btw, the rule Gainsville is referring to is the 75 missed game rule. Any team that had over 75 missed games was ineligible for a Top 3 pick. We still need official language on the 75 missed game rule so that we can add it to the league constitution:
http://nedyken.com/cbpl/league-constitution/There had been a exception made where if you received the pick via trade, the rule no longer applied. So in other words...
Gaze Disciple's who had 127 missed games and the 8th best lotto heading into the lotto (thus matching him up with the 8th worst team - the Pistons) was ineligible to receive a Top 3 pick. This turned out not to matter, though... because the Pistons didn't win a Top 3 pick.
Meanwhile, Webskins had 172 missed games and the 4th best lotto odds (matching him up with the 4th worst team - the Jazz)... but since Webkins traded the pick to Rondo2287, the "75 missed game rule" apparently no longer applied. Had Utah won a Top 3 pick in the lotto, Rondo2287 would have been the beneficiary of it. Once again, it ended up not mattering, because Utah ended up with the 5th pick ... so Rondo2287 will pick 5th.
As for my team... I started with over 100 missed games when I took over, but I was able to get my missed games down to 55...
I think the 75 missed game rule is fine. I think we should keep it. But I think heading forward there should be a couple stipulations added...
Basic rule: A pick tied to an original team with over 75 missed games is ineligible for the Top 3.
Stipulations Regarding Trading the Pick:
#1 - If you have OVER 75 missed games at the time of trading away the pick... the penalty carries over to the next owner of the pick. The penalty goes away if the original owner of the pick somehow gets under 75 missed games at the end of the season. (this closes the loophole)
#2 - If you have UNDER 75 missed games at the time of trading away the pick... the team receiving the pick is exempt from the rule even if the original pick owner eventually exceeds 75 missed games. (this prevents shenanigans)
Just my thoughts on it. Someone who gets what I'm saying should write less-confusing language.