ATD 2021 Sign-Up Thread (Draft Order Determined)

[ResilientBeast]

Figured we can get the ball rolling discussing the next big draft.

Personally I'd love the two team format to return.

Any thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

1) Bring back trading! It's been, what, 3 drafts in a row with no trades? Time to mix it up.

2) IF we bring back trading, it'll be tougher to administer 2 teams per GM.

3) To me personally, I care more about mixing up the number of teams in the draft vs whether we have 1 or 2 teams per GM.

 

[VanIslander]

2) IF we bring back trading, it'll be tougher to administer 2 teams per GM. .

Easy!

Have a trading conference and a no-trading conference (like baseball has different rules in the National & American league).

That way there's no horse trading.

And if someone wants to GM only one team, they can choose which conference (long path to the championship final) to take, the trading or no-trading one. If you prefer a no-trade draft, compete in a no-trade regular season, no-trade divisional semifinal, no-trade divisional final and no-trade conference final. You wouldn't face a trade team until the championship final (like a National league baseball team wouldn't face a designated hitter until the World Series!).

 

[rmartin65]

I'd be interested in a rotation of two teams/1 team and trading/no trading.

Something like-
Last year was 2 teams/no trade
This year can be 1 team/yes trade
Next year is 2 teams/yes trade
The following is 1 team/no trade
Then its back to 2 teams/no trade
etc

That said, I can't say I'm committing just yet.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I like the idea, but I also don't want to go back to one team already

 

[rmartin65]

I like the idea, but I also don't want to go back to one team already

I get that. I do think adding trading back in would re-introduce some spice to compensate for having "only" one team.

If trading returns (which I think it should- it is time), I do hope we as a community do a better job with it. Trades are for getting players that fit that either slide unexpectedly, or usually go before your assigned draft slot. They are not to upset competitive balance so one can get an unfair advantage in order to win. In light of this, I do hope that we are more willing to call out and veto trades that look unfair- especially if they are between an experience GM and a new/newer one. The first step, and the ideal, obviously, is for GMs to act like adults and not try to game the system. Don't put others in the uncomfortable position to feel the need to vote down a trade.

I'll get off my soap box now.

Unrelated afterthought- if people REALLY felt the need for multiple teams, then I would propose doing co-GMs instead of GMs having the option for two teams. This way we would still get some variance in terms of draft size.

 

[Dreakmur]

I’ll be involved in some capacity. See how this all shapes up.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

There was talk about an auction-based draft a year or two ago. There were logistical challenges in running the draft; setting those aside, is there any interest in that format?

 

[BenchBrawl]

There was talk about an auction-based draft a year or two ago. There were logistical challenges in running the draft; setting those aside, is there any interest in that format?

The auction draft was @ImporterExporter's project, but it was put on hold.

1) Bring back trading! It's been, what, 3 drafts in a row with no trades? Time to mix it up.

2) IF we bring back trading, it'll be tougher to administer 2 teams per GM.

3) To me personally, I care more about mixing up the number of teams in the draft vs whether we have 1 or 2 teams per GM.

Trading back is a good idea.

Point 2) is a major issue. I think we have to choose between the two.

I understand everyone wants a different amount of teams, but this is not something we fully control. The main priority is to have a big enough draft, or even a draft at all.

 

[Claude The Fraud]

For what it’s worth, curiously, I prefer a one team draft.

I would like to experience a draft with trades, as I never did one.

But whatever it’ll be, you can count me in.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I will only be handling one team this year.

If there is trading we should limit the draft to one team per GM.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I will only be handling one team this year.

If there is trading we should limit the draft to one team per GM.

I agree 100%. I'm actually not so hot on the two teams format. It was a nice one-off event, and maybe we can do it again in the future, but a classic ATD with trades would mix it up better right now.

 

[VanIslander]

Just make a 2-team GM choose ONE of his teams to be designated a no-trade team!

No need to throw out the twin baby with the bathwater.

 

[ImporterExporter]

One team per GM.

Trades allowed. Set the cap at 5 which at least forces some restraint and strategy.

Also consider a clock reduction for on the clock trades.

Say you are picking 18 in round 1. Normally you get 24 hours. You want to trade out of that spot. You designate an on the clock trade and then get half the clock to work out a trade or pick.

Reasoning being the time spent figuring out who you would pick you are in and out of the mailbox trying to maneuver.

Just a thought. I'm not going to campaign for it but the thought crossed my mind.

 

[Habsfan18]

Yeah, the biggest issue IMO with trading was when we’d see a GM use 95% of their clock (all day, in prime drafting hours) only to trade the pick with 20 minutes left to go on their clock. Then, the team who acquired the pick could take hours to select. That exact scenario may not happen often, but it still can be enough to disrupt an entire day of drafting which could be frustrating for those few GM’s who are itching to pick within the next few.

I’m good with trading of course, but I think we should try to eliminate that above scenario from happening too often.

I also think we should have a max limit per GM. I’d hate to see the ATD becoming a GM game with certain teams making 10 trades and trading just for the sake of it.

 

[VanIslander]

Simple solution rule: No trades of picks that are ON THE CLOCK.

Trade your pick earlier, or make your pick. Don't waste time.

 

[rmartin65]

I like @ImporterExporter 's idea of getting half of the clock for on-the-clock trades. That makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Libertarian Proposal: Recipient of trade inherits the clock-countdown status of the pick.

Best- trade the pick before you're on-the-clock.

All right- say someone makes the trade 2 hours in- on an 8 hour clock. Then the receiving party has 6 hours to pull-the-trigger on the acquired pick. The 6 hours start from the time of the declared-transaction, NOT the time of the third-party approval.

Typically, anyone who moves up in a draft does so to acquire a specific player- so they're really without excuse when it comes to making their selection in a timely manner.

And (as I type this), I DO like IE's proposal of capping ability to trade at halfway through the clock. If The League is going to exercise any Veto Power over trades, you have to give the relevant parties SOME time to review it.

Also, on-the-clock trades under those circumstances should be understood to be at the risk of the trading parties. If it takes (whatever will pass for) our Committee the remainder of the clock to review the trade (because something might be happening IRL to keep them from dropping everything and conducting a trade review), then too bad. Don't like it? Trade before you're on-the-clock and save yourself the drama.

If I had my way, I'd have an even tighter cap on the number of trades. I'd limit to three. But then, I'm probably not going to jump into the fray this time- so no-one has to be too concerned with my preferences. [Make my 1st Main ATD a trades-allowed ATD?! Why don't I just style what's left of my hair with a MixMaster while I'm at it!?]

And one more thing that I've brought up before- and will do so again- what's up with the 24-hour clock in the first round- and the 12 hour clock in the early rounds?!? I've long held that these picks should be among the quickest. In practice, it seems that everyone makes their picks so much faster than the clock requires (so it's usually a non-factor). However, now that trading is permitted, that might not necessarily be so this time round.

 

[Dreakmur]

Agreed. Each pick has a single clock that doesn’t change if it gets traded.

I thought that’s was already the rule.

 

[Habsfan18]

I think the best and easiest solution is no trading of picks that are on the clock. But I think both of the ideas presented by IE and ChiTown make a lot of sense as well. I’m good with whichever we decide to go with.

 

[BenchBrawl]

If I had my way, I'd have an even tighter cap on the number of trades. I'd limit to three. But then, I'm probably not going to jump into the fray this time- so no-one has to be too concerned with my preferences. [Make my 1st Main ATD a trades-allowed ATD?! Why don't I just style what's left of my hair with a MixMaster while I'm at it!?]

Please reconsider. I would really enjoy seeing you participating, and we'll need you.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Agreed. Each pick has a single clock that doesn’t change if it gets traded.

I thought that’s was already the rule.

Pretty much. This issue is really overblown. It happened maybe twice in the 10 years I've been doing these drafts, at least in a way that was really unsportsmanlike. By unsportsmanlike I mean: The GM clearly waiting on his clock waiting to see if anyone would bite to his trade offers or if anyone would send him proposals. I have no real problem with someone who is in actual negotiation using some of his clock, assuming it is a serious negotiation. While we can't always know for sure, it's usually obvious which is which.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah, the biggest issue IMO with trading was when we’d see a GM use 95% of their clock (all day, in prime drafting hours) only to trade the pick with 20 minutes left to go on their clock. Then, the team who acquired the pick could take hours to select. That exact scenario may not happen often, but it still can be enough to disrupt an entire day of drafting which could be frustrating for those few GM’s who are itching to pick within the next few.

I’m good with trading of course, but I think we should try to eliminate that above scenario from happening too often.

I also think we should have a max limit per GM. I’d hate to see the ATD becoming a GM game with certain teams making 10 trades and trading just for the sake of it.

I don't think that's ever been how it works.

If a GM trades his pick with 20 minutes left in his clock, the GM who gets the pick gets those 20 minutes to pick and no more.

Edit: In other words, I agree with everyone who thought this was already the rule.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Traditionally, we have banned trades on the clock, but it's so easy to circumvent (either on purpose or by accident).

Circumvention: GM A is on the clock. GM B wants a player. They negotiate. GM A picks GM B's player, then immediately trades that player to GM B.

Accidental OTC trade: GM A and B start negotiating 5 picks before GM A's pick. The draft moves fast and the trade isn't finalized until GM A is on the clock. This has happened to me at least once.

This is why in later drafts that allowed trades, we had a rule that was something like "trading on the clock is allowed, just don't be a dick about it."

But if other GMs want to ban OTC clocks, it's really no big deal.

 

[VanIslander]

Traditionally, we have banned trades on the clock, ...

Indeed.