who have nothing invested in this really makes the voting better. It also increases debates in threads and makes the game less subjective. I would LOVE it if there was a way to make the voting include as much GMs as possible.

Only thing is that some rounds could include more voters then others, but even so I think it's a good thing regardless. I really liked having guys like Dark Lord involved.

thanks kane

[Roy H.]

Good suggestion, Lucky. As I recall, Nick put together a three man panel for the first (or second?) historic draft, and it struck me as great addition then.

The panel wouldn't have to be moderators only. I suspect there are some eloquent trade thread regulars that could become CB Draft devotees and only don't know it yet. It might not even be that difficult to recruit a five member panel. Anyway, it's always nice to asked. A personal invite from Roy is how I ended up in the first Pick Two Draft.

And following the thought through, it might work well to dedicate a thread to debate with or just amongst the panel?

Or,  out of respect for the push to limit the number of threads - I can see the value in that - another thought would be to allow only the panel to comment in the draft thread as the picks are made? That's likely a step too far, but there is something to be said for a clean-ish draft thread.

Division debate limited to teams within the division and the panel?

A panel is worth discussing.  The two big issues:

1.  Can we find three dedicated observers who want to serve on the panel, without taking away quality GMs?

2.  Will members accept putting their fate in the hands of three people, rather than all of their fellow GMs?

Regarding the first question, this is hopefully more of a minor hurdle, rather than a major stumbling block.  This year, myself and Fafnir participated daily, despite not having teams.  dark_lord could have been asked to give more feedback during the draft process.  If not DL, then somebody would have. 

However, also using the historic draft as an example, I think it's really unfair when judges -- meaning members appointed to a panel -- don't participate in the threads and give feedback.  It makes the results seem arbitrary.  When "judges" (i.e., voting) is spread out over 20-30 members, it's not a concern.  When it's 3 or 5, it is.

That brings us to the second concern.  Do GMs want to put the entire fate of their team in the hands of 3 or 5 people?  And do those 3 or 5 people want to have all the pressure of deciding winners?

Lastly, I'm personally not a fan of limiting discussion of teams to just panelists.  The entire reason this draft was started was for a large group of people to get together and to discuss hypothetical teams, player values, etc.  Originally, there wasn't even voting; it was supposed to be a thought exercise.  It just seems wrong, in my mind, to take away the very basis of the draft -- interaction between GMs and discussion of teams -- and putting it solely into the hands of 3 to 5 people.

It's worthy of discussion, but I don't like it.

[StartOrien]

I think there's something to the panel, but maybe just as a percentage. I'd really like to give a weighted difference to those who clearly partake daily and have put a lot of thought into their selections. I think that was also force owners to elaborate on their answers a little further.

My concern revolves around pandering.

 Pandering could take some of the fun out of the game. Basketball, and chemistry of players is really, really subjective. I'd be slightly concerned with other owners, and even myself, trying to select a team in order to impress a small panel.

For example, let's say Roy is a panelist; he's always been pretty vocal about certain players that I see as "his guys." When I'm drafting; in the back of my mind I've got to consider a player like Carlos Boozer - even though I don't value him very high - because I know at least 1/3rd of all panelists will love the pick.

That being said, I do really like the idea of weighting votes for a select few.

[nickagneta]

Good suggestion, Lucky. As I recall, Nick put together a three man panel for the first (or second?) historic draft, and it struck me as great addition then.

The panel wouldn't have to be moderators only. I suspect there are some eloquent trade thread regulars that could become CB Draft devotees and only don't know it yet. It might not even be that difficult to recruit a five member panel. Anyway, it's always nice to asked. A personal invite from Roy is how I ended up in the first Pick Two Draft.

And following the thought through, it might work well to dedicate a thread to debate with or just amongst the panel?

Or,  out of respect for the push to limit the number of threads - I can see the value in that - another thought would be to allow only the panel to comment in the draft thread as the picks are made? That's likely a step too far, but there is something to be said for a clean-ish draft thread.

Division debate limited to teams within the division and the panel?

A panel is worth discussing.  The two big issues:

1.  Can we find three dedicated observers who want to serve on the panel, without taking away quality GMs?

2.  Will members accept putting their fate in the hands of three people, rather than all of their fellow GMs?

Regarding the first question, this is hopefully more of a minor hurdle, rather than a major stumbling block.  This year, myself and Fafnir participated daily, despite not having teams.  dark_lord could have been asked to give more feedback during the draft process.  If not DL, then somebody would have. 

However, also using the historic draft as an example, I think it's really unfair when judges -- meaning members appointed to a panel -- don't participate in the threads and give feedback.  It makes the results seem arbitrary.  When "judges" (i.e., voting) is spread out over 20-30 members, it's not a concern.  When it's 3 or 5, it is.

That brings us to the second concern.  Do GMs want to put the entire fate of their team in the hands of 3 or 5 people?  And do those 3 or 5 people want to have all the pressure of deciding winners?

Lastly, I'm personally not a fan of limiting discussion of teams to just panelists.  The entire reason this draft was started was for a large group of people to get together and to discuss hypothetical teams, player values, etc.  Originally, there wasn't even voting; it was supposed to be a thought exercise.  It just seems wrong, in my mind, to take away the very basis of the draft -- interaction between GMs and discussion of teams -- and putting it solely into the hands of 3 to 5 people.

It's worthy of discussion, but I don't like it.

Roy, I don't think Lucky or Mr. Wiggle is saying that the panel be the ONLY voters in the process but for there to be a panel to give unbiased, non-self motivated observations and opinions of the draft process and participate in the voting along with the GMs.

[Roy H.]

Roy, I don't think Lucky or Mr. Wiggle is saying that the panel be the ONLY voters in the process but for there to be a panel to give unbiased, non-self motivated observations and opinions of the draft process and participate in the voting along with the GMs.

What's the purpose of a designated panel, then, rather than just having non-GMs participate in the process?  Isn't this exactly what myself, Fafnir, and later dark_lord all did?

[nickagneta]

Roy, I don't think Lucky or Mr. Wiggle is saying that the panel be the ONLY voters in the process but for there to be a panel to give unbiased, non-self motivated observations and opinions of the draft process and participate in the voting along with the GMs.

What's the purpose of a designated panel, then, rather than just having non-GMs participate in the process?  Isn't this exactly what myself, Fafnir, and later dark_lord all did?

I think its to encourage outside of the regular members participation in voting. You and Faf gave your opinions but you are regular CB Draft members. If we get a panel of outside the box participants, maybe we grow the draft and keep participation deeper into the draft voting.

Maybe those panelist like it so much they want to become GMs the next year.

Maybe the year after that we invite 5 other people to be those panelists and we start getting voting in the 30-35 area.

What you and Faf did was great but you are regulars with very definitive opinions about players and their value in this game. Hearing from 5 new voices would give a new perspective to people, I think.