Idea for ATD2019

[MadArcand]

How about we completely skip the ATD and move on to a 20-24 participant MLD (based on the draft list of last draft). You say the same old players in the same old order are just not interesting, and then you go and pick them again and again...

Heh, a draft where any player appearing on a HOH list would be banned.

Or even better, an inverse draft where you try to build the worst team possible (out of 500+ GP or whatever players let's say, while keeping them in proper positions). I'm not even kidding.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Heh, a draft where any player appearing on a HOH list would be banned.

Or even better, an inverse draft where you try to build the worst team possible (out of 500+ GP or whatever players let's say, while keeping them in proper positions). I'm not even kidding.

I love it. With lines optimized for anti-chemistry. Let's see Marc-Andre Bergeron paired with Any Elmore, both playing on their off sides!

 

[seventieslord]

I love it. With lines optimized for anti-chemistry. Let's see Marc-Andre Bergeron paired with Any Elmore, both playing on their off sides!

oh man, I can't even imagine what an Andy Elmore would play like. Is he like Andy Delmore with less D?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Heh, a draft where any player appearing on a HOH list would be banned.

Or even better, an inverse draft where you try to build the worst team possible (out of 500+ GP or whatever players let's say, while keeping them in proper positions). I'm not even kidding.

IMO this is too radical for the main draft.It would be more appropriate for an off-season draft like the "one player per franchise draft" or "best single season draft".

 

[Johnny Engine]

oh man, I can't even imagine what an Andy Elmore would play like. Is he like Andy Delmore with less D?

You know full well that was intentional.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Heh, a draft where any player appearing on a HOH list would be banned.

Or even better, an inverse draft where you try to build the worst team possible (out of 500+ GP or whatever players let's say, while keeping them in proper positions). I'm not even kidding.

I wouldn't hate the first idea for a main draft, however I bet both ideas would be best suited for a side draft.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Here's another radical idea. Instead of having fixed positions for selecting players, we can try an auction-style draft. (I say "we" loosely - I don't think I've actually participated in one of these since 2009).

Each team starts with a fixed budget - say $10M. The "league commissioner" can release, in advance, a master list of the top XX players, in order (perhaps based on the average draft spot over the past five drafts).

On the first day, the highest-ranked player (who I'm guessing would be Gretzky, but might be Orr) is eligible for every GM. During that 24 hour window, every GM can do an unlimited number of bids. No max or minimum (but perhaps have increments of say $1,000). The bids can either be public (posted in the main thread) or private (sent to whoever's running the draft).

At the end of the 24 hours, the winner is determined/announced. That GM gets that player, and has the winning bid removed from him hypothetical budget. Then we'd move on to the next player up for auction (Orr, etc) on the next day.

Personally I think this would be really exciting:

• It's a new concept that hasn't been tried yet, which might make the draft seem less stale.
• It mirrors reality since there's a financial constraint.
• I think it would be fun/interesting to debate at the end of the draft - which players are the most over- and underpaid?
• It also allows GMs to think about new strategies that we've never had to consider before - do you blow your budget and get three players in the top 20, then fill out your roster with scraps? Or do you quietly sit back and watch people pick superstars, and then compete on the strength of your depth?

But there are obvious logistical hurdles. Here are a few (you can tell me if you think these are bad enough to make this a deal-breaker):

• If the bidding is public, I can easily see two (or more) GMs go back and forth in an endless cycle of trying to one-up each other, which clogs up the thread. Or if it the bidding is private, it would be challenging for the league commissioner to keep track of the dozens of messages he'd be getting every day.
• Time zones could be problematic. I'd imagine that if we ended the bidding at midnight EST, a lot of bids would come in during those last few minutes. People in other parts of the world (or those who simply like to go to bed early) would be at a disadvantage. (Though perhaps we can change this by allowing people to bid only once - which doesn't eliminate the problem entirely, but it might reduce it).
• The pace of the draft would be slow. If we're assuming 18 teams of 20 players, that's a full year. I doubt anybody here is willing to commit to that. (Or perhaps we allow people to bid on up to five players per day - then it would be two months for the draft - much more reasonable). On the other hand, every single day you potentially get to pick - so there's a reason to be involved every day of the draft.
• What happens if a GM runs out of money? I don't know. Maybe we can designate a pool of low quality players that you'd have to use to fill out your roster if you spend all your money? (Not necessarily terrible players, but ones you'd never think about drafting in a ~400 player ATD - competent, serviceable NHLers like Garry Valk, Tom Fitzgerald). Though that still raises the question - how do they get picked if more than one GM runs out of money?

I know this is a crazy idea. But I think it has enough upside that it's at least worth considering.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Here's another radical idea. Instead of having fixed positions for selecting players, we can try an auction-style draft. (I say "we" loosely - I don't think I've actually participated in one of these since 2009).

Each team starts with a fixed budget - say $10M. The "league commissioner" can release, in advance, a master list of the top XX players, in order (perhaps based on the average draft spot over the past five drafts).

On the first day, the highest-ranked player (who I'm guessing would be Gretzky, but might be Orr) is eligible for every GM. During that 24 hour window, every GM can do an unlimited number of bids. No max or minimum (but perhaps have increments of say $1,000). The bids can either be public (posted in the main thread) or private (sent to whoever's running the draft).

At the end of the 24 hours, the winner is determined/announced. That GM gets that player, and has the winning bid removed from him hypothetical budget. Then we'd move on to the next player up for auction (Orr, etc) on the next day.

Personally I think this would be really exciting:

• It's a new concept that hasn't been tried yet, which might make the draft seem less stale.
• It mirrors reality since there's a financial constraint.
• I think it would be fun/interesting to debate at the end of the draft - which players are the most over- and underpaid?
• It also allows GMs to think about new strategies that we've never had to consider before - do you blow your budget and get three players in the top 20, then fill out your roster with scraps? Or do you quietly sit back and watch people pick superstars, and then compete on the strength of your depth?

But there are obvious logistical hurdles. Here are a few (you can tell me if you think these are bad enough to make this a deal-breaker):

• If the bidding is public, I can easily see two (or more) GMs go back and forth in an endless cycle of trying to one-up each other, which clogs up the thread. Or if it the bidding is private, it would be challenging for the league commissioner to keep track of the dozens of messages he'd be getting every day.
• Time zones could be problematic. I'd imagine that if we ended the bidding at midnight EST, a lot of bids would come in during those last few minutes. People in other parts of the world (or those who simply like to go to bed early) would be at a disadvantage. (Though perhaps we can change this by allowing people to bid only once - which doesn't eliminate the problem entirely, but it might reduce it).
• The pace of the draft would be slow. If we're assuming 18 teams of 20 players, that's a full year. I doubt anybody here is willing to commit to that. (Or perhaps we allow people to bid on up to five players per day - then it would be two months for the draft - much more reasonable). On the other hand, every single day you potentially get to pick - so there's a reason to be involved every day of the draft.
• What happens if a GM runs out of money? I don't know. Maybe we can designate a pool of low quality players that you'd have to use to fill out your roster if you spend all your money? (Not necessarily terrible players, but ones you'd never think about drafting in a ~400 player ATD - competent, serviceable NHLers like Garry Valk, Tom Fitzgerald). Though that still raises the question - how do they get picked if more than one GM runs out of money?

I know this is a crazy idea. But I think it has enough upside that it's at least worth considering.

That has been suggested before and I like the idea because it really opens up the team building options.

There are off site options for managing the bidding part of the draft that could be investigated.

 

[VanIslander]

I nominate Hockey Outsider the league commissioner of the inaugural all-time auction draft!

 

[Hockey Outsider]

If there's a way to automate the player selection as ResilientBeast mentioned (and the commissioner's role is really managing the master list, resolving disputes, and keeping track of the dollars) - then I'm up for that. But if it's a manual process I'd have to pass.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Heh, a draft where any player appearing on a HOH list would be banned.

Or even better, an inverse draft where you try to build the worst team possible (out of 500+ GP or whatever players let's say, while keeping them in proper positions). I'm not even kidding.

I don't know if this is a joke, but I personally love it. It would be halfway between an ATD and MLD - something we've never done before.

Edit: If we were to actually do this, I think I would exempt the non-NHL Europeans list and the playoff performers list.

But all 4 positional lists... I feel the draft has become too much of a rehashing.

I also like Hockey Outsider's auction plan, but I sure as hell am not volunteering to run it.

 

[ResilientBeast]

If there's a way to automate the player selection as ResilientBeast mentioned (and the commissioner's role is really managing the master list, resolving disputes, and keeping track of the dollars) - then I'm up for that. But if it's a manual process I'd have to pass.

I'll do some investigating and see what I turn up

 

[VanIslander]

Each team starts with a fixed budget - say $10M.

How about $75 million, the present NHL salary cap? It will be easier to judge spending (e.g., $7 million top liner, $3.5 million for a second pairing defenseman, etc... should one spend over $10 million on that star?). We already have a sense of the tradeoff cost of present NHL salaries.

The "league commissioner" can release, in advance, a master list of the top XX players, in order (perhaps based on the average draft spot over the past five drafts).

Any way you the commish would like it works for me!

If the bidding is public, I can easily see two (or more) GMs go back and forth in an endless cycle of trying to one-up each other, which clogs up the thread.

Allow two bids per GM (an "opening bid" and a "final bid") per player per day.

Time zones could be problematic. I'd imagine that if we ended the bidding at midnight EST, a lot of bids would come in during those last few minutes. People in other parts of the world (or those who simply like to go to bed early) would be at a disadvantage. (Though perhaps we can change this by allowing people to bid only once - which doesn't eliminate the problem entirely, but it might reduce it).

Again, allow just two bids per GM per player. Then not being there at the deadline ain't a big deal. If one thinks one will then only make an opening bid beforehand, if one thinks one might but might not, then make sure the opening bid is a good one, and if one is sure one won't be bidding at the deadline then make the best final bid one is willing to pay.

I am in a wonky time zone of east asia and don't care about that, will adjust. For eastern, pacific and European time zones a proposal could be made of a time and if anyone objects then we could look for another time to accommodate any problems.

The pace of the draft would be slow. If we're assuming 18 teams of 20 players, that's a full year. I doubt anybody here is willing to commit to that. (Or perhaps we allow people to bid on up to five players per day - then it would be two months for the draft - much more reasonable).

Certainly let us bid on more than one player!

IDEAS:

Bid on THREE players a day.
Or make the limit five.
Or,...

Maybe have a rule to allow a maximum of one bid per GM per position per day (eg., LW,C,RW,D,G). That would assure a GM doesn't get two starting G bids won, or two superstar first line right wingers bid on the same day, etc.

What happens if a GM runs out of money? I don't know. Maybe we can designate a pool of low quality players that you'd have to use to fill out your roster if you spend all your money?

Anyone not drafted in the ATD or MLD of 2017 (so,... AAA level talent - 300 minimum pro games limit applies so no Laine or McDavid freebee attempts).

 

[ResilientBeast]

I need to think about the limitations of some of VanI's ideas. I don't think a maximum per position per day is a great idea. Max bids per day sure but lets not limit people too much.

 

[BenchBrawl]

There's so much research left to be done about the top players, those that are on the HOH lists.I get that some GMs will robotically follow the list order, but if we take the players out we won't generate any research about them.

As far as I'm concerned, the worse the player the least interested in doing research I am.

 

[BenchBrawl]

The auction idea should eventually get done, but I'd be cautious about using the main draft to test it for the first time.I feel this is a concept that has the potential to be amazing or a logistic nightmare, so we should test it out next summer before breaking the traditional ATD too radically.

My reason for proposing two separate conferences doing their own ATD, and then meeting in a super final, was to change the number of teams from the usual 25-32 teams we always get.Otherwise, nothing is fundamentally changed, except maybe the possibility that the two teams meeting in the super final might have the same player on their squad, which isn't a huge problem.

 

[VanIslander]

Horray HO.
Boo BB.

Sorry, any extra pushes on the smartphone is a waste of time here.

*sigh*

 

[BenchBrawl]

Horray HO.
Boo BB.

Sorry, any extra pushes on the smartphone is a waste of time here.

*sigh*

I thought you were a traditionalist

I'm only stating my opinion, I have no problem with the auction idea, sounds like a cool idea to try.Just wondering if the main draft is the appropriate laboratory to test it out.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

How about $75 million, the present NHL salary cap? It will be easier to judge spending (e.g., $7 million top liner, $3.5 million for a second pairing defenseman, etc... should one spend over $10 million on that star?). We already have a sense of the tradeoff cost of present NHL salaries.

I really like this idea. It would make the salaries easier to visualize. (The only question - do we have a salary cap? Or if someone wants to bid $25M on Gretzky, do we let them?)

I'm only stating my opinion, I have no problem with the auction idea, sounds like a cool idea to try.Just wondering if the main draft is the appropriate laboratory to test it out.

Definitely a fair point. The draft could be a nightmare and if it fails (which is certainly possible), better to do that with an MLD than the main ATD.

 

[Dreakmur]

Here's another radical idea. Instead of having fixed positions for selecting players, we can try an auction-style draft. (I say "we" loosely - I don't think I've actually participated in one of these since 2009).

Each team starts with a fixed budget - say $10M. The "league commissioner" can release, in advance, a master list of the top XX players, in order (perhaps based on the average draft spot over the past five drafts).

On the first day, the highest-ranked player (who I'm guessing would be Gretzky, but might be Orr) is eligible for every GM. During that 24 hour window, every GM can do an unlimited number of bids. No max or minimum (but perhaps have increments of say $1,000). The bids can either be public (posted in the main thread) or private (sent to whoever's running the draft).

At the end of the 24 hours, the winner is determined/announced. That GM gets that player, and has the winning bid removed from him hypothetical budget. Then we'd move on to the next player up for auction (Orr, etc) on the next day.

Personally I think this would be really exciting:

• It's a new concept that hasn't been tried yet, which might make the draft seem less stale.
• It mirrors reality since there's a financial constraint.
• I think it would be fun/interesting to debate at the end of the draft - which players are the most over- and underpaid?
• It also allows GMs to think about new strategies that we've never had to consider before - do you blow your budget and get three players in the top 20, then fill out your roster with scraps? Or do you quietly sit back and watch people pick superstars, and then compete on the strength of your depth?

But there are obvious logistical hurdles. Here are a few (you can tell me if you think these are bad enough to make this a deal-breaker):

• If the bidding is public, I can easily see two (or more) GMs go back and forth in an endless cycle of trying to one-up each other, which clogs up the thread. Or if it the bidding is private, it would be challenging for the league commissioner to keep track of the dozens of messages he'd be getting every day.
• Time zones could be problematic. I'd imagine that if we ended the bidding at midnight EST, a lot of bids would come in during those last few minutes. People in other parts of the world (or those who simply like to go to bed early) would be at a disadvantage. (Though perhaps we can change this by allowing people to bid only once - which doesn't eliminate the problem entirely, but it might reduce it).
• The pace of the draft would be slow. If we're assuming 18 teams of 20 players, that's a full year. I doubt anybody here is willing to commit to that. (Or perhaps we allow people to bid on up to five players per day - then it would be two months for the draft - much more reasonable). On the other hand, every single day you potentially get to pick - so there's a reason to be involved every day of the draft.
• What happens if a GM runs out of money? I don't know. Maybe we can designate a pool of low quality players that you'd have to use to fill out your roster if you spend all your money? (Not necessarily terrible players, but ones you'd never think about drafting in a ~400 player ATD - competent, serviceable NHLers like Garry Valk, Tom Fitzgerald). Though that still raises the question - how do they get picked if more than one GM runs out of money?

I know this is a crazy idea. But I think it has enough upside that it's at least worth considering.

In theory, I like it. I think it would be way too time intensive for a lot of people. You have to check in several times per day at the minimum.

Also, what happens to the people in wildly different time zones? I assume we have a time deadline for the bids, which would put certain time zones at a very distinct advantage.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I really like this idea. It would make the salaries easier to visualize. (The only question - do we have a salary cap? Or if someone wants to bid $25M on Gretzky, do we let them?)



Definitely a fair point. The draft could be a nightmare and if it fails (which is certainly possible), better to do that with an MLD than the main ATD.

I think it should work like Yahoo Fantasy Hockey Drafts, for a roster of 23 for example you must have at least $1 left per player left to draft.

So for a $75 cap for example the max you could spend on your first player would be $53 that way you're constrained on how much you can outright spend per player and you're forced to fill out your roster with $1 players.

 

[BenchBrawl]

In the auction draft, I think there should be a batch of around 5 players available each day, then you make your bid in private for any (and possibly many) of them if you want to, then at the end of the day the teams that had the highest bid for each is revealed and they get the player(s).This lacks the ''bid, re-bid, re-re-bid'' aspect but it sounds more manageable.

 

[ResilientBeast]

In the auction draft, I think there should be a batch of around 5 players available each day, then you make your bid in private for any (and possibly many) of them if you want to, then at the end of the day the teams that had the highest bid for each is revealed.This lacks the ''bid, re-bid, re-re-bid'' aspect but it sounds more manageable.

That's actually probably the best way to handle it at least for the first iteration IMO

It changes the dynamic slightly since it falls on the bidders to privately assess the value of a given player and then put it out there.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Sign me up for an auction style draft as the main 2019 version. We do need to try to branch out and that is the best idea I've heard suggested over the past few years. It allows for us to retain the same pool of players but really force people to alter their team building strategies. I think you'd see drastically different draft placements for certain guys which would be cool.

 

[VanIslander]

... if someone wants to bid $25M on Gretzky, do we let them?

If someone wants to draft Sundin in the 3rd round of the ATD, do we let him? Yes, we did. Then we criticized it, ridiculed it, the team suffered in the rankings and in subsequent drafts Sundin dropped back to where he belongs.

We are a pretty responsible lot. While someone might overbid for a player in the heat of the moment, simply have a rule I've seen work in other auction drafts: a 24-hour buyer's remorse rule! A GM has 24 hours to abandon a winning bid. If a GM does so, the second highest bidder will have the immediate chance to have his last bid accepted. If he doesn't, that player re-enters the pool for bidding on a future date. Every GM may use the buyer's beware rule just once during the auction for just one bid.