Well-intentioned seasoned GMs bickering about the rules

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The huge ambiguity in the valuations of trades is precisely why we should just scrap trades altogether.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of allowing PLAYER ONLY trades.. because THOSE are pretty easy to judge.

I think it should be obvious to any vet GM which one of those 4 trades I posted above was imbalanced.

But with new blood in each ATD (something we should all be thankful for), it's hard to avoid unbalanced trades. I mean, in the real NHL, 5th/6th round picks aren't nearly as valuable as they prove to be here.

 

[jarek]

I think it should be obvious to any vet GM which one of those 4 trades I posted above was imbalanced.

Yeah, and then we can get into a situation where it's 50 for 185, but different people might have different opinions depending on what rounds are involved, and etc.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Yeah, and then we can get into a situation where it's 50 for 185, but different people might have different opinions depending on what rounds are involved, and etc.

That's a fair point. It seems to me that it is nearly impossible for people to come to a consensus and vote down a trade in reality, no matter how good it sounds in theory. The only times trades have actually been revoked/changed, to my knowledge, are the GM getting the far better end of the deal making a less lopsided trade with their partner.

 

[seventieslord]

I agree with this. And I vote to allow trades.

Just what is it that gives people a problem with trades? As far as I could tell, the only problem with trades in the last draft were lopsided trades where one GM overpaid a lot to move up.

Seventies/jarek, arrbez, nayld, and myself all made a killing in terms of depth by (in retrospect - I don't think any of us meant to at the time) basically ripping off other GMs who desperately wanted to move up. And not surprisingly, we had 4 of the strongest teams - some might say the 4 strongest (partly due to strength of GMs but definitely helped by our unbalanced trades).

So here's an easy black and white rule. Trades function like last time, but any trade where one GM gives up more than 3 times the picks that the other does is invalid.

You want to move up 15 picks? You have to give up less than 45 later. Deals with multiple picks involved, we add up the total picks involved on both sides and then compare.

Edit: The 2nd trade I posted below kind of busts this proposed rule. Anyone have a better idea?

I'll illustrate with trades I made myself last time:

To JohnFlyersFan & NGARV (Edmonton Armadillos): 64, 124, 177, 244
To TheDevilMadeMe (New Jersey Swamp Devils): 86, 95, 146, 266

Edmonton gets 22+22 = 44 picks. NJ gets 29+32 = 61 picks. 61/44 < 3, so good trade.

to papershoes (Kenora Thistles): 95, 266, 304
to TheDevilMadeMe (New Jersey Swamp Devils): 85, 276, 325

NJ gets 10 picks. Kenora gets 10+21 = 31. 31/10 > 3, so this trade would be bad. Oh well, I tried. I see no reason the above trade should be considered bad, so I guess the 3 times rule isn't good formula. Can anyone think of something better or should I just scrap the idea?


To TheDevilMadeMe (New Jersey Swamp Devils): 99, 199
To Nighthawks (New Haven Nighthawks): 86, 297

This is the kind of trade that people have problems with. New Haven gave up 98 picks in the middle of the draft to move up a mere 13 picks earlier.

To TheDevilMadeMe (New Jersey Swamp Devils): 168, 288
To DoMakc (Green Bay Gamblers): 199, 237

Meanwhile, I only gave up 51 picks to move up 31. This is the kind of trade that is fair to both teams.

In principle, this makes sense. However:

- 3X the picks means something different at different times. I'll have to use selection spots that no one would realistically own in order to demonstrate, but here you go:

5th and 45th for 10th and 30th. that's 5 for 15 spots, so a 3X multiplier.

on the other hand, a 3X multiplier like this:

100 & 550 for 150 & 400

is not fair. those 50 spots are worth more than the 150 going the other way. Unfortunately, there is too much to this, to the point where a common sense approach needs to be used.

 

[Leaf Lander]

lol drama

love it

you don't read the board for a few days and the whole place has changed

I do not blame vanislander for not wanting to deal with trade happy gm's it slows the draft down!!

Maybe make Saturdays trade day! So traders can get their trading fix and a administer can have a life!

 

[vancityluongo]

Maybe make Saturdays trade day! So traders can get their trading fix and a administer can have a life!

That's actually pretty good IMO. With the number of teams we'll hopefully have despite people dropping out, we probably won't get through more than a round or two a week. That leaves a lot of time to foresee whether or not you want to move up or down, and a lot of time to act accordingly and get something done.

+1 to this idea.

Also, I really hope the guys leaving reconsider, especially you TC. The draft isn't the same without having a good mix of veteran guys. I really hope guys like GBC, pitseleh, HO and pappyline sign up in the coming days too.

 

[seventieslord]

Since when has trading really been proven to slow down the draft?

 

[Leaf Lander]

Since when has trading really been proven to slow down the draft?

hmm I say it does from what I have experienced here over the past several years of being in this draft.

I have seen us wait hrs while a trade is finalized.

 

[vancityluongo]

Since when has trading really been proven to slow down the draft?

IIRC, there were a couple instances a few drafts back where there were some trades being made while GM's were on the clock, and the clock was being used up waiting for the other party to confirm the proposed trade and such. In general though, I agree that it's really not an issue.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Wow, lot of action since my last post!

I think my ''list'' in post #5 is still valid, isn't it? How about people takes two minutes and answer it, so we can finally move on from all this and start the draft. Take two minute, go answer it!

And I see no problem postponing the draft a couple of weeks if necessary, but I don't see how we cannot fix all these problems in 2-3 days top.

EDIT: didn't we had like a maximum of 3 trades per GM allow in the last draft?

 

[EagleBelfour]

xxxxx

 

[markrander87]

You guys are making this soo much more difficult than it has to be. I appreciate all the hard work that is done in this, but just stop with all of these new rules, formulas and all this other bs. IT already cost us 4-5 gm's leave all of that alone.

Pick the names of divisions(Does it really matter) all of these tables and charts and polls are clearly scaring off the new GM's, can you blame them trying to familiarize themselves with this concept with all of this extra nonsense going on.

Get rid of all of the over the top add-ons such as picking your top 5 draft order, who you want in your division etc... NOT NECESSARY


Leave trading as is, this shouldnt be debated after the sign-up. We can all learn from this and this idea can be debated prior to next years ATD sign-up.


Stop cluttering up the sign-up page with this bs. Who in there right mind would even know where to sign-up if they were looking to join the ATD? Imagine a new user deciphering through all of this.

Get back to the basics and remember what the ATD is all about. I'd hate for the new GM's to miss out on a fun activity like this. Trust me Sabre. Brave canadian etc.. it is worth it in the end, this is my 2nd ATD and i've learned more than I could ever imagine about the history of hockey.

Original planned start date for draft
Random draw for draft order, which we use to determine teams in divisons
Same trading rules as last year

Lets get this thing going before we get down to 25 gm's.

 

[EagleBelfour]

I can't disagree with that Mark. What do others think?

 

[seventieslord]

I can't disagree with that Mark. What do others think?

I think it's the best post Mark has ever made and it's better than any post most of us have ever made!

Now if only we could get our runaway GMs to come back...

EB, if i were you I would just go ahead and pick division names myself so that no big deal is made of it. As for playoffs, all teams have always made the playoffs in every draft we've ever had, so the 4v5 option is a no-brainer here (and it's currently winning the vote)

Whether to allow trades has become too contentious an issue and unfortunately needs to be voted on, IMO.

Lastly, divisions should be a sort of "manual randomness" - it should be random, but the person doing the randomizing should manually make minor changes if needed - just to prevent GMs from being in the same division as eachother two (or three!!) drafts in a row, and to prevent any division from being stacked with "star" GMs or heavy on newbies. This doesn't have to be an open process, it can all be done behind the scenes and you could just unveil the divisions and if they appear random, yet are balanced and don't have divisional repetition, no one will have a problem with it.

Can everyone get behind this?

 

[tony d]

QUOTE THIS POST AND ADD YOUR NAME UNDER THE OPTIONS


A. Division Name and Geography

1. Constitution of the division:
a: Each team could submit a list of teams they want and don't want in their division
b: Each division can choose which division they want to be part of
- jareklajkosz
c: Each division are randomly selected (By the draft order or complete random)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg, tony d
d: Each division are decided by simple geography
- Mr Bugg
e: (Suggestion?)

2. Since we have 8 division (4 are already name) we need to find 4 new names:

a: Thomas D. Green division (First president of the AHAC)
- EagleBelfour, Mr Bugg, jareklajkosz, DoMakc, Hedberg, tony d
b: William Northey division (Influential executive in Montreal and co-builder of the Montreal Forum)
- Mr Bugg, DoMakc, tony d
c: Louis Magnus division (First president of the IIHF)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg, tony d
d: Marcus Vinnerborg division (First European referee in the NHL)
- jareklajkosz
e: Ron MacLean division (Hockey analyst)
f: James Creighton division (But it seems our ''Cup'' is actually the 'James Creighton Cup')
g: Yvon Pedneault (Hockey analyst and HHOF)
h: Sir Montagu Allan (Donator of the Allan Cup)
- jareklajkosz
i: Leo Dandurand (contributed extensively to the promotion and development of sports in Montreal)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg
j: J. Ambrose O'Brien (actively connected with hockey from its earliest years)
- Mr Bugg
k: Sam Pollock (One of the shrewdest and most successful executives in NHL history)
- EagleBelfour, Mr Bugg, tony d
l: Charles L. Coleman (Writer of the Trail of the Stanley Cup Trilogy)
- jareklajkosz
m: Jim Hendy (Originator of the statistics used to track the performances of professional hockey players and teams since the 1930s)
- overpass, (jareklajkosz), Hedberg
n: (Suggestion?)

B. Playoffs

1. With 8 division of 5 teams:
a: All 40 teams makes the playoffs, #4 and #5 seed play an Home-Away two game series (Like in European football)
- EagleBelfour, jareklajkosz, DoMakc, Hedberg
b: Bottom 4 teams in each conference don't make the playoffs, 1-16 are qualified (1-2-3 for top seeds of each division)
- Mr Bugg, tony d
c: Only the Top-8 teams of each conference makes the playoffs
(DoMakc)
d: (Suggestion?)


C. Trades (RANK THESE OPTIONS IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE)

1. No trades
- jareklajkosz, tony d
2. Allow trade
- eaglebelfour, Mr Bugg

(If option 1 land the majority, there will be no trades in this year All-Time Draft, if option 2 gets more vote, we will then decide which restriction we will use in the trading process, or if we want any restriction at all)

 

[tony d]

I just made my votes on what I want to see with the divisions, trades and playoffs. While I have my opinions on those 3 matters, in all reality however you guys do this it doesn't matter to me. I'm just here to draft a few hockey players and have fun. That's all this should be to all of us.

 

[seventieslord]

northey, allan, coleman, hendy are my divisional votes, if it matters

 

[markrander87]

QUOTE THIS POST AND ADD YOUR NAME UNDER THE OPTIONS


A. Division Name and Geography

1. Constitution of the division:
a: Each team could submit a list of teams they want and don't want in their division
b: Each division can choose which division they want to be part of
- jareklajkosz
c: Each division are randomly selected (By the draft order or complete random)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg, tony d
d: Each division are decided by simple geography
- Mr Bugg
e: (Suggestion?)

2. Since we have 8 division (4 are already name) we need to find 4 new names:

a: Thomas D. Green division (First president of the AHAC)
- EagleBelfour, Mr Bugg, jareklajkosz, DoMakc, Hedberg, tony d
b: William Northey division (Influential executive in Montreal and co-builder of the Montreal Forum)
- Mr Bugg, DoMakc, tony d
c: Louis Magnus division (First president of the IIHF)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg, tony d
d: Marcus Vinnerborg division (First European referee in the NHL)
- jareklajkosz
e: Ron MacLean division (Hockey analyst)
f: James Creighton division (But it seems our ''Cup'' is actually the 'James Creighton Cup')
g: Yvon Pedneault (Hockey analyst and HHOF)
h: Sir Montagu Allan (Donator of the Allan Cup)
- jareklajkosz
i: Leo Dandurand (contributed extensively to the promotion and development of sports in Montreal)
- EagleBelfour, DoMakc, Hedberg
j: J. Ambrose O'Brien (actively connected with hockey from its earliest years)
- Mr Bugg
k: Sam Pollock (One of the shrewdest and most successful executives in NHL history)
- EagleBelfour, Mr Bugg, tony d
l: Charles L. Coleman (Writer of the Trail of the Stanley Cup Trilogy)
- jareklajkosz
m: Jim Hendy (Originator of the statistics used to track the performances of professional hockey players and teams since the 1930s)
- overpass, (jareklajkosz), Hedberg
n: (Suggestion?)

B. Playoffs

1. With 8 division of 5 teams:
a: All 40 teams makes the playoffs, #4 and #5 seed play an Home-Away two game series (Like in European football)
- EagleBelfour, jareklajkosz, DoMakc, Hedberg
b: Bottom 4 teams in each conference don't make the playoffs, 1-16 are qualified (1-2-3 for top seeds of each division)
- Mr Bugg, tony d
c: Only the Top-8 teams of each conference makes the playoffs
(DoMakc)
d: (Suggestion?)


C. Trades (RANK THESE OPTIONS IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE)

1. No trades
- jareklajkosz, tony d
2. Allow trade
- eaglebelfour, Mr Bugg

(If option 1 land the majority, there will be no trades in this year All-Time Draft, if option 2 gets more vote, we will then decide which restriction we will use in the trading process, or if we want any restriction at all)

-This is exactly what i'm talking about, for gods sake get rid of this. If a vote has to take place regarding anything it should be done via pm. Sorry to use your post Tony D, a lot of gm's are doing this.

-Thanks 70's but im only speaking the truth, id hate for this to completely fall through.

-EB if you have the time, could you select 8 divison names? I cant see how anybody could object to that. Let's start crossing the important things off the list.

 

[EagleBelfour]

(I 100% agree with 70's last post)

How ironic that we give an earful to VanI because he wanted to manage thing his way, and 2 days later I'm making decision without the approbation of everyone else . I genuinely feel bad, but I think it's the best decision

Anyway:

-----

X. Draft Order:
- Random. (Just like last draft)

1. Constitution of the division:
- They will be decided at random after the results of the draft order (Just like last draft)

1-9-17-25-33
2-10-18-26-34
3-11-19-27-35
4-12-20-28-36
5-13-21-29-37
6-14-22-30-38
7-15-23-31-38
8-16-24-32-40

If we get less than 40 teams, we subtract from #40.

2. 8 division names
Foster Hewitt Division
Louis Magnus Division
Jim Coleman
Red Fisher Division
René Lecavalier Division
Thomas D. Green Division
Sam Pollock Division
William Northey Division

B. Playoffs
- All 40 teams makes the playoffs, #4 and #5 seed play an Home-Away two game series

-------

As for the trades, we either let it like last years (MAX 3 trades with committee) or we vote on multiple options. I'm not touching that one anyone 70's, I'll let you the honour!


Is everyone agree with that?

 

[jarek]

NO! I WANT MY COLEMAN!!!

But seriously, I was REALLY looking forward to be able to select my draft position. If I have to select ****ing 10th again, my interest in this is going to be shot.

 

[overpass]

As for the trades, we either let it like last years (MAX 3 trades with committee) or we vote on multiple options. I'm not touching that one anyone 70's, I'll let you the honour!

Is everyone agree with that?

Go for it. I agree that the most important thing is to get this running. IMO the veteran GMs here know what has worked in the past and can make some calls to get this thing going.

I don't have a preference on trades. I'm fine without them but if it really enhances the experience for others I'm fine with them. I'd just rather not have them be a distraction or have the draft become about trades instead of players and history.

I'll defer to more experienced GMs on the implementation of a trade system that works. Although if we decide to do trades, I would rather have a small committee of experienced GMs that can make quick decisions control the trade vetoes. Just in the interests of keeping trades from being a big distraction.

But seriously, I was REALLY looking forward to be able to select my draft position. If I have to select ****ing 10th again, my interest in this is going to be shot.

And yet I don't see VanI's original draft position idea happening, if he's not going to implement it.

Would it work to allow a couple of days where draft positions can be traded, before the draft starts? That seems fairly straightforward. Maybe you can't get the exact spot you want, but you can at least avoid having a position you really don't want.

 

[seventieslord]

(I 100% agree with 70's last post)

How ironic that we give an earful to VanI because he wanted to manage thing his way, and 2 days later I'm making decision without the approbation of everyone else . I genuinely feel bad, but I think it's the best decision

Anyway:

-----

X. Draft Order:
- Random. (Just like last draft)

1. Constitution of the division:
- They will be decided at random after the results of the draft order (Just like last draft)

1-9-17-25-33
2-10-18-26-34
3-11-19-27-35
4-12-20-28-36
5-13-21-29-37
6-14-22-30-38
7-15-23-31-38
8-16-24-32-40

If we get less than 40 teams, we subtract from #40.

2. 8 division names
Foster Hewitt Division
Louis Magnus Division
Jim Coleman
Red Fisher Division
René Lecavalier Division
Thomas D. Green Division
Sam Pollock Division
William Northey Division

B. Playoffs
- All 40 teams makes the playoffs, #4 and #5 seed play an Home-Away two game series

-------

As for the trades, we either let it like last years (MAX 3 trades with committee) or we vote on multiple options. I'm not touching that one anyone 70's, I'll let you the honour!


Is everyone agree with that?

It looks perfect, except - do you 100% agree with my last post, or just 80%? Because if you're at 100% then you do the "manual random" slotting of divisions, and not the rigid, by-draft-position method as described above.

NO! I WANT MY COLEMAN!!!

But seriously, I was REALLY looking forward to be able to select my draft position. If I have to select ****ing 10th again, my interest in this is going to be shot.

Oh please. As if it's that important. You don't want trades but you want to dictate where you draft....

overpass' idea is pretty cool, and if we allow trades, what's to stop two teams from agreeing to swap all their picks, 25-for-25, before either of them has made a selection?

 

[EagleBelfour]

And yet I don't see VanI's original draft position idea happening, if he's not going to implement it.

Would it work to allow a couple of days where draft positions can be traded, before the draft starts? That seems fairly straightforward. Maybe you can't get the exact spot you want, but you can at least avoid having a position you really don't want.

Jarek, I'll have to admit I was also looking forward to choose my draft position. If there's a bunch of other posters that also want to choose their draft position, I think it's something we could do. However, for now, I think it's better we keep it simple.

As for Coleman, he would have been a fine selection, but I just went with the top-4 voted name.

Overpass, it was my intention to offer an 'all my picks for all yours' to the couple of GM who will own the position I wanted to draft. Surprisingly enough, in all the drafts I've been in, I never saw it happen.

It looks perfect, except - do you 100% agree with my last post, or just 80%? Because if you're at 100% then you do the "manual random" slotting of divisions, and not the rigid, by-draft-position method as described above.

I just went with what we've done last draft. For me, its a very irrelevant topic.

 

[jarek]

Oh please. As if it's that important. You don't want trades but you want to dictate where you draft...

But to me, it IS important. I don't really want to trade much this draft, so I at least want to have some control of where I draft. Just because an issue isn't important to you, don't just blow it off like it doesn't matter.

I like overpass' idea. That's a fine compromise if we can't actually get to select where we draft.

 

[Leaf Lander]

ok let's settle on who is running the draft

seems that eagle belfour and seventieslord are interested. Decide amongst yourselves post the selection slots and go forth

Pick the rules that works for you as gm or co-gm

ps I think the coleman division would be a good one!

Now lets get this baby going!