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

[indeedproceed]

Jonas Jerebko is a saint! You take that back you heathen!

[StartOrien]

There's getting excited about getting value in the last round and then there's GETTING EXCITED ABOUT GETTING VALUE in the last round

[Redz]

I'm trying to muster up some energy for another Ultimate Draft

But I think that all of the good topics may have been used already, 

Thought the more obscure ones might make it even sillier. 

I already play demons and saints

I guess i only have Pandas left

Evil Pandas of course.  http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2074429_2074446_2074791,00.html

[StartOrien]

Edgar, did you see this yesterday?

[Edgar]

Edgar, did you see this yesterday?

fun one

[StartOrien]

This is kind of half an idea, because it certainly would need elaborating:

But in my fantasy football league we now have what's called a "window day" on trades.

What that means is that after I announce a trade, there's a day for other owners to beat the offer.

So let's say I traded Tom Brady for Roscoe Parrish - there's a 24 hour window for people to tell me I'm stupid and offer much more for Tom Brady. At the end of the period I can either keep the original trade, or pick the best offer after that.

The advantage here is it takes away the whole "Wish I knew (player x) was available, I would've offered a lot more" argument, and curves out the lopsided trades.

Obviously for the CBDraft things are a little more complicated, but I think there's something in that idea that could work here.

[Who]

This is kind of half an idea, because it certainly would need elaborating:

But in my fantasy football league we now have what's called a "window day" on trades.

What that means is that after I announce a trade, there's a day for other owners to beat the offer.

So let's say I traded Tom Brady for Roscoe Parrish - there's a 24 hour window for people to tell me I'm stupid and offer much more for Tom Brady. At the end of the period I can either keep the original trade, or pick the best offer after that.

The advantage here is it takes away the whole "Wish I knew (player x) was available, I would've offered a lot more" argument, and curves out the lopsided trades.

Obviously for the CBDraft things are a little more complicated, but I think there's something in that idea that could work here.

That sounds like a really good idea.

[Donoghus]

Could be worth trying out next year.

Given some of the garbage, eye-rolling trades of the past, it's not the worst idea to try something new and see how it works.

[Fafnir]

Could be worth trying out next year.

Given some of the garbage, eye-rolling trades of the past, it's not the worst idea to try something new and see how it works.

I think its a good idea, the issue would be that during the draft due to the clock we'd have to modify it somehow.

[Roy H.]

This is kind of half an idea, because it certainly would need elaborating:

But in my fantasy football league we now have what's called a "window day" on trades.

What that means is that after I announce a trade, there's a day for other owners to beat the offer.

So let's say I traded Tom Brady for Roscoe Parrish - there's a 24 hour window for people to tell me I'm stupid and offer much more for Tom Brady. At the end of the period I can either keep the original trade, or pick the best offer after that.

The advantage here is it takes away the whole "Wish I knew (player x) was available, I would've offered a lot more" argument, and curves out the lopsided trades.

Obviously for the CBDraft things are a little more complicated, but I think there's something in that idea that could work here.

The problem I see with this idea is that lots of trades involve draft picks, and are done while "on the clock".  There's really no practical way to have a waiting period that I can think of.  Plus, it would leave GMs with some roster uncertainty.  For instance, what about the following scenario:  Team A needs a SF.  Team B and Team A agree to a trade for a SF.  However, the trade is in limbo, and Team A is on the clock with its next draft pick.  It's faced with the scenario of having to choose between picking a SF (and potentially having two players at the position on its roster), or passing on the SF (and potentially being left with nobody at the position).

It's an interesting idea for non-draft pick trades, although it does take away another bit of the "realism" from the game, and seems to punish aggressive GMs.  If this rule was implemented, GMs wouldn't have as much incentive to work the phones; they could simply wait and attempt to "match" another offer. 

This is something we should think about more.  Any tweaks that could address the above concerns would be appreciated.

[wdleehi]

It works for player for player trades.


Pick for pick trades and picks for players trades are that moment.  Waiting a day wouldn't work.

[StartOrien]

It's an interesting idea for non-draft pick trades, although it does take away another bit of the "realism" from the game, and seems to punish aggressive GMs.  If this rule was implemented, GMs wouldn't have as much incentive to work the phones; they could simply wait and attempt to "match" another offer.  

Especially after this season I'd have to think that almost every gm would rather find a way to insure fair trades over rewarding aggressive gm's.

The picks part is what makes it a little tricky though. That's why I mentioned it was half an idea.

Maybe something like: 5 minute window if it involves a pick, 1 hour window if it doesn't.

[nickagneta]

This is kind of half an idea, because it certainly would need elaborating:

But in my fantasy football league we now have what's called a "window day" on trades.

What that means is that after I announce a trade, there's a day for other owners to beat the offer.

So let's say I traded Tom Brady for Roscoe Parrish - there's a 24 hour window for people to tell me I'm stupid and offer much more for Tom Brady. At the end of the period I can either keep the original trade, or pick the best offer after that.

The advantage here is it takes away the whole "Wish I knew (player x) was available, I would've offered a lot more" argument, and curves out the lopsided trades.

Obviously for the CBDraft things are a little more complicated, but I think there's something in that idea that could work here.

The problem I see with this idea is that lots of trades involve draft picks, and are done while "on the clock".  There's really no practical way to have a waiting period that I can think of.  Plus, it would leave GMs with some roster uncertainty.  For instance, what about the following scenario:  Team A needs a SF.  Team B and Team A agree to a trade for a SF.  However, the trade is in limbo, and Team A is on the clock with its next draft pick.  It's faced with the scenario of having to choose between picking a SF (and potentially having two players at the position on its roster), or passing on the SF (and potentially being left with nobody at the position).

It's an interesting idea for non-draft pick trades, although it does take away another bit of the "realism" from the game, and seems to punish aggressive GMs.  If this rule was implemented, GMs wouldn't have as much incentive to work the phones; they could simply wait and attempt to "match" another offer. 

This is something we should think about more.  Any tweaks that could address the above concerns would be appreciated.

It definitely does take away from aggressive GMs that work the PMs and the chat like crazy doing what they can to get the best deal, which, after all, is part of the game. On the other hand, it would alleviate the concerns of some regarding inexperienced GMs "losing" trades.

I don't know. If the veto is going to be reinstated, what's the sense of this idea? Really takes some of the hard work people do and makes it meaningless, don't you think?

[KCattheStripe]

Jonas Jerebko is a saint! You take that back you heathen!

The Patron Saint of Binkies.

[Donoghus]

This is kind of half an idea, because it certainly would need elaborating:

But in my fantasy football league we now have what's called a "window day" on trades.

What that means is that after I announce a trade, there's a day for other owners to beat the offer.

So let's say I traded Tom Brady for Roscoe Parrish - there's a 24 hour window for people to tell me I'm stupid and offer much more for Tom Brady. At the end of the period I can either keep the original trade, or pick the best offer after that.

The advantage here is it takes away the whole "Wish I knew (player x) was available, I would've offered a lot more" argument, and curves out the lopsided trades.

Obviously for the CBDraft things are a little more complicated, but I think there's something in that idea that could work here.

The problem I see with this idea is that lots of trades involve draft picks, and are done while "on the clock".  There's really no practical way to have a waiting period that I can think of.  Plus, it would leave GMs with some roster uncertainty.  For instance, what about the following scenario:  Team A needs a SF.  Team B and Team A agree to a trade for a SF.  However, the trade is in limbo, and Team A is on the clock with its next draft pick.  It's faced with the scenario of having to choose between picking a SF (and potentially having two players at the position on its roster), or passing on the SF (and potentially being left with nobody at the position).

It's an interesting idea for non-draft pick trades, although it does take away another bit of the "realism" from the game, and seems to punish aggressive GMs.  If this rule was implemented, GMs wouldn't have as much incentive to work the phones; they could simply wait and attempt to "match" another offer. 

This is something we should think about more.  Any tweaks that could address the above concerns would be appreciated.

It definitely does take away from aggressive GMs that work the PMs and the chat like crazy doing what they can to get the best deal, which, after all, is part of the game. On the other hand, it would alleviate the concerns of some regarding inexperienced GMs "losing" trades.

I don't know. If the veto is going to be reinstated, what's the sense of this idea? Really takes some of the hard work people do and makes it meaningless, don't you think?

I think there were a decent amount of GMs doing hardwork.  One of the problems was some GM's not responding to PMs and then seeing some of these ridiculous trades go through that did mess with the compeitive aspect of the draft.


However, if the Commish veto or some variation of the veto is in place, then this would probably be rendered unnecessary although I don't think it hurts to try and experiment with new ideas in the draft.  If it works well, fine.  If it doesn't, it was a one year experiment that didn't work.