Should we keep the no-mentioned undrafteds rule?

[jarek]

The only reason I want to keep it is so that somebody(an outsider or somebody that doesn't have a use for that particular player on their team) doesn't drop in and say "Hey, wow, I can't believe so and so hasn't been drafted yet, he would be a great steal at this point!" Then immediately after, that player gets picked. Maybe I was trying to trade up to pick that player, and dropping their name ruined the opportunity.

If that person would be a dick like that after the rule is dropped, they probably would do the same thing even with the current rules. Either way, that person would piss off everyone in the draft, rule or not. I don't think we have those kinds of people.

 

[tony d]

I'd vote for Option 3. GM's here should have a general idea of who they're going to pick anyway by going through old drafts and discussions outside the boards. It doesn't matter to me what happens but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

 

[jarek]

I'd vote for Option 3. GM's here should have a general idea of who they're going to pick anyway by going through old drafts and discussions outside the boards. It doesn't matter to me what happens but I wanted to throw my 2 cents in.

I think everyone's input matters here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Question for GMs voting for option 3:

Is the following what you want to see from now on?

I always figured the rule was limited to players that will reasonably be picked within say, the next 100 picks.

I voted for option 1 but I think what Nalyd said is reasonable, don't mention players who are likely to be drafted any time soon.

So you can talk about Phil Kessel in Round 7 but not Ilya Kovalchuk until after he's drafted

 

[JFA87-66-99]

I think were all smart enough GM's that we know basically every good player that ever laced up skates. I hate reading bio's were it just xxx and xxx. I mean just because someone might mention a players name doesn't mean I'll go draft him. Unless there's a bunch of rookie GM's like the guy last year who selected Sundin in the first round. You cant slip nothing past most of these ATD gm's anyways. But I agree stuff like this cant be posted(Hey, wow, I can't believe so and so hasn't been drafted yet, he would be a great steal at this point!")

 

[BraveCanadian]

Does anyone not use the previous draft lists to jog their memories?

The no mentioning undrafted rule is pretty much useless.

All it does is limit discussion.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Does anyone not use the previous draft lists to jog their memories?

The no mentioning undrafted rule is pretty much useless.

All it does is limit discussion.

I definitely use last draft list as a general guideline, but even as experience as I am, I can honestly say that if someone write something like: I can't believe Right winger X is still available, and I'm looking for a RW, I will probably go take a hard look at him to see if I am missing something on him. I'm not saying I will always change my mind is someone is mention, but this player will be put on my radar, even if he was not at first. I can imagine people with their 1st-2nd draft will take those mention even more seriously

 

[VanIslander]

No discussion of undrafteds on the draft thread, but... allow undrafteds mentioned WITHIN bios on the BIOS THREAD.

That meets all concerns.

 

[seventieslord]

Lots of good points made here.

Personally I would rather not mention anyone with a shot at the atd or mld.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Would likely MLD players be a big deal? There's a substantial time delay.

 

[BenchBrawl]

It's just a bit disrespectful if a GM had a specific guy in mind he thought was a steal because of some infos or whatever , the nanother random guy comes in a discussion about 3 players , name undrfated, the comparison makes him look good , then another GM says to himself: well , yeah , he's great'' drafts him , then the other GM got screwed because of some random discussion.

It's also bad because you know in advance which player gets approved by which GMs in some discussion.

The rule might have his negative effect , but I have to vote for maintaining it.

 

[vancityluongo]

We're all smart enough to keep it realistic. Nobody *****es when Aki Berg is mentioned in the thread, so just notch that up a bit. I highly doubt anyone is going to name drop something like "wow I can't believe Gretzky is falling to number three, I bet he doesn't make it any further" or even the "there's a certain winger who played during the 60's on the Rangers that was much better than the guy that was just picked".

Just use discretion when naming players. How much discretion? How about if the player you just named is taken by the GM on the clock at that time, you would veto the pick for the sake of the draft.

 

[Sturminator]

When I came in, I was told the rule was "don't mention anyone who has a chance of getting picked in the ATD, MLD, at any level."

This was a stupid rule. What difference does it make if I mention a potential AAA pick in an ATD thread? Is anyone going to remember what I said 5 months from when I said it when the AAA draft actually starts?

I think the rule should be simply not to mention players who might be drafted in the ATD. I don't think the sanctity of the minor league drafts should impede discussion in the main draft.

 

[Sturminator]

I definitely use last draft list as a general guideline, but even as experience as I am, I can honestly say that if someone write something like: I can't believe Right winger X is still available, and I'm looking for a RW, I will probably go take a hard look at him to see if I am missing something on him. I'm not saying I will always change my mind is someone is mention, but this player will be put on my radar, even if he was not at first. I can imagine people with their 1st-2nd draft will take those mention even more seriously

I agree with this. Mentioning soon-to-be-drafted players in the sense of comparing them to the recently drafted (especially if you claim they are better) must be forbidden under no uncertain terms.

 

[Leafs Forever]

The 'disrection' notion seems to make sense. I think we're all intelligent enough to know when it's not a big deal to mention a guy, and when it is. The one thing would be incoming GMs might not have that discretion yet; but we can just emphasize "If you're not sure, best to just not say it".

Vetoing a pick would be too extreme and wouldn'y work; but if such a thing happened where the guy was mentioned in a not much earlier comparison, then obviously a re-examining of our policy might be in order.

 

[jarek]

Wow, this is going WAY off from what I originally intended. When I meant getting rid of this rule, I meant for the sake of NATURAL DISCUSSION. Like that one we have about Kovalchuk, where Savard's name was dropped. It was purely borne out of the natural discussion that came about with Kovalchuk. Name dropping to say "oh man why did that guy get taken over xxx" should absolutely be banned. There is no reason for it, and no place for it. But name dropping for the sake of natural discussion, in my mind, should not be stifled. The discussion that comes about is very enlightening, and oftentimes you learn way more through these discussions than what you learn via solo research. Why stifle it by prohibiting name dropping?

 

[vancityluongo]

Vetoing a pick would be too extreme and wouldn'y work; but if such a thing happened where the guy was mentioned in a not much earlier comparison, then obviously a re-examining of our policy might be in order.

That's not what I meant. What I was trying to get at is that say, if I took Marc Savard right now, there's a good chance that the rest of the GM's would say that the pick is so off that I should be allowed a re-do, otherwise it could "compromise" the draft (similar to the Sundin-matsblue situation last year).

In that case, Savard should be nameable until we reach the point where it would just be a bad pick to take him. That's where the discretion comes in.

 

[Sturminator]

That's not what I meant. What I was trying to get at is that say, if I took Marc Savard right now, there's a good chance that the rest of the GM's would say that the pick is so off that I should be allowed a re-do, otherwise it could "compromise" the draft (similar to the Sundin-matsblue situation last year).

In that case, Savard should be nameable until we reach the point where it would just be a bad pick to take him. That's where the discretion comes in.

I agree that this is a good standard to follow, though once we get a ways into the draft, no pick becomes so bad that it will really "unbalance" the draft, so this rule loses its meaning at some point. But generally, I agree that if you want to mention a player who no sane GM would consider at the point you mention him, you should be allowed to do so, varying definitions of sanity notwithstanding.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Wow, this is going WAY off from what I originally intended. When I meant getting rid of this rule, I meant for the sake of NATURAL DISCUSSION. Like that one we have about Kovalchuk, where Savard's name was dropped. It was purely borne out of the natural discussion that came about with Kovalchuk. Name dropping to say "oh man why did that guy get taken over xxx" should absolutely be banned. There is no reason for it, and no place for it. But name dropping for the sake of natural discussion, in my mind, should not be stifled. The discussion that comes about is very enlightening, and oftentimes you learn way more through these discussions than what you learn via solo research. Why stifle it by prohibiting name dropping?

No offence, but, you aren't even participating, why does what you intended matter?

 

[vecens24]

I'm a pretty big opponent of the no speaking of undrafteds rule. I think that what Billy brought up is a really sensible point, but I agree with everyone who said that I don't think anyone around here would do that.

Plus, let's not forget that even new posters that would come here and say "Oh wow I cna't believe so and so hasn't been taken yet" probably don't knwo about the undrafted rule as is, so it doesn't matter.

The rule at the very least should be relaxed.

 

[jarek]

No offence, but, you aren't even participating, why does what you intended matter?

I pretty much started this whole conversation to begin with. Also, why should the validity of what I say have anything to do with whether or not I participated? Pretty sad that out of that entire post, this is the only thing you decided to respond to. I'm disappointed.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

I see absolutely no reason you couldn't mention an MLDer or lower especially this early. I'm 100% confident whoever picks Renberg in the MLD this year will do so in no part because I dropped his name when picking Leclair.

Jarek has a good point though. "CERTAIN UNDRAFTED ATLANTA C" is a lot worse than just saying Marc Savard. Since no one seems like an outright repeal with a turn to "common sense", just make it what has been said. If you're talking about a day one MLD pick in the last few rounds of the ATD that'd pretty harmless but still there's decent reason to keep that one to yourself. Who cares what MLD or lowers we talk about in ATD 2012 Draft Threads I-XV? I've gotten pretty nerdy in my research for the lower level drafts but even I wouldn't take it that far

The only thing I care about really in all this is the bios. I XXXX'd a few people in older bios and have no care in the world to go back and see who that person was. That's sloppy work on our part for no good reason, but that's been well-handled already.

 

[vancityluongo]

I agree that this is a good standard to follow, though once we get a ways into the draft, no pick becomes so bad that it will really "unbalance" the draft, so this rule loses its meaning at some point. But generally, I agree that if you want to mention a player who no sane GM would consider at the point you mention him, you should be allowed to do so, varying definitions of sanity notwithstanding.

Yeah, I agree with this. I guess once you get to the muddy waters of the later rounds, be a little more cautious. Sure, someone could take Marek Svatos in round 24, but if I wanna talk about him with you guys, hopefully that isn't a problem.

 

[Elvis P]

Upon further review, yes. Sometimes I'll be about to post something about a group of players in the chat, then I realize that not only are they undrafted, but I'm going to be fighting for 3 of them in the next 60 picks so there's no need to remind the other GMs about them!

 

[seventieslord]

what pick number are we at? if the player you're thinking of naming was picked within 100% more picks last year, don't name him. (so right now, don't name anyone who was picked in the top-600 last year)