Idea for ATD2019

[VanIslander]

Suggestion:

Players from ATD 2018 will not sign for under a million.

Players from MLD 2018 will not sign for under $100,000, nor will any player off the board (any player with min. 300 pro games played who weren't in ATD 2018 or MLD 2018).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And I mean I do agree this is biggest potential problem I can foresee; a GM winning more players than he wanted.

Maybe my proposal of just writing the priority in parenthesis is the ugly but necessary solution

Bid on Gretzky, on the google form:

3500000$

For Lemieux:

3500000$ (gretzky)

For Beliveau:

3500000$ (gretzky, lemieux)

Meaning, I only win the player if I don't win the ones in parenthesis beside his name.

This is really the best way to do it.

So long as you have 2 admins in case one is busy that day, I don't think it's too much work.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'd still like random daily player pools. Breaks up the monotony and adds a twist to the entire process. If we're simply going to go down the line 1-10, 2-20, etc, etc, I feel like it takes away all suspense as to who is coming up (obviously) and that is, in some way, part of a normal draft. You don't truly know who's going to get picked, especially the deeper you go in the draft. Plus I think it mitigates how many bids people will be throwing out. If you have the 1-10, 11-20 players all time in one pool I can almost guarantee somebody is going to end up with too much money spent early in the process and we don't have anything in place to really penalize a GM for doing so. I hope more people are on board with this.

I agree with TDMM as well. 2 admins are a must. I'd say we need 2 dedicated people who are active and obviously willing to handle the admin duties for upwards of 3 months, give or take, Monday-Friday. Maybe have an emergency 3rd person who would be willing to step in if something weird happened (like simultaneous vacation or work travel).

 

[BenchBrawl]

This is really the best way to do it.

So long as you have 2 admins in case one is busy that day, I don't think it's too much work.

This is what I'm not sure about.We should test it out, I'll see what I can do.I'll send myself the craziest orders I can think of and see how much extra work it is to sort it out.

Of course, if everybody more or less follows the intuitive positional order (e.g. Gretzky -> Lemieux -> Beliveau), then it's easy, but someone might want Beliveau more, or want Bourque before Lemieux, while another want Lemieux before Bourque, so on and so on.This crap multiplied by 20 GMs could get heavy.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Re: Nah I don't think the parenthesis trick is manageable.We cannot do that, it becomes a mess too fast and is hard to manage quickly on excel afterward.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Perhaps the simplest idea is to allow trading, so a player stuck with two high salary players can try to trade one of them

 

[VanIslander]

How about the administrators have the say on what's manageable?

Seventieslord as administrator,
Hockey Outsider as his co-administrator (given his work commitments).

CERTAINLY, no one who is a GM should be an administrator (making any meaningful decisions DURING the draft).

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Perhaps the simplest idea is to allow trading, so a player stuck with two high salary players can try to trade one of them

I like the idea of trades, but we'd need to reach a consensus as to if/how salaries can be moved around. For example if a player is traded to another team, is the receiving team responsible for his entire salary? Or if someone really wants to move a player they overpaid for, can they agree to be on the hook for a portion of his salary?

 

[BenchBrawl]

I like the idea of trades, but we'd need to reach a consensus as to if/how salaries can be moved around. For example if a player is traded to another team, is the receiving team responsible for his entire salary? Or if someone really wants to move a player they overpaid for, can they agree to be on the hook for a portion of his salary?

We can discuss this.First gut feeling is to force the other team to take the entire salary, else it will advantage GMs that are more trade-savy and online more often, in the sense that they will see the panic in the other GMs and lowball him for a top player at a cost they would never have won while bidding.

 

[BenchBrawl]

How about the administrators have the say on what's manageable?

Seventieslord as administrator,
Hockey Outsider as his co-administrator (given his work commitments).

CERTAINLY, no one who is a GM should be an administrator (making any meaningful decisions DURING the draft).

No one guaranteed their participation as administrator yet.I tried my own proposal earlier using google form and then downloading it to an excel spreadsheet.I saw first hand how much trouble my parenthesis idea could be.

Obviously no GM can be administrator, because the administrator can see the bids.That's a given.

Sure, if someone wants to step in and say "Hey, I will be administrator and this is no problem for me", then more power to all of us.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm interested in helping for sure. I probably wouldn't be that interested if there were rules and suggestions being thrown about that I hated so much that I wanted no part of them, but so far there's been nothing that makes me feel that way.

I would definitely need a co-admin. Maybe even two, to be safe. We can't afford to have downtime.

 

[VanIslander]

Trades?

I have been in about 10-12 auction drafts in my life and the only unmitigated disaster was the one with trades. One GM snapped up three star goaltenders and then tried to pimp them off. Another GM had three superstar right wings and burned through the payroll by the middle of the draft. It was ugly.

There is no real threat of consequence if a crzy nonsense bid can come with HOPE that another team will trade for the guy.

I may sit out if there are trades in an AUCTION all-time draft. Ugh.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Trades?

I have been in about 10-12 auction drafts in my life and the only unmitigated disaster was the one with trades. One GM snapped up three star goaltenders and then tried to pimp them off. Another GM had three superstar right wings and burned through the payroll by the middle of the draft. It was ugly.

There is no real threat of consequence if a crzy nonsense bid can come with HOPE that another team will trade for the guy.

I may sit out if there are trades in an AUCTION all-time draft. Ugh.

Agreed, I can easily see those moves happening.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Just getting caught up on all of this. I like the idea of the auction draft, however, at the moment I'm unsure if I'll have the time to participate. A few questions/comments...

1. In regard to the order in which players come up for bidding, I agree with those that said it should be based on ranking, i.e. the best players should come up first.

This was briefly mentioned earlier...should there be a positional component involved? Maybe not a set number of players from each position daily, but minimum and maximum limits for each (and by position I mean either G, D, F - or - G, D, W, C, I think I like the latter better). So for example there has to be at least x number of D available each day and no more than y number of D each day (obviously this will all be dependent on the total number of players up for bidding in a given day). Goalies would be the trickiest as the minimum might have to be less than 1 per day, like 1 every other day or every 3 days, and that should definitely change as the draft goes on so backups don't come up too early.


2. In regard to the issue of bidding on multiple players in the same day, I like BB's priority system...would it be too complicated to add a second bid for those players that don't have top priority? For example:
Gretzky: $x
Lemieux $y (Gretzky - $z)

So if the GM doe NOT get Gretzky his bid is $y for Lemieux, if the GM does get Gretzky his bid is $z for Lemieux

To avoid too much complication this would only be allowed once per player, so to continue BB's example...
Beliveau: $a (Gretzky/Lemieux - $b)
The $b bid would come in to play if the GM gets ONE of Gretzky/Lemieux, if the GM gets BOTH Gretzky and Lemieux then there is no bid on Beliveau

 

[VanIslander]

A maximum of ONE conditonal bid per GM per day ought to minimize difficulties.

 

[BenchBrawl]

2. In regard to the issue of bidding on multiple players in the same day, I like BB's priority system...would it be too complicated to add a second bid for those players that don't have top priority? For example:
Gretzky: $x
Lemieux $y (Gretzky - $z)

So if the GM doe NOT get Gretzky his bid is $y for Lemieux, if the GM does get Gretzky his bid is $z for Lemieux

To avoid too much complication this would only be allowed once per player, so to continue BB's example...
Beliveau: $a (Gretzky/Lemieux - $b)
The $b bid would come in to play if the GM gets ONE of Gretzky/Lemieux, if the GM gets BOTH Gretzky and Lemieux then there is no bid on Beliveau

I tried my system.It's too complicated to handle on the excel sheet.

So unless someone comes forward and tell us it's not a problem for him, it's a dead end.Nevermind adding more complexity to it.

 

[VanIslander]

There's no need for a tiebreaker: simply announce there is a tie and carry the player over to the next day with new bids required.

The odds that the same player will get the same bid three days in a row is absurdly low, especially with any dollar amount allowed (eg., $5,800,251).

 

[ImporterExporter]

We should be getting to sign ups this week I think. Get the ball rolling since we're completely on the long side of the holidays.

Gives us a chance to gauge interest in the whole auction thing and go over options we discussed with incoming folk.

 

[markrander87]

I havent read through the entire thread yet but the auction idea would have me back in some capacity (don't get too excited). 1 point I would like to bring up is how to determine what players are up for bidding.

We would still have a "draft order" and dependent on how many players go up on the block at a time you would have the first say 5 gm's list the player they want on the block and then bidding would open for those 5 players. After they are sold the next 5 gm's would do the same thing etc..

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Considering that nobody seems to be taking the bull by the horns, maybe having a draft that is labor-intensive for admins is not the way to go, at least this year.

 

[Leaf Lander]

im not interested in a auction draft. it sounds tedious and long.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I wish I could admin the draft but I can't even keep up with the Top 100.I am sorry for letting this die, considering I was the one most actively trying to come up with a workable plan for the auction draft.I might participate in a regular draft because I can survive on auto-pilot but otherwise you guys have fun and I'll be back next year.

I still think the auction draft is a good idea, hopefully we try it one day.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I wish I could admin the draft but I can't even keep up with the Top 100.I am sorry for letting this die, considering I was the one most actively trying to come up with a workable plan for the auction draft.I might participate in a regular draft because I can survive on auto-pilot but otherwise you guys have fun and I'll be back next year.

I still think the auction draft is a good idea, hopefully we try it one day.

Same with me. The 60 hour work weeks have started, so I'm not going to have the time to properly administer this, at least until May. I like the idea of finding a way to get this automated but it doesn't sound like we have a solution for that either.

So I think the options are wait til the spring/fall, or scrap this entirely. I think there's potential here (maybe even doing an MLD on a trial-run basis) as long as people are willing to wait - which doesn't seem to be an issue.

(EDIT - not suggesting that we put the main/conventional ATD on hold for this. If there's interest in one now, definitely go ahead).