Should we keep the no-mentioned undrafteds rule?

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's about time to have this discussion.

Click to read more...

 

[BenchBrawl]

yes we should

 

[jarek]

The rule really has no place. It makes discussing players very difficult. Bios tend to drop names all the time, and if bios are forced to have undrafted players X'd out, it makes editing them later difficult to put those names back in. It just doesn't make sense.. nobody is going to steal your guy that you hope nobody mentions. Everyone knows who is available at any time. The draft lists for every ATD are publicly available. Any newbie GM worth their salt would go through them and learn about players they don't know about, at least briefly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The rule really has no place. It makes discussing players very difficult. Bios tend to drop names all the time, and if bios are forced to have undrafted players X'd out, it makes editing them later difficult to put those names back in. It just doesn't make sense.. nobody is going to steal your guy that you hope nobody mentions. Everyone knows who is available at any time. The draft lists for every ATD are publicly available. Any newbie GM worth their salt would go through them and learn about players they don't know about, at least briefly.

We already lifted the rule for the bios thread for the exact reason you said.

During lineup assassinations and playoffs, you can say whatever you want.

The rule is just there during the drafting phase.

Edit: I hated the undrafted rule when making bios, but now that's no longer an issue.

 

[jarek]

We already lifted the rule for the bios thread for the exact reason you said.

During lineup assassinations and playoffs, you can say whatever you want.

The rule is just there during the drafting phase.

If the rule is lifted for bios, then that means names are being dropped left, right and center. OBVIOUSLY, have someone say something like "XXX should be drafted right about now, it's a pretty good spot for him" shouldn't be allowed, more so because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, but when discussing a player, especially when trying to defend him, and more often than not needing to drop a name to make your case, it just becomes so difficult.

 

[DaveG]

I'd only be against mentioning undrafteds if it's at a point where said player could conceivably go in the next round or so. Otherwise, have at it if they're being used as a comparison for a players output/abilities (IE: comparing the linemates of Joe Thornton vs Dale Hawerchuk or something along those lines)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If the rule is lifted for bios, then that means names are being dropped left, right and center. OBVIOUSLY, have someone say something like "XXX should be drafted right about now, it's a pretty good spot for him" shouldn't be allowed, more so because it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion, but when discussing a player, especially when trying to defend him, and more often than not needing to drop a name to make your case, it just becomes so difficult.

And it's a slippery slope from allowing names to be mentioned in the draft thread to strongly suggesting that someone should be drafted soon or that a specific undrafted player is better than a guy just drafted

 

[jarek]

I would say, as long as a name is being dropped in the natural course of a discussion, it should be fine. But if someone just drops a name out of the blue, with the obvious intent of feeling out how people feel about him, that doesn't make any sense to allow.

I mean, Marc ****ing Savard, not allowed to be named? Really? By the time it becomes appropriate to draft him, everyone will have forgotten that he was ever mentioned to begin with.

It obvious becomes a slippery slope when we're talking about guys who are much closer to being drafted than a guy like Savard, but still.. I seriously, seriously, seriously doubt that someone will end up naming a guy so good, that someone whose pick is coming up will abandon all plans to get said guy. In all likelihood, 99% of the time, the guy whose name is mentioned will already be on everyone's minds anyways if they were thinking about grabbing that type of player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd only be against mentioning undrafteds if it's at a point where said player could conceivably go in the next round or so. Otherwise, have at it if they're being used as a comparison for a players output/abilities (IE: Dale Hawerchuk vs Joe Thornton or something along those lines).

I would say next 4-5 rounds minimum. Nothing like seeing your long term plans shot because people tell other people who they should draft.

 

[BenchBrawl]

yeah but you can't make rules who depend on common sense , which is why the rules should be there.People would eventually talk about players that would be drafted soon.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I always figured the rule was limited to players that will reasonably be picked within say, the next 100 picks.

 

[DaveG]

I would say next 4-5 rounds minimum. Nothing like seeing your long term plans shot because people tell other people who they should draft.

Yeah, that's more then fair IMO. Anyone who felt like doing a little research could find those guys as is once the debate over a players effect on his linemates comes up.

 

[jarek]

yeah but you can't make rules who depend on common sense , which is why the rules should be there.People would eventually talk about players that would be drafted soon.

I suppose this is true. I dunno.. I just think it seems so pointless, but I'm someone who pretty much knows, at least by name, everyone who will likely be taken in the ATD, so nobody could drop a name on me that I know nothing about. I think this applies to like 90% of the GMs.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I always figured the rule was limited to players that will reasonably be picked within say, the next 100 picks.

When I came in, I was told the rule was "don't mention anyone who has a chance of getting picked in the ATD, MLD, at any level."

I guess we've loosened up since then.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

When I came in, I was told the rule was "don't mention anyone who has a chance of getting picked in the ATD, MLD, at any level."

I guess we've loosened up since then.

I'm sure that was the rule, but I never bothered to interpret them that way. Free music generation, man, the rules are what I say the ****ing rules are.

 

[jarek]

Anyways, even if nothing changes, it's good that attention is being paid to this.

 

[Hedberg]

And it's a slippery slope from allowing names to be mentioned in the draft thread to strongly suggesting that someone should be drafted soon or that a specific undrafted player is better than a guy just drafted

These are really the only two instances where it should not be allowed (and more because it's annoying than because it would influence anyone. I'm sure you can wait to make the cause the undrafted player is better than a prior drafted one until after he's selected).

 

[hfboardsuser]

I believe this rule had a place during the ATD's infancy, but now... I agree with jarek. All anyone has to do is move down two or three places on the main page to the all-time undrafted or AA Draft thread and they'd see every single player we've ever drafted.

Besides, I think even if we made it a free-for-all, GMs wouldn't blatantly discuss guys because they might still want to keep them on the down-low. As a result, you'd only get the comparative discussions, and their name would be part of a table or a chart or something and not bolded with flashing lights around it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I believe this rule had a place during the ATD's infancy, but now... I agree with jarek. All anyone has to do is move down two or three places on the main page to the all-time undrafted or AA Draft thread and they'd see every single player we've ever drafted.

Besides, I think even if we made it a free-for-all, GMs wouldn't blatantly discuss guys because they might still want to keep them on the down-low. As a result, you'd only get the comparative discussions, and their name would be part of a table or a chart or something and not bolded with flashing lights around it.

I disagree. I can see someone no longer looking for a right wing (for example) listing RWs that he thinks are better than the RW just drafted

 

[EagleBelfour]

Definitely keep it. I don't mind naming guys like Marc Savard and Phil Kessel, has they never been picked in the ATD, and if they ever get picked thisy ear, it's gonna be as replacement (so, in more than a month for now). However, I don't want any regular players (Top-600) getting named in the ATD thread, even if we havn't finished the top-300.

I agree with the exemption in the biography thread.

 

[jarek]

I disagree. I can see someone no longer looking for a right wing (for example) listing RWs that he thinks are better than the RW just drafted

But why would you do that? Why would you piss off everyone else in the draft just to do that? >_>

 

[hfboardsuser]

I disagree. I can see someone no longer looking for a right wing (for example) listing RWs that he thinks are better than the RW just drafted

Wouldn't this help the overall goal of the ATD, though? ie the goal of research and learning? It's one of the reasons why the Top 60 Defense/Top 100 Players projects are so helpful to our understanding of the game's history- we can debate the entire pool of players at one time, and make tweaks to their relative worth and order.

The ATD is a team-building exercise, yes, but I think if we were to allow undrafteds, it wouldn't take three/four years to figure out the place of a Tommy Dunderdale (to use an older player) or a Pavel Datsyuk (modern-day). We would have had a better idea from Day 1.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wouldn't this help the overall goal of the ATD, though? ie the goal of research and learning? It's one of the reasons why the Top 60 Defense/Top 100 Players projects are so helpful to our understanding of the game's history- we can debate the entire pool of players at one time, and make tweaks to their relative worth and order.

The ATD is a team-building exercise, yes, but I think if we were to allow undrafteds, it wouldn't take three/four years to figure out the place of a Tommy Dunderdale (to use an older player) or a Pavel Datsyuk (modern-day). We would have had a better idea from Day 1.

This is a good point if you think the ATD should be all about finding the "correct" order.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

The only reason I want to keep it is so that somebody(an outsider or somebody that doesn't have a use for that particular player on their team) doesn't drop in and say "Hey, wow, I can't believe so and so hasn't been drafted yet, he would be a great steal at this point!" Then immediately after, that player gets picked. Maybe I was trying to trade up to pick that player, and dropping their name ruined the opportunity.

 

[Reds4Life]

No. That rule is useless IMHO.