The 2010 All-Time Draft (sign-up a team here)

[jarek]

I think the trade rule needs to be re-worked. 24 hours is far too long a time, and this was a real problem last ATD. Here's my proposal:

Trades made between 9 PM and 11 AM EST the following day will be processed by 6 PM the following day. This should give most GMs most of the next day to catch up on trades and decide on it. Just to clear up any potential confusion, a trade made around 11 AM EST would be processed at 6 the same day.

Trades made between noon-3 PM EST will be given a 6 hour veto window.

Any trade made between 3-7 PM EST will be processed by 9 PM EST. That should give a lot of GMs enough notice to catch up on trades. 3-9 should be about prime time around here, especially on the weekend.

We can use our judgment to fill in the gaps. Was the trade made at 7:30? We can probably give it one extra hour - 10 PM. Was it made at 8:50? Just leave it for the next day, and everyone can send in a list.

This is probably a pretty bad framework for this type of idea, but the general structure is there. The point is to use common sense. If a trade is made at 3 PM, chances are most of us will see it by even 6 PM.

Of course, the best way to avoid any problem is just to make your trade well before the pick goes on the clock. However, sometimes this can become a problem and we should honestly just use a method that will expedite those kinds of trades, as long as they're given a reasonable time frame for enough GMs to see it. Chances are, the most obviously bad trades will be veto'd almost immediately if made between 3 and 7.

 

[Dreakmur]

If a trade is not complete by the time a pick is on the clock, that trade can no longer be made.

Even if it's going to "review", it is cancelled. Trade must be approved before the pick is on the clock.

 

[jarek]

If a trade is not complete by the time a pick is on the clock, that trade can no longer be made.

Even if it's going to "review", it is cancelled. Trade must be approved before the pick is on the clock.

The alternative is the picking team picks the player their trade partner wants, and then proposes the trade, but the problem then becomes what if the trade is veto'd. Then a team may end up with a player they don't need or want..

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Are all these restrictions on trades really necessary? Seems unnecessarily complicated.

I don't know how I feel about the 3 veto rule, I don't think other contestant should be able to decide something that is between two other teams. Fleecing people is part of the game. You guys don't veto the really bad picks (reaches), do you?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I hated the 24 hour waiting period on trades. All it did last time was hold up the draft. On two occasions we had nice runs stopped because we had to wait several hours for someone's 24 hours to be up, even though it was obvious by then that nobody would object.

And it wasn't the fault of the trading parties either - how were they supposed to know that there would be a run on picks after they finalized the deal?

If we have to have a waiting period (and I'm not sure we should), I think 12 hours is more than enough time.

Jared's proposal seems reasonable too, but if we need a hard and fast rule, I would propose any of the following:

1) no vetoing of trades (not a single trade was vetoed last time or really came that close)
2) 12 hour period
3) 9 hour period (at least some people should be awake in any 9 hour period)
4) Jared's 6-12 hour proposal, depending on the time of day (but with details hashed out and agreed on)

I definitely think the 24 hour wait is excessive. If 12 hours is enough time for the length of the clock in the first round, it is more than enough time to decide whether to veto a trade.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If a trade is not complete by the time a pick is on the clock, that trade can no longer be made.

Even if it's going to "review", it is cancelled. Trade must be approved before the pick is on the clock.

And then a new 24 hour period is created, as Team A picks Team B's guy and they make the trade that way. And then what if that 24 hour period isn't enough? It almost happened last time.

This would solve the problem of the waiting period holding up the draft, but it create the problem where simple trades that nobody would even think of vetoing could drag on for days.

 

[jarek]

I honestly wouldn't be opposed to just having the commissioner of the draft hold ultimate authority over veto'ing trades. I think pretty much all of us can agree that VI can be trusted with such authority, even if he is a GM in this thing, and that he would remain unbiased. He's also knowledgeable enough that he can make a good decision. As soon as he sees the trade, he either processes it or rejects it, and that's that. Most trades are pretty fair anyways.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I honestly wouldn't be opposed to just having the commissioner of the draft hold ultimate authority over veto'ing trades. I think pretty much all of us can agree that VI can be trusted with such authority, even if he is a GM in this thing, and that he would remain unbiased. He's also knowledgeable enough that he can make a good decision. As soon as he sees the trade, he either processes it or rejects it, and that's that. Most trades are pretty fair anyways.

I would be okay with your original idea.

A slight variation of the idea if VI doesn't feel comfortable with such absolute control:

The commissioner can decide to simply approve trades if he finds them uncontroversial. 90%+ of trades are pretty routine and there is no reason to hold them up. Then if one comes up that he thinks might be controversial, he can put it up for a vote (with hopefully a waiting period that is no more than 12 hours).

Just an idea.

I'm on record as saying that I would prefer no restrictions other than no trades of the pick on the clock. So the least restrictive solution to the trading problem is the one I'd vote for. (Of course, I wasn't around for the ATD when trades were apparently getting out of control).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The type of routine trade that I think shouldn't even come up for a vote is when the trade involves picks entirely within the same round.

Like my 2st rounder, 3rd rounder and 7th rounder for your 2nd rounder (favors me), 3rd rounder (favors you), 7th rounder (favors you). Just an example.

There was a proposal last time to only allow trades within rounds. Maybe we could alter that to allow trades within rounds all the time, without needing to have a vote. If anyone wanted to trade outside a round (or trade drafted players), THEN we would bring it up to a vote? (A vote with a waiting period that is hopefully less than the proposed 24 hours).

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Honestly, if we have a 24 hour wait on trades again, I'm out. That was a restrictive pain in the ass that handcuffed me.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I agree with changing the trade rules- I like the commish approve/put to vote idea, assuming VI is up to it.

 

[jarek]

I agree with changing the trade rules- I like the commish approve/put to vote idea, assuming VI is up to it.

I'm in favor of this.

Additionally, to make things even easier, we could make it so you can only trade picks OR players, not both in the same trade. Usually the really bad trades involve players, and trading players doesn't ever hold up the draft. Trading picks is very easy to tell if someone is getting screwed or not.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't mind VI having veto power. Makes sense for a lot of reasons.

 

[Velociraptor]

Really excited for this!

 

[EagleBelfour]

I don't mind VI having veto power. Makes sense for a lot of reasons.

I'm also in favour.

 

[Hedberg]

I don't mind VI having veto power. Makes sense for a lot of reasons.

This seems like the simplest solution. I'm also in favour.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

27? Alright, I'm in I guess, as the Detroit Vipers. If somebody else wants to get involved they're more than welcome to team up with me as well.

 

[EagleBelfour]

27? Alright, I'm in I guess, as the Detroit Vipers. If somebody else wants to get involved they're more than welcome to team up with me as well.

28 is a nice number, welcome back.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Since we have 28 now, can we get the draft order done tonight?

 

[EagleBelfour]

Since we have 28 now, can we get the draft order done tonight?

Would be nice.

 

[vancityluongo]

I agree with VI having veto power.

Only problem I have with this rule is the reliance on one person. I'm going to use VanI himself as the example; he was commish to start the draft last time, then had to leave for personal reasons. Obviously, that hopefully won't happen again, but really, I don't think just because someone is commish, he'll have to sign on everyday (if he has quite a bit of time between his picks). Which is essentially what would be required, because there could be a trade at any time, and it's ridiculous to expect that specific person to be able to see it at any given time. Let's say an hour after the person with veto power has called it a night and has sent a list to someone, a trade is made. The veto-person goes to work/school/whatever, and gets back 18 hours after the trade is made. Perfectly reasonable on his part, but it's held up the draft. GM's are impatient. Understandably. Yet, there'd be 27 teams relying on that one person to be online. And it wouldn't be fair to rely on that person all the time.

Maybe I'm not making sense, but while I'm good with VanI having veto power, I think that rule should be tinkered a bit, for his convenience.

Technically though, I think we've only had one veto-worthy trade in ATD history, and that was the first time someone had crossed the line that had not yet been set. I highly doubt we see any trades in this draft that cross the line. So it probably doesn't matter, if there is a ridiculous trade, we can wait a day or two (at worst) for things to get sorted out.

 

[VanIslander]

Fleecing people is part of the game. You guys don't veto the really bad picks (reaches), do you?

no newbie, fleecing has never been a part of the ATD, and hopefully never will be

Since we have 28 now, can we get the draft order done tonight?

we have set dates that everyone PM'd knows about, so we should stick to it, though evil sather is likely to miss the deadline once again

 

[VanIslander]

Technically though, I think we've only had one veto-worthy trade in ATD history

agreed, and at least four GMs objected to it, resulting in the three objector rule last time

why don't we all agree to have "fair and balanced" trades, then we don't need to get heavy handed with trade rules

the alltime draft is NOT about fleecing other GMs, but about reflecting on players from throughout hockey history and imagining/deciding whose style and skill is similar/compatible to whose else's - this draft began on the History Board and is essentially about that

 

[papershoes]

we have set dates that everyone PM'd knows about, so we should stick to it, though evil sather is likely to miss the deadline once again

could we post the order and, start the draft without the clock (like we have in the past) - with the actual clock starting on the agreed upon time?

 

[VanIslander]

could we post the order and, start the draft without the clock (like we have in the past) - with the actual clock starting on the agreed upon time?

of course

deadline to join tuesday night, draft order done wednesday, draft clock starts friday at noon eastern

that means from wednesday to friday the GMs at the top of the draft order can start drafting or use the time between wednesday and friday to negotiate trades - as per ATD tradition