ATD 2014 - Should we allow trading?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You must have participated in ANY ONE of ATD 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013 for your vote to count. This is not to be a jerk to rookies, it's just that trading has caused problems in the ATD in the past in unexpected ways.

If trading is to be allowed, we'll use rules similar to last time unless someone objects. I thought those rules worked quite well (if we are to have trades).

Edit: Swapping your full draft position with another team will always be allowed (it isn't a "trade" per se)

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I changed the title to be more specific - this poll will determine whether trading is allowed in ATD2014.

Feel free to discuss the pros and cons here, as well.

It's possible that only 7 of 17 returning GMs who signed up so far have a opinion on the matter, but I feel some of you might have missed this thread. This is the only time I will bump it though.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I changed the title to be more specific - this poll will determine whether trading is allowed in ATD2014.

Feel free to discuss the pros and cons here, as well.

It's possible that only 7 of 17 returning GMs who signed up so far have a opinion on the matter, but I feel some of you might have missed this thread. This is the only time I will bump it though.

I misread the OP as needing to have participated in all those drafts to vote.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I misread the OP as needing to have participated in all those drafts to vote.

Really? I can see how my original wording could be read like that, but I'm surprised that it didn't result in complaints

Changed it to say that you need to have participated in any one of the last four drafts (which is what I meant to begin with)

 

[BraveCanadian]

Really? I can see how my original wording could be read like that, but I'm surprised that it didn't result in complaints

Changed it to say that you need to have participated in any one of the last four drafts (which is what I meant to begin with)

haha I just read it too fast and missed the "or"

 

[JFA87-66-99]

Im voting No. Ever since I've joined the ATD I've wanted to go with no trades.

 

[VanIslander]

We've never had a no-trade draft. It would be an interesting challenge!

One anticipates: "If we take this guy then we can't take that guy or that guy we want because they won't be on the board next round in all likelihood. And then the anticipation when a guy really want drops, drops, drops... and is taken right before you! Arrgh! All good fun. Frustrating but dramatic. Draft strategy will be rewarded.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I feel like without trading , some drafting positions are weaker than the others.This is especially problematic now that some GMs will have priority to choose their drafting position.

Trades are simply a tool GMs can use to get out of tough spots during the draft.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I feel like without trading , some drafting positions are weaker than the others.This is especially problematic now that some GMs will have priority to choose their drafting position.

Trades are simply a tool GMs can use to get out of tough spots during the draft.

On the other hand, it can be harder for GMs with less desirable draft positions to make trades.

 

[BenchBrawl]

On the other hand, it can be harder for GMs with less desirable draft positions to make trades.

It would be the case if the draft was made robotically , but GMs are humans.They all have different level of knowledge , different strategies , different opinions on things like prime vs longevity , the value of intangibles , etc...

There's spots in the draft order where talent start to fade off quickly , making most players drafted just after that bad value in relation to how high they're being picked.Similarly , there's some players that are clearly superior to most (if not all) players that will be picked shortly after them , making them good value based on where they were picked.Not all GM will agree/be aware of where these spots are , making trading a skill of talent evaluation and list order anticipation.

That is strictly talking about the overall quality of the player , we could also talk about the position factor which makes a GM needing a D at a time of the draft where Ds are bad value in a tough spot he can't get out of if he can't trade.You could argue he needed to plan ahead , but what if the Ds were still bad value in his previous spots? This puts a tremendous part of his destiny into the hands of his drafting position.You could also argue that he should just wait and get a defenseman later , but we all know waiting too long to fill certain spots on your team can be a deal breaker.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

For the first time ever, I'm curious how a no-trade draft would look.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It would be the case if the draft was made robotically , but GMs are humans.They all have different level of knowledge , different strategies , different opinions on things like prime vs longevity , the value of intangibles , etc...

There's spots in the draft order where talent start to fade off quickly , making most players drafted just after that bad value in relation to how high they're being picked.Similarly , there's some players that are clearly superior to most (if not all) players that will be picked shortly after them , making them good value based on where they were picked.Not all GM will agree/be aware of where these spots are , making trading a skill of talent evaluation and list order anticipation.

That is strictly talking about the overall quality of the player , we could also talk about the position factor which makes a GM needing a D at a time of the draft where Ds are bad value in a tough spot he can't get out of if he can't trade.You could argue he needed to plan ahead , but what if the Ds were still bad value in his previous spots? This puts a tremendous part of his destiny into the hands of his drafting position.You could also argue that he should just wait and get a defenseman later , but we all know waiting too long to fill certain spots on your team can be a deal breaker.

A GM with picks close together because of draft position has trouble trading out of an undesirable position, since the 2nd pick itself is also undesirable.

 

[BenchBrawl]

A GM with picks close together because of draft position has trouble trading out of an undesirable position, since the 2nd pick itself is also undesirable.

That's a good point , but if he's capable of trading one of the two undesirable picks , it still gives his GMing skills more room for maneuver than if he's just stuck with two undesirable picks (unless you meant close pair of picks are hard to trade without trading the whole pair , so if the pair is bad then trading it is difficult).

Then you could argue that GMs with desirable picks that are also good at trading will have even more of an edge on them (GMs stuck with undesirable picks) , so not allowing trading stops the growth of their edge at least , to which I have no immediate counter-argument.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

A GM with picks close together because of draft position has trouble trading out of an undesirable position, since the 2nd pick itself is also undesirable.

No picks are really undesirable. For example. a late 6/ early 7th combo is a scary place to need a #2 d-man. But it's a glorious place to need an offensive winger.

Different strategies create different value.

 

[BraveCanadian]

No picks are really undesirable. For example. a late 6/ early 7th combo is a scary place to need a #2 d-man. But it's a glorious place to need an offensive winger.

Different strategies create different value.

Definitely you need to plan ahead based on your picks and the tendencies of the draft.

The nice thing is that with no trades the draft will run smoother, more quickly, and as long as you believe reversing of pick order does it, even.

 

[VanIslander]

With a no-trade draft, then everybody should be able to choose their draft position.

How? Here's an effective way I've seen used in hockey drafts elsewhere:

Submit via PM their top-5 preferred positions in order of preference and then the administrator assigns accordiingly - with those who voted in every round of last year's draft playoffs getting theirs first, of course; ties could be decided by a flip of a coin, first submitted PM advantage or whatever tiebreaker deemed apt. Everyone ought to get one of their five preferred positions because the fact is not everyone wants the same draft position(s)!

 

[King Forsberg]

With a no-trade draft, then everybody should be able to choose their draft position.

How? Here's an effective way I've seen used in hockey drafts elsewhere:

Submit via PM their top-5 preferred positions in order of preference and then the administrator assigns accordiingly - with those who voted in every round of last year's draft playoffs getting theirs first, of course; ties could be decided by a flip of a coin, first submitted PM advantage or whatever tiebreaker deemed apt. Everyone ought to get one of their five preferred positions because the fact is not everyone wants the same draft position(s)!

I would be okay with this. This way no one can complain about getting a bad position, not that it's a problem based on what I've seen on here. There should still be some kind of lottery for the top 5 picks.

 

[VanIslander]

There should still be some kind of lottery for the top 5 picks.

No need to put every team's name in the hat. A random draw from a hat as tiebreakers yeah, for those who put 1st-5th overall in their preference set. I suspect several veteran GMs may want to build a team around someone other than the usual suspects that go first.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wouldn't mind allowing everyone to pick draft positions if we went to a no-trade draft. I was hoping to allow everyone to pick draft positions last time anyway, but it got voted down.

 

[Sturminator]

I would say, however, that the GMs who voted in every round last year should still get first choice of their draft positions, regardless of how the other positions are handed out. That is, we resolve the top-5 and the draft positions of those GMs who opt-in before the rest of the positions are handed out to other GMs. Whatever the form of draft pick allocation this year, we should follow through on the plan to reward consistent playoff voting.

 

[VanIslander]

I would say, however, that the GMs who voted in every round last year should still get first choice of their draft positions,...

Totally!

 

[SchultzSquared*]

No trades... would love to see what the best and brightest minds can do with their picks locked in... oh and shmucks like me

Think we could see some of the best ATD teams ever...

 

[Elvis P]

No trades... would love to see what the best and brightest minds can do with their picks locked in... oh and shmucks like me. Think we could see some of the best ATD teams ever...

Agreed. I never had the patience, but there are trading ways vets can build a superior team. Why not just see who can draft the best team? It's unprecedented, would be fun to watch, and you avoid the problems of the same GMs giving the same GMs unbalanced trades which create controversy, hard feelings, and unbalanced teams with unfair advantages.

 

[Sturminator]

No trades... would love to see what the best and brightest minds can do with their picks locked in... oh and shmucks like me

Think we could see some of the best ATD teams ever...

In all likelihood, a trade prohibition will have a leveling effect on the draft, pushing the teams towards greater parity and lowering the quality of the strongest franchises. Experienced GMs can use fair and balanced trades as a way of targeting specific players with specific skillsets at specific values that they consider right for their teams, or as a way of snagging valuable players who fall for whatever reason. Trading allows savvy GMs to maximize the value of their picks.

Take that tool away, and a whole lot of how the teams end up will simply fall to the whims of chance. A no-trade draft would certainly be interesting and might well result in more creative team-building strategies as veteran GMs will be forced more often to make hard choices between value and fit, but I sincerely doubt that it will improve the quality of the finished product at the high end.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The last few posts have been spot on IMO. Having run a number of drafts on other boards and participated in many on the GM forum here, i can say that generally trades tend to bog down the drafting process and in some cases do create tension.

The biggest aspect that i've seen it effect is the actual time some people spend on the clock. It can get annoying when you have a string of people online ready to pick and a person takes up their whole draft clock to try and work out a deal. Granted, the clock is in place for various reasons but it's been my experience that eliminating trades makes the entire process run smoother.

One thing i have allowed in the past (based on member input) was a 24 hr trading window AFTER the conclusion of the draft.

I'm obviously a true rookie (hoping to get my own team) and in no way want to sound "official" in any way. Just thought i'd share some of my personal experiences in past drafts.