Well-intentioned seasoned GMs bickering about the rules

[seventieslord]

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.

I'm not blowing it off, but someone who is against trades shouldn't be championing the "choose where you draft" idea, IMO.

overpass' idea is great, and has been an option for anyone since the ATD began, it's just that no one has taken advantage of it, and very few have probably even thought about it. If there is trading, no one can stop you from swapping positons with someone else... the biggest challenge may be to find a willing partner.

 

[EagleBelfour]

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

There's absolutely 0% chance I'm running this year draft. I may look like I have a lot of time on my hand lately (which is true), but it's mostly because I'm ''stuck'' in Melbourne until late January (Ya, I'm not stuck, that city is amazing!). But from February and onward, I will travelling again, so I will have FAR less time to play the administrator. I think it's pretty clear at this point that 70's will be running the draft.

 

[Leaf Lander]

ok so seventieslord has agreed to run this draft?

 

[seventieslord]

ok so seventieslord has agreed to run this draft?

Yes, but whatever help others can offer, I will probably accept.

 

[jarek]

I'm not blowing it off, but someone who is against trades shouldn't be championing the "choose where you draft" idea, IMO.

overpass' idea is great, and has been an option for anyone since the ATD began, it's just that no one has taken advantage of it, and very few have probably even thought about it. If there is trading, no one can stop you from swapping positons with someone else... the biggest challenge may be to find a willing partner.

Why? I actually think a guy who is against trading WANTS to have control over their draft position, as I do. Your logic doesn't make any sense.

 

[markrander87]

Why? I actually think a guy who is against trading WANTS to have control over their draft position, as I do. Your logic doesn't make any sense.

Can we save the bickering for the Actual draft thread. Do you really want more ppl to drop out over this. If you don't have anything productive to say, save it.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Can we save the bickering for the Actual draft thread. Do you really want more ppl to drop out over this. If you don't have anything productive to say, save it.

Don't worry about that Mark, 70's and Jarek were Co-GM together for 2 drafts. Couples always dispute over meaningless stuff

 

[VanIslander]

2cents: You can go ahead and ignore tradition, but Jim Coleman already has been honoured with the name of a conference, so there's no need to double dip and name a division after him:

Red Fisher Conference

Jim Robson division
Foster Hewitt division
__________ division
__________ division

Jim Coleman Conference

Bob Cole division
Rene Lecavalier division
__________ division
__________ division

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

Indeed. Life is full of such irony.

 

[EagleBelfour]

2cents: You can go ahead and ignore tradition, but Jim Coleman already has been honoured with the name of a conference, so there's no need to double dip and name a division after him:

Oups, my error. I switch Bob Cole name with Jim Coleman!

The division are as follow:

Red Fisher Conference
Jim Robson division (1-9-17-25-33)
Foster Hewitt division (2-10-18-26-34)
Louis Magnus division (3-11-19-27-35)
Sam Pollock division (4-12-20-28-36)

Jim Coleman Conference
Bob Cole division (5-13-21-29-37)
René Lecavalier division (6-14-22-30-38)
Thomas D. Green division (7-15-23-31-39)
William Northey division (8-16-24-32-40)

Indeed. Life is full of such irony.

Hey!

So, will you manage a team in this year draft? Would be nice to see you around.

 

[seventieslord]

I believe it is Charles C. Coleman who is vying for a division name, not his son Jim. Jim is already recognized by the ATD community.

 

[jarek]

No, I will never stop arguing with 70s.

 

[Leaf Lander]

No, I will never stop arguing with 70s.

none of us will

psst I think he likes the attention lol

 

[Leaf Lander]

Oups, my error. I switch Bob Cole name with Jim Coleman!

The division are as follow:

Red Fisher Conference
Jim Robson division (1-9-17-25-33)
Foster Hewitt division (2-10-18-26-34)
Louis Magnus division (3-11-19-27-35)
Sam Pollock division (4-12-20-28-36)

Jim Coleman Conference
Bob Cole division (5-13-21-29-37)
René Lecavalier division (6-14-22-30-38)
Thomas D. Green division (7-15-23-31-39)
William Northey division (8-16-24-32-40)



Hey!

So, will you manage a team in this year draft? Would be nice to see you around.

I propose that we retire 3 names a yr and ad new divisional names from hockey history to our divisional line up

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Two quick comments before my internet dies again:

1) Perhaps there should be 2 different threads - one for signup and one for discussing the rules. That way posters signing up who have no desire to read long discussions about rules can ignore those discussions. In other words, new posters who don't really understand the arguments about rules aren't going to be beaten over the heads with them.

2) If there is still a desire to do the "choose your draft position" thing, I can run it in the same way that VI explained it before (in a different thread). And like VI was going to, I will take whatever position is left over. Anyone who doesn't care about draft position will be selected as normal, once those who pick their positions get their spots.

 

[Velociraptor]

Great progress gentlemen, if anybody needs me for any service whatsoever, please let me know. I'd love to help out a little more in this years ATD.

 

[Velociraptor]

Two quick comments before my internet dies again:

1) Perhaps there should be 2 different threads - one for signup and one for discussing the rules. That way posters signing up who have no desire to read long discussions about rules can ignore those discussions. In other words, new posters who don't really understand the arguments about rules aren't going to be beaten over the heads with them.

2) If there is still a desire to do the "choose your draft position" thing, I can run it in the same way that VI explained it before (in a different thread). And like VI was going to, I will take whatever position is left over. Anyone who doesn't care about draft position will be selected as normal, once those who pick their positions get their spots.

1. Agreed

2. Disagreed, I think random order is the best way to go, in my honest opinion.

 

[seventieslord]

I also think we better just keep the order random and avoid any pickichoosiness about it.

 

[Leaf Lander]

I also think we better just keep the order random and avoid any pickichoosiness about it.

so what are yah going to do put the names in a hat video it and place it on youtube for us all

 

[seventieslord]

Agree with this one. I've lurked on various fantasy drafts and they basically make up rules as they go along. This one, once it starts, always runs fairly smoothly.

Seems like there isn't much interest in picking draft positions. I'm fine with randomization then. Keep it simple.

By the way, at this point, I think this thread should be renamed "ATD 2011 preliminary discussion" and a new signup thread should be created (or ideally, the old one should be re-opened).

If they give me mod status, I'll do that. Or just merge the two.

 

[seventieslord]

so what are yah going to do put the names in a hat video it and place it on youtube for us all

nah, I'll just handle it behind the scenes.

 

[Hedberg]

I also think we better just keep the order random and avoid any pickichoosiness about it.

Yes. I'm not trying to sound like a fascist, but sometimes there is such a thing as too much democracy.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Yes. I'm not trying to sound like a fascist, but sometimes there is such a thing as too much democracy.

And really, 90% of the experienced GMs will choose the back-end option every time, especially in a draft this big where you won't be able to get three top 100 players without trading.

I sent a quick PM to Fugu and he's headed over here to unlock the sign up thread. Hats off to him for helping us out.

 

[seventieslord]

And really, 90% of the experienced GMs will choose the back-end option every time, especially in a draft this big where you won't be able to get three top 100 players without trading.

I sent a quick PM to Fugu and he's headed over here to unlock the sign up thread. Hats off to him for helping us out.

Fugu's also the one who might be getting me mod powers.

 

[hfboardsuser]

Fugu's also the one who might be getting me mod powers.

Yes, I mentioned that to him as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Can we re-sticky this thread somehow?

And then change the other thread to something like "long term GMs bickering (with good intentions) about the rules."