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

[Roy H.]

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.

The issue I see coming up with a 3 person panel -- and especially a 7+ person panel -- is that sometimes trades a bang-bang events.  The Commish needs to make quick decisions, and the more people he has to consult with, the less well the system works. 

The other issue is that it simply invites controversy.  What if the vote is 2-1 for a veto, or 5-2?  Then, the person who feels like the deal shouldn't have been vetoed will always point to those who voted the trade down.  Also, human nature says that some people will shy away from making controversial decisions that offend their peers.  Asking participant GMs to do that isn't necessarily fun for anybody.

We've debated these issues a lot internally, and my opinion is that vetoes have to be a one-man show, for better for worse.  (Also, nick, Johnny Flynn for Kyle Lowry *should* be vetoed, every single time.)

[Roy H.]

- 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....'  

I agree with both of these, although I think making rules for either would be hard to enforce.  In my mind, it's more of a "best practices" thing.  But yeah, I agree.  I got frustrated by some of what I thought were lazy / shorthand arguments in favor / against certain teams this year, and no argument at all is even worse.

[indeedproceed]

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.

This was my natural inclination, and I've been lobbying for it for the last 2 years or so in one form or another.

But, I've never pressed it because everyone who had been commish said roundly that it was a poor idea, and now that I have been commish, I agree.

The Veto is contingent on the Commish being smart enough to know what is a blatantly bad trade and bad for the game, and what is a bad trade.

I barred a trade from happening once, and it was when the Veto was gone. Lesson: When the veto is gone, and a guy is offered an unfair trade, he'll take it everytime. Every trade that I thought about vetoing, I found out later that it had been proposed by the losing party.

There was one trade that I wanted to veto upon initial viewing, and I wanted to consult Roy about it. Took like 3 hours (although on the bright side, at no point in his response to me via PM did he actively lobby for people not to vote for my team in the Finals).

People have schedules, people have stuff going on. The Commish is supposed to be on call during drafting times, and when he isn't there, he's supposed to have a stand-in.

The Commish is supposed to merely decide whether or not a trade's disparity in value is ultimately bad for the game.

Kyle Lowry was a 3rd round pick, Johnny Flynn was what...a 7th? You're [dang] right I'd veto that.

[nickagneta]

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.

The issue I see coming up with a 3 person panel -- and especially a 7+ person panel -- is that sometimes trades a bang-bang events.  The Commish needs to make quick decisions, and the more people he has to consult with, the less well the system works. 

The other issue is that it simply invites controversy.  What if the vote is 2-1 for a veto, or 5-2?  Then, the person who feels like the deal shouldn't have been vetoed will always point to those who voted the trade down.  Also, human nature says that some people will shy away from making controversial decisions that offend their peers.  Asking participant GMs to do that isn't necessarily fun for anybody.

We've debated these issues a lot internally, and my opinion is that vetoes have to be a one-man show, for better for worse.  (Also, nick, Johnny Flynn for Kyle Lowry *should* be vetoed, every single time.)

1. I think the veto by one man wrong but so be it. My guess is a lot of the GMs that participate would say the same thing. Obviously Lucky feels that way I am sure a lot more would agree.

2. Trades don't have to be bang bang. If it comes down to the commish saying this trade is going to veto vote, the parties involved can pull out of the trade before it does to try to restructure it. If they allow it to go to veto vote, they have to live with the results including possibly having to draft a player they don't want.

3. I don't think Lowry for Flynn should be vetoed. Flyyn isn't the best player but he has potential to grow and someone could believe in that potential. Lowry could be just what you said he was, an average PG who had a really good 1-2 month stretch. he could take a major step back. There are people who are giant believers of Ricky Rubio and others that feel he is a complete bust. But in the real NBA if salaries didn't count I bet the Knicks would trade Billups for him. Yet if it was me, that would be a trade I would veto. Others would say it fair. And THATS why I think vetoes should never belong in one person's hands. In no other fantasy league I play in is veto of trades left up to one person. I play in 2 football, 1 basketball and 1 baseball. All are panelist vetoes or whole league vetoes with the commissioner just announcing whether it was allowed or not and not saying what the vote was or who voted what.

[Roy H.]

There was one trade that I wanted to veto upon initial viewing, and I wanted to consult Roy about it. Took like 3 hours (although on the bright side, at no point in his response to me via PM did he actively lobby for people not to vote for my team in the Finals).

Ouch.  If it makes you feel better, IP, I would have actively lobbied *for* you if you'd gone up against any team other than Philly (and maybe Indiana).

[indeedproceed]

There was one trade that I wanted to veto upon initial viewing, and I wanted to consult Roy about it. Took like 3 hours (although on the bright side, at no point in his response to me via PM did he actively lobby for people not to vote for my team in the Finals).

Ouch.  If it makes you feel better, IP, I would have actively lobbied *for* you if you'd gone up against any team other than Philly (and maybe Indiana).

lol..so basically anyone who wasn't a top 2 seed in the East I would've had a good shot at?

No, no, I know it was nothing personal, Sonny. Strictly business.

[Roy H.]

Vetoes always are going to be subjective.  The subjective opinion of a group does not, in my mind, make the final result less subjective, it just means fewer voices weighed in with their own subjective opinions. 

The Commish has to have the final calls on these things.  If people don't like the Commish's call, he'll be sure to hear about it, but the buck has to stop with somebody.

(And seriously, there are people who still think Johnny Flynn has potential?  5.3 ppg and 36% shooting Jonny Flynn?)

[Edgar]

To realize my teams are better than you all think
second year in a row without playoffs 
People really hate propaganda 

[Roy H.]

To realize my teams are better than you all think
second year in a row without playoffs 
People really hate propaganda 

More Panda-monium next year!

[indeedproceed]

-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.

One thing I don't like about people just kinda jumping in to vote:

After having several more hours to think about this...  I still don't see how anybody objectively thinks that the best team defense in the CB-NBA plus the league's most clutch superstar would lose to a team that starts Carlos Delfino, James Harden, and Kyle Lowry. 

This is what jumped out at me.  I haven't been following this thing until the Final (there's just too much to digest), but it must have been interesting to see how that core got Portland to this point. 

They must have done some fine jellin' 

Redz didn't vote until the Finals, and that's fine. But you guys read my stuff, I bet I typed up 20,000 words, and a lot of it was support for Lowry, Harden and Delfino, and why they worked.

But I guess it casts shadows both ways too, because you guys have been subjected to 20,000 words of my zealot evangelism for my team, so maybe I've changed a few minds. Maybe an outlook from the outside helps bring more objectivity.

But I can't help but think it takes some real fun out of the game if I've gotta field a crew of name-brand players to get legitimacy too. I like my CB Draft Teams like I like my rock music: relatively unknown until I start talking about them and won't shut up until you agree with me about how awesome they are.

[Roy H.]

^ Is it Redz' fault that he's astute enough to identify the best team in a matter of second / minutes, rather than after reading seven treatises of propaganda on the subject?

[indeedproceed]

^ Is it Redz' fault that he's astute enough to identify the best team in a matter of second / minutes, rather than after reading seven treatises of propaganda on the subject?

lol, yeah but look at the propaganda artist he was quoting...

[mgent]

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.

Yeah but the only teams you see with low starting points going far in the playoffs are the ones that make unbalanced trades.  With a somewhat strict veto rule it'd be even harder to do that.

I'd like to see game focus more on how good people are at picking value wherever their assigned draft position is, and less on how good people are at mass-PMing trying to get somebody to bite on a trade in their favor.  I'd say only about 15% of trade suggestions people send me are even close to fair value.

[Roy H.]

^ Is it Redz' fault that he's astute enough to identify the best team in a matter of second / minutes, rather than after reading seven treatises of propaganda on the subject?

That's not propaganda, that's advocacy, mixed with a healthy dose of education.

[Edgar]

And I am sure i was one of the fair trades