ATD 2020 Signup and Discussion

[ResilientBeast]

I would like to play if you guys will have me.

I will just say upfront that although I always wanted to draft a team like this, I'm not really interested in the argument side of things as I don't think I share the general view of things here or on the history board (I'm gotten less and less convinced in the commensurability across different contexts even within the same era much less different eras and I just don't think rankings of players/teams/whatever work that well), and, perhaps more importantly, I just don't like the culture of argument/debate in general.

I'm OK with participating in post draft rankings and happy to provide a summary of my team and all, but I don't think I'll be one to engage in long arguments about things.

If all of that is cool with you sign me up with the Calgary Radz lol

Oh and I'd favor a straight up draft with trades if that matters

So we generally encourage new people to take on co-gms just because the draft will last a couple of months and someone flaking really screws us over. I'll add you to the list for now and we can sort out the newer people and how we'll manage in January closer to the draft start

 

[tinyzombies]

Why not do a Pre-1950 draft? That would call for more research. And you could give an additional ? hours if someone does a profile or significantly enhances a profile? When are you supposed to do profiles anyway? It's a Catch-22. If I don't know the player, I can't pick him, and if I don't pick him, I won't do the profile. And if I still DO pick him, there's no time to do the profile before my time is up.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Why not do a Pre-1950 draft? That would call for more research. And you could give an additional ? hours if someone does a profile or significantly enhances a profile? When are you supposed to do profiles anyway? It's a Catch-22. If I don't know the player, I can't pick him, and if I don't pick him, I won't do the profile. And if I still DO pick him, there's no time to do the profile before my time is up.

That's a possibility for a side draft, not the main ATD.

Players I've made new bios for are usually

1. The current bio is out of date and new information has been found either accidently (researching someone else) or on purpose
2. I've found something that necessitates a new bio
3. They don't have a bio that combines things in ATD cannon

So I agree it's somewhat of a catch 22, some players I've got the bios ready by my selection, other ones I work on while digging up information on other players. So the timing doesn't matter for your first few picks you've got months to present a good bio.

Bios are one of the more useful ways to canonize your information and takes on a player. Like my most recent Cyclone Taylor team; I updated the bio to reflect his eligibility as a C/D

 

[tinyzombies]

That's a possibility for a side draft, not the main ATD.

Players I've made new bios for are usually

1. The current bio is out of date and new information has been found either accidently (researching someone else) or on purpose
2. I've found something that necessitates a new bio
3. They don't have a bio that combines things in ATD cannon

So I agree it's somewhat of a catch 22, some players I've got the bios ready by my selection, other ones I work on while digging up information on other players. So the timing doesn't matter for your first few picks you've got months to present a good bio.

Bios are one of the more useful ways to canonize your information and takes on a player. Like my most recent Cyclone Taylor team; I updated the bio to reflect his eligibility as a C/D

Didn't someone do a write-up about sources when talking about creating bios?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Only 8 names yet? @ResilientBeast you might want to shoot a PM to all vets.

 

[VanIslander]

It's not even Christmas...

We have never had sign-ups before New Year's.

Expect interest after the insanity of the holidays. January 3rd to 14th.

 

[BenchBrawl]

It's not even Christmas...

We have never had sign-ups before New Year's.

Expect interest after the insanity of the holidays. January 3rd to 14th.

True

 

[ResilientBeast]

It's not even Christmas...

We have never had sign-ups before New Year's.

Expect interest after the insanity of the holidays. January 3rd to 14th.

Eh we've started the thread before christmas. You are generally correct that we don't get a flurry of signups till afterwards

 

[VanIslander]

Eh we've started the thread before christmas. You are generally correct that we don't get a flurry of signups till afterwards

We have started DISCUSSION threads in December. Then a SIGN-UP thread in January.

 

[ResilientBeast]

We have started DISCUSSION threads in December. Then a SIGN-UP thread in January.

Last year started way late, mid January, but the three drafts before that

This one started in October

ATD 2018 Sign Up Thread

November

ATD 2017 Sign Up

Late december

ATD 2016 Sign Up Thread (Signups Closed)

 

[BenchBrawl]

With the 284th pick, I take Cy Dennennenny

 

[Habsfan18]

I know it’s still early but interest seems almost nonexistent..

Are we considering some tweaks for this year or are we going with the usual format?

We should maybe consider using the poll system in the main HoH section for regulars to vote on playoff series rather than just using the members of the draft. What’s even the point in doing the ATD yearly if we’re going to have 25 teams participating with only 10-15 actually voting after the team building portion? Is a champion really a champion if come finals time there are 10/25 left voting?

 

[ImporterExporter]

I know it’s still early but interest seems almost nonexistent..

Are we considering some tweaks for this year or are we going with the usual format?

We should maybe consider using the poll system in the main HoH section for regulars to vote on playoff series rather than just using the members of the draft. What’s even the point in doing the ATD yearly if we’re going to have 25 teams participating with only 10-15 actually voting after the team building portion? Is a champion really a champion if come finals time there are 10/25 left voting?

It's precisely because there are too many people unwilling to change the format of the ATD that interest continues to wane. Keep doing the same thing over and over and you're not going to keep people. It's no different than business.

And the fact you have certain people who act like petulant children.

You'll be welcome to sign up for auction draft in a few weeks. It addresses all the concerns and gripes people have had with the main ATD over the years. Especially the voting stage.

 

[VanIslander]

I know it’s still early..

Indeed. It is still 2019.

Wait two weeks. Then PM past GMs and we'll get to 24 teams no prob.

This formula has served us well for the better part of 15 years.

No need to panic and jump the gun.

 

[BenchBrawl]

It's precisely because there are too many people unwilling to change the format of the ATD that interest continues to wane. Keep doing the same thing over and over and you're not going to keep people. It's no different than business.

And the fact you have certain people who act like petulant children.

You'll be welcome to sign up for auction draft in a few weeks. It addresses all the concerns and gripes people have had with the main ATD over the years. Especially the voting stage.

You overinterpreted my intervention last year as a super visceral attack on you as a person, which is nonesense since I had always liked you. I called you out on something I thought you did wrong like I would have done to anybody else. Sorry if I hurt you but can we move on?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Most people don't even look at this board until at least a few days after the New Years

Easy tweak: I would be all for adding trading back to the ATD, but I also think it could be put to a vote.

More "out there" tweak:" Personally, I think that 2 conferences, where Gms were allowed to have a team in each Conference (so 2 teams overall) would be really fun. Obviously Gms couldn't trade between their own teams. To the extent that the ATD is stale, I agree that it is because we have more or less exhausted currently easily accessible research sources on the players who always get drafted. This is more or less @Dreakmur's point. So one solution would be to greatly expand the pool of players by having 40-48 teams... but the only way to do that is to let GMs have more than one team at a time. Just an idea; I wouldn't be surprised if it's shot down.

 

[VanIslander]

Personally, I think that 2 conferences, where Gms were allowed to have a team in each Conference (so 2 teams overall) would be really fun. Obviously Gms couldn't trade between their own teams. ... greatly expand the pool of players by having 40-48 teams...

+1

I vote for that. And maybe have a trade conference and a no-trade conference, so there would be no horse trading (no quid pro quo: i do you a solid now to bolster one team and neglect the other, next you do me a solid) between two GMs doing multiple trades together, and it adds a dynamic nature: two different planning strategies needed: on one conference: do i trade up or down? On the other conference: will the guy(s) i really want fall to my next round pick?

The dynamic nature of a two-team, different conference draft is exciting. One certainly couldn't just rely on draft order from the last draft or two!

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't really get the "we know the players too much" point, when there's so much research yet to be done about the Top 300 or so players. We don't even have the entire picture of multi-positionality for most of the early eras players, as in a complete game-by-game break down of which position they played, yet we're supposed to need more Jason Spezzas to add fun? Meh.

In any case I'll go with what the group chooses without complaining, just sharing my thoughts.

I really love the two teams per GM idea, though I'd prefer if we could draft the same players in both conferences (so Gretzky can be taken in Conf A and in Conf B). I think regardless of what we do, two teams per GM should be a must: it doubles the number of picks you can make, which means less waiting and more fun !

 

[BenchBrawl]

By the way guys... newspapers.com. I won't say it enough times. Yes, it costs about 20$ a month I think. But you pay for it near the end of the draft, and you can save the pages, so you don't have to pay for multiple months if you don't want to. Just go on a spree. The newspapers are actually searchable on this site, so it's real easy. It's a gold mine with so much untapped potential ! Forget about google newspapers archive, invest the 20$ (if budget permits) and you will be able to make great bios.

This is great for Vancouver, Ottawa, some of Montreal and many US newspapers. Toronto is once again the great darkness, but so be it. You can still search for all the away games of Toronto players in every other cities.

There are also other free sources for newspapers for the Canadian Prairies and west-coast cities, such as this one: Newspapers

There you go, another gold mine ! Just check the dates and start digging.

There is also the BanQ with countless free french newspapers, but I understand most of you don't speak french so nevermind that one. I believe there are english newspapers on the BanQ, such as Quebec City The Crhonicle, which overpass used for his Joe Malone bio (and which I wished I had known about when I made that Joe Hall bio in 2016).

All of this is easy once you did it for 10 minutes. If someone needs help, shoot me a PM I'll walk you through it (I know it can be a pain to learn to maneuver through stuff like that).

 

[VanIslander]

... I really love the two teams per GM idea, though I'd prefer if we could draft the same players in both conferences (so Gretzky can be taken in Conf A and in Conf B). I think regardless of what we do, two teams per GM should be a must: it doubles the number of picks you can make, which means less waiting and more fun !

1. As TDMM said, NOT drafting the same players but having two teams meabs 40-48 picks per round, fresh territory, different than the 20-28 picks off the board per round of drafts past.

2. Gawd i'd go bonkers trying to keep track of duplicate picks: wait, wasn't Milt Schmidt already drafted? Oh,.. that was the other conference? Argh. It's like having two drafts at once: it feeds ADHD attention deficits but it doesn't add the challenge of having to pick 40-48 starting goalies and #1 role dmen!

 

[BenchBrawl]

1. As TDMM said, NOT drafting the same players but having two teams meabs 40-48 picks per round, fresh territory, different than the 20-28 picks off the board per round of drafts past.

2. Gawd i'd go bonkers trying to keep track of duplicate picks: wait, wasn't Milt Schmidt already drafted? Oh,.. that was the other conference? Argh. It's like having two drafts at once: it feeds ADHD attention deficits but it doesn't add the challenge of having to pick 40-48 starting goalies and #1 role dmen!

Fair points.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Most people don't even look at this board until at least a few days after the New Years

Agreed, no rush here. I'm pretty confident we'll get at least 15 GMs.

 

[Habsfan18]

What about having a conference where every team has a single GM, and then a 2nd conference where each team has posters that are paired up as co-GM’s? Could make for an interesting and fun dynamic. It “forces” people to work together and in turn could potentially make the draft more active since there would have to be quite a bit of communication between GM’s to co-build a team in the duo-conference.

Say conference 1 has 20 teams and conference 2 has 10 teams of paired up posters.

 

[BenchBrawl]

What about having a conference where every team has a single GM, and then a 2nd conference where each team has posters that are paired up as co-GM’s? Could make for an interesting and fun dynamic. It “forces” people to work together and in turn could potentially make the draft more active since there would have to be quite a bit of communication between GM’s to co-build a team in the duo-conference.

Say conference 1 has 20 teams and conference 2 has 10 teams of paired up posters.

I don't see what difference it makes if a team has 1, 2 or 5 GMs to be honest.

 

[Habsfan18]

I don't see what difference it makes if a team has 1, 2 or 5 GMs to be honest.

Well, this way we’d have 30 teams total instead of 40 using that example. Just makes the ATD feel “cheap” if we start drafting the Dmitri Khristich’s of the world in the main ATD. But that could just be me.