|
Post by London on Feb 28, 2015 20:21:31 GMT -6
So - the committee has been looking at curbing tanking for seasons now. We've debated a lot of options and we've settled on a new policy.
Starting next season (not this draft) the bottom 3 teams will be ineligible to pick in the Top 3. Only teams prelotto ranked 4-16 can jump into picks 1, 2, and 3.
CLARIFICATION - "The 3 worst records (regardless of who owns the pick) are prevented from getting into the Top 3"
We'll see how that goes for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow on Feb 28, 2015 20:59:11 GMT -6
If that works as intended...aren't we left with the bottom 3 teams being guys that are trying to win and just can't?
The poor get poorer.
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 28, 2015 21:09:18 GMT -6
If that works as intended...aren't we left with the bottom 3 teams being guys that are trying to win and just can't? The poor get poorer. How do you figure? Seems to me if you are worst record-wise getting the #4 pick isn't a bad place to be. Also, in FA/trades you have a ton of opportunity to add talent. If you choose not to that's your own fault.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow on Feb 28, 2015 21:15:48 GMT -6
4th pick isn't bad at all, but when better teams get 1st 2nd and 3rd it just seems like the policy could work against itself.
For instance, and I understand the change doesn't affect this season, but Bayi and Cska would have to take on awful cap situations or trade the draft picks we're trying to improve to even get out of the bottom 3. It isn't because we're manipulating the lottery system, it's because we took on garbage teams..
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 28, 2015 21:19:41 GMT -6
4th pick isn't bad at all, but when better teams get 1st 2nd and 3rd it just seems like the policy could work against itself. For instance, and I understand the change doesn't affect this season, but Bayi and Cska would have to take on awful cap situations or trade the draft picks we're trying to improve to even get out of the bottom 3. It isn't because we're manipulating the lottery system, it's because we took on garbage teams.. Why would you need to take on awful cap situations? Be smart about your signings/trades (as always). You can offer 1 year deals (with an extra year as a Team Option) and sign some decent vets. Plenty of other dudes available via trade who won't mess your cap up either.
|
|
|
Post by Bayi on Feb 28, 2015 21:23:55 GMT -6
You could have waited, like, three more seasons to announce this, you know.
|
|
|
Post by Moscow on Feb 28, 2015 21:24:33 GMT -6
I may have exaggerated some, but say next season...all the guys at the bottom will be fighting for the 4th last spot, and the 3 with the least talent will get rewarded with....less talent? I just don't understand the theory
|
|
|
Post by London on Feb 28, 2015 21:26:11 GMT -6
I may have exaggerated some, but say next season...all the guys at the bottom will be fighting for the 4th last spot, and the 3 with the least talent will get rewarded with....less talent? I just don't understand the theory Prevents you guys from tanking. That's the theory. Add more talent.
|
|
San Miguel
Assistant to the General Manager
Posts: 643
|
Post by San Miguel on Mar 1, 2015 9:52:45 GMT -6
To be honest, I like this. It forces teams to at least try and add some talent rather then just picking up Y/Y guys off of FA and playing them. They are technically playing their best guys but they purposely picked up those untalented players. I think this really helps with preventing the plethora of tankers every season.
Great work on this by the committee.
San Miguel
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Mar 1, 2015 10:02:39 GMT -6
What it comes down to is after all this time, we decided rather than nitpicking DCs and who signs what FA to play what position (which is a hassle for everyone involved), we are just going to make every team responsible for their own success - the way it should be. Tanking isn't just about trying to lose...it's about not trying to win, and this should help try to prevent it. Too many teams are skirting the rules by posting a "legal" DC of the worst scrubs they can find while sitting on 15-45 mil in cap all season, saying lets just get to the draft already. That's bad for the team and that's bad for the league. Now, if you do that, you pay the price in your draft order. Will we eventually get to a situation where 32 teams are trying their hardest and the bottom three teams feel slighted because they just couldn't get over that hump and got the short straw? I highly doubt it, but I'd prefer that problem to what we've had to date.
Simply put, this was a decision that was #bestforbusiness
|
|
|
Post by London on Mar 1, 2015 10:30:09 GMT -6
What it comes down to is after all this time, we decided rather than nitpicking DCs and who signs what FA to play what position (which is a hassle for everyone involved), we are just going to make every team responsible for their own success - the way it should be. Tanking isn't just about trying to lose...it's about not trying to win, and this should help try to prevent it. Too many teams are skirting the rules by posting a "legal" DC of the worst scrubs they can find while sitting on 15-45 mil in cap all season, saying lets just get to the draft already. That's bad for the team and that's bad for the league. Now, if you do that, you pay the price in your draft order. Will we eventually get to a situation where 32 teams are trying their hardest and the bottom three teams feel slighted because they just couldn't get over that hump and got the short straw? I highly doubt it, but I'd prefer that problem to what we've had to date. Simply put, this was a decision that was #bestforbusiness Agreed. Now we should have more people trying to field competetive teams and I think that will benefit everyone (and change some league dynamics which should be a fun change of pace).
|
|
|
Post by BC Žalgiris on Mar 8, 2015 13:27:32 GMT -6
what happens if you have traded for a pick...like CSKA first this season and they finish bottom 3.....then the person trading for the pick is screwed and can't get a top 3 pick...
how does that work?
|
|
|
Post by Boston on Mar 8, 2015 14:19:41 GMT -6
We're all coming at this from our own perspectives. I don't agree with it (I started with a pretty crappy roster last season too), but I get where you guys are coming from. I wouldn't have been happy with the 4th pick after last season...but if the majority believe that tanking is that big an issue...then this is a solution that doesn't completely destroy a rebuilding effort while giving teams an incentive to try not to suck.
|
|
|
Post by BC Žalgiris on Mar 8, 2015 14:24:50 GMT -6
i feel that it de-values draft picks as trade chips. And if I had future firsts that I trade for I would really be mad.
I got the number 1 pick last year, with the 8th pre-lotto. whatever I will adapt and we NEED TO WIN NEXT YEAR
|
|
|
Post by London on Mar 10, 2015 11:08:46 GMT -6
RULE CLARIFICATION BUMP:
"The 3 worst records (regardless of who owns the pick) are prevented from getting into the Top 3"
(i.e. if Milan goes 0-82 in 2027 then the owner of the pick, London, would likely get the 4th pick)
|
|
|
Post by Derek on Mar 10, 2015 11:16:00 GMT -6
RULE CLARIFICATION BUMP: "The 3 worst records (regardless of who owns the pick) are prevented from getting into the Top 3" (i.e. if Milan goes 0-82 in 2027 then the owner of the pick, London, would likely get the 4th pick) Oh wow. Talk about devaluing some picks out there owned by others!! Nice! I like it... it closed up a potential loop hole too. Say, Team A has worst record and Team B has 2nd... they could have swapped their picks for a chance at Top 3. LOL
|
|
|
Post by London on Mar 10, 2015 11:26:32 GMT -6
RULE CLARIFICATION BUMP: "The 3 worst records (regardless of who owns the pick) are prevented from getting into the Top 3" (i.e. if Milan goes 0-82 in 2027 then the owner of the pick, London, would likely get the 4th pick) Oh wow. Talk about devaluing some picks out there owned by others!! Nice! I like it... it closed up a potential loop hole too. Say, Team A has worst record and Team B has 2nd... they could have swapped their picks for a chance at Top 3. LOL I dont think it devalues picks at all. If you were holding Bayi's pick right now you probably don't assume it's going to #1 (especially when you dealt for it - you probably thought it was a higher lotto pick which hasn't changed.) This coming from a guy who owns Milan's 27. I voted in favor of this messure passing.
|
|
|
Post by Derek on Mar 10, 2015 12:32:30 GMT -6
Oh wow. Talk about devaluing some picks out there owned by others!! Nice! I like it... it closed up a potential loop hole too. Say, Team A has worst record and Team B has 2nd... they could have swapped their picks for a chance at Top 3. LOL I dont think it devalues picks at all. If you were holding Bayi's pick right now you probably don't assume it's going to #1 (especially when you dealt for it - you probably thought it was a higher lotto pick which hasn't changed.) This coming from a guy who owns Milan's 27. I voted in favor of this messure passing. Possibly. Just means guys can't do what Seer has done twice now.
|
|
|
Post by London on Mar 10, 2015 14:09:02 GMT -6
I dont think it devalues picks at all. If you were holding Bayi's pick right now you probably don't assume it's going to #1 (especially when you dealt for it - you probably thought it was a higher lotto pick which hasn't changed.) This coming from a guy who owns Milan's 27. I voted in favor of this messure passing. Possibly. Just means guys can't do what Seer has done twice now. Liar. People can still deal their #1 picks halfway through their rookie season to me for peanuts.
|
|
|
Post by Derek on Mar 10, 2015 14:22:14 GMT -6
Possibly. Just means guys can't do what Seer has done twice now. Liar. People can still deal their #1 picks halfway through their rookie season to me for peanuts. Something else Seer would do... LOL
|
|
|
Post by BC Žalgiris on Mar 10, 2015 16:48:35 GMT -6
wow...this new rule will make me reconsider trading for picks in the future. I think it will de-value some picks. I would be pissed as hell if I had futures still on the board.
but we will change with the times, right at a good time, BCZ back to the playoffs please!
|
|
|
Post by London on Mar 10, 2015 17:36:33 GMT -6
wow...this new rule will make me reconsider trading for picks in the future. I think it will de-value some picks. I would be pissed as hell if I had futures still on the board. Cool - I'll snap em all up as you all devalue them. #willtake1sts
|
|
|
Post by Berlin on Mar 10, 2015 18:05:09 GMT -6
wow...this new rule will make me reconsider trading for picks in the future. I think it will de-value some picks. I would be pissed as hell if I had futures still on the board. Cool - I'll snap em all up as you all devalue them. #willtake1sts You and me both...I wasn't aware all these teams were trading for 1sts assuming they were getting #1 every time, and now that it might be #4 these picks are worthless. If that's the case, please, I'm begging you, follow this logic and trade me the picks. I'm willing to take the risk.
|
|
Tel Aviv
Assistant to the General Manager
?.?. ???? ?????? ??-????
Posts: 1,193
|
Post by Tel Aviv on Mar 11, 2015 5:45:43 GMT -6
I like the new rule, don't really see how it de-values any future picks personally. Sure it would be a bit annoying if you had someone elses pick drop a few places because of it but you still have a top pick.
|
|
|
Post by Chicago on Mar 11, 2015 10:59:11 GMT -6
Liar. People can still deal their #1 picks halfway through their rookie season to me for peanuts. Something else Seer would do... LOL You must really miss me.
|
|