Cellar-door wrote:I think inflation should be discussed. The lottery is working exactly as it should, which is to make the rewards for blatant tanking lower.
True, but it is frustrating when you have guys like the Grizz get three #1 picks in a row and in some of the strongest drafts in history
But is that a rules problem or luck of the draw? (bribery problem)
The lotto works out great for those who benefit. Everyone else gets frustrated (understandably), but that doesn't make it 'unfair' as some have called it.
Make it so that teams can't have a top 4 pick more than 2yrs in a row?
Cellar-door wrote:I think inflation should be discussed. The lottery is working exactly as it should, which is to make the rewards for blatant tanking lower.
Why is it bad that the teams with the worst talent in the league get a top pick?
That is not tanking. Tanking historically has always been either intentionally losing (Aka players or coaches giving have efforts, which is something you can do in FBB) or playing bench players over starters (which we have ruled against).
So remind me how giving a team who missed the playoffs by a few games the #1 pick over a team who won 10 games makes any sense?
It doesn’t. And stop using tanking as a justification for a terrible lottery system. It’s not a valid argument as we address tanking through a number of rules.
Cellar-door wrote:I think inflation should be discussed. The lottery is working exactly as it should, which is to make the rewards for blatant tanking lower.
True, but it is frustrating when you have guys like the Grizz get three #1 picks in a row and in some of the strongest drafts in history
But is that a rules problem or luck of the draw? (bribery problem)
The lotto works out great for those who benefit. Everyone else gets frustrated (understandably), but that doesn't make it 'unfair' as some have called it.
Make it so that teams can't have a top 4 pick more than 2yrs in a row?
I think what’s triggering a significant chunk of this is the Grizz getting super lucky. That doesn’t happen, we’re not having this discussion.
That said, the whole “taking advantage of GMs” thing is always going to be a problem. There’s not much you can do there outside of what we already have in place in the form of “new GMs must run trades by commish”. But when you’ve got veteran GMs accepting ridiculous offers, I don’t know what you do then.
I think the main thing we need to ask ourselves surrounding all of these questions is primarily, “Is there a consistent issue with the problem I’m raising”, and then going from there. I don’t see a big issue with trades right now, for example. At least, not since I rejoined back in July or August or whenever it was. The only two that were egregious in my opinion were the Warriors/Hornets trade that didn’t go through and the Blazers-Grizz trade where Kobe was moved for Spree and like 5 1sts or whatever.
Why are we not addressing the lopsided trades that have been accepted in this league? Many championship teams would likely not be champions if they didn’t blatantly take advantage of lesser talented GMs.
Which is more heinous? To me there’s nothing even remotely wrong with a terrible team getting a top pick. But I have way more issues with the rich getting richer by basically tanking upward. And constantly getting away with it.
Cellar-door wrote:I think inflation should be discussed. The lottery is working exactly as it should, which is to make the rewards for blatant tanking lower.
True, but it is frustrating when you have guys like the Grizz get three #1 picks in a row and in some of the strongest drafts in history
But is that a rules problem or luck of the draw? (bribery problem)
The lotto works out great for those who benefit. Everyone else gets frustrated (understandably), but that doesn't make it 'unfair' as some have called it.
Make it so that teams can't have a top 4 pick more than 2yrs in a row?
That said, the whole “taking advantage of GMs” thing is always going to be a problem. There’s not much you can do there outside of what we already have in place in the form of “new GMs must run trades by commish”. But when you’ve got veteran GMs accepting ridiculous offers, I don’t know what you do then.
This is a good point. I really don't like when medium teams make bad moves (like trading picks) to the benefit of "established" teams... is that taking advantage of them? Probably. But can you even call it "taking advantage" if the other GM has enough experience to know to not do that deal? Probably. Therefore, there seems to be no remedy unless u want Ownage to be way more involved in monitoring teams than he should be.... teams make trades for fun, some good some bad.. that's how the league goes. I still don't like the outcome because it leads to less competition in the league as the mediocre teams stay in mediocrity and the good teams do better. But that is capitalism at its finest... or is it "crony capitalism"???
Cellar-door wrote:I think inflation should be discussed. The lottery is working exactly as it should, which is to make the rewards for blatant tanking lower.
True, but it is frustrating when you have guys like the Grizz get three #1 picks in a row and in some of the strongest drafts in history
But is that a rules problem or luck of the draw? (bribery problem)
The lotto works out great for those who benefit. Everyone else gets frustrated (understandably), but that doesn't make it 'unfair' as some have called it.
Make it so that teams can't have a top 4 pick more than 2yrs in a row?
That said, the whole “taking advantage of GMs” thing is always going to be a problem. There’s not much you can do there outside of what we already have in place in the form of “new GMs must run trades by commish”. But when you’ve got veteran GMs accepting ridiculous offers, I don’t know what you do then.
This is a good point. I really don't like when medium teams make bad moves (like trading picks) to the benefit of "established" teams... is that taking advantage of them? Probably. But can you even call it "taking advantage" if the other GM has enough experience to know to not do that deal? Probably. Therefore, there seems to be no remedy unless u want Ownage to be way more involved in monitoring teams than he should be.... teams make trades for fun, some good some bad.. that's how the league goes. I still don't like the outcome because it leads to less competition in the league as the mediocre teams stay in mediocrity and the good teams do better. But that is capitalism at its finest... or is it "crony capitalism"???
TK, I say this with complete respect for your approach: I know you typically like to aim for as much balance as is ideal. I fully get that and I’m like that too. Problem is that’ll never happen. I think what safeguards this league from being completely annoying is the fact that generally speaking, there are good rules in place for preventing a lot of crap that happens in other leagues, which kills the fun and pushes people away from the game eventually as they get led down the path of apathy. That said, if we start micromanaging, it’ll also have the same effect.
I agree that we need to deal with inflation with some form of solution, and I also agree that something needs to be explored to potentially prevent things like the Grizz getting #1 three years in a row, but at the end of the day, that’s no different from a GM getting super lucky with crazy good or bad luck with TCs, for example. Are we going to put rules in place for that too? Where do we draw the line?
UOducksTK1 wrote:Why are we not addressing the lopsided trades that have been accepted in this league? Many championship teams would likely not be champions if they didn’t blatantly take advantage of lesser talented GMs.
Which is more heinous? To me there’s nothing even remotely wrong with a terrible team getting a top pick. But I have way more issues with the rich getting richer by basically tanking upward. And constantly getting away with it.
Half (or more) of the motivation for a lotta these lopsided deals is there's more perceived value in your own high pick than in whatever you can get in a trade for your guy(s) lol they're not so separate.
"TK, I say this with complete respect for your approach: I know you typically like to aim for as much balance as is ideal. I fully get that and I’m like that too. Problem is that’ll never happen. I think what safeguards this league from being completely annoying is the fact that generally speaking, there are good rules in place for preventing a lot of crap that happens in other leagues, which kills the fun and pushes people away from the game eventually as they get led down the path of apathy. That said, if we start micromanaging, it’ll also have the same effect.
I agree that we need to deal with inflation with some form of solution, and I also agree that something needs to be explored to potentially prevent things like the Grizz getting #1 three years in a row, but at the end of the day, that’s no different from a GM getting super lucky with crazy good or bad luck with TCs, for example. Are we going to put rules in place for that too? Where do we draw the line?"
But if we are for a little more free-will and removing safe guards, why don't we remove the safe guard of having a poor lottery system in the name of safe guarding against teams tanking?
You're either for this lottery system and with a strict trading system that vetoes most uneven deals. Or you're for the old system and a free trading system with few regulations.
UOducksTK1 wrote:"TK, I say this with complete respect for your approach: I know you typically like to aim for as much balance as is ideal. I fully get that and I’m like that too. Problem is that’ll never happen. I think what safeguards this league from being completely annoying is the fact that generally speaking, there are good rules in place for preventing a lot of crap that happens in other leagues, which kills the fun and pushes people away from the game eventually as they get led down the path of apathy. That said, if we start micromanaging, it’ll also have the same effect.
I agree that we need to deal with inflation with some form of solution, and I also agree that something needs to be explored to potentially prevent things like the Grizz getting #1 three years in a row, but at the end of the day, that’s no different from a GM getting super lucky with crazy good or bad luck with TCs, for example. Are we going to put rules in place for that too? Where do we draw the line?"
But if we are for a little more free-will and removing safe guards, why don't we remove the safe guard of having a poor lottery system in the name of safe guarding against teams tanking?
You're either for this lottery system and with a strict trading system that vetoes most uneven deals. Or you're for the old system and a free trading system with few regulations.
You can't pick or choose. Ya know?
I mean as far as I understand, the whole point of this new lottery system was to prevent tanking in the first place. If I’m hearing you correctly, you’re saying it hasn’t fixed that issue?
If the argument is: We need safe-guards from people taking advantage of the system.
Then we should be far more concerned with addressing lopsided trades, and not care about bad teams tanking. Tanking isn't a problem in our league, and thus shouldn't be focused on or addressed with a new lottery system. However, trading is a problem and should be addressed.
This new lottery system seems to incentivize bad/mediocre teams to trade away their picks, seeing as they might not get a top talent due to the lottery setup. You could argue this is counterintuitive to the whole point of trying to promote competition.
The way to build teams in this version of DASL is accumulating late lotto picks + FA. I don't think the mediocre teams recognize that first part and are therefore trading away mid-late lottery picks that end up rising.
UOducksTK1 wrote:If the argument is: We need safe-guards from people taking advantage of the system.
Then we should be far more concerned with addressing lopsided trades, and not care about bad teams tanking. Tanking isn't a problem in our league, and thus shouldn't be focused on or addressed with a new lottery system. However, trading is a problem and should be addressed.
I agree with the premise; but like I said earlier, since I returned in July or August, I’ve only seen two trades that I would consider to be significantly lopsided to be honest: the Hornets/Warriors trade (didn’t go through) and the Grizz/Blazers trade (Spree + 5 1sts for Kobe). If you’re saying it’s a consistent issue, then yeah, let’s look into it more. I don’t hear anyone else chiming in on the issue though.
Honestly I think that tanking IS where the worst trades happen. Yeah occasionally a team mis-judges their future and trades a pick that ends up good, but most of the terrible trades we've had to me are people dropping really good players for next to nothing to top teams because they want to lose. It bleeds into the inflation issue too, one reason so many good players go cheap in FA is that there are teams intentionally loading their roster with bad players to tank.
Changing the lottery would only further encourage people to make bad deals and strip down their rosters to nothing. Teams in the middle get stuck because they try to get better by trading a draft pick, only for the top teams to trade every pick they have and pick up top level talent at every position because the tanking teams want to lose more.
Honestly I think bringing in the Stepien rule would help FAR more than changing the lottery. Prevents mid-level teams from burning too many picks, stop top teams from picking up everyone cheap.
Cellar-door wrote:Honestly I think that tanking IS where the worst trades happen. Yeah occasionally a team mis-judges their future and trades a pick that ends up good, but most of the terrible trades we've had to me are people dropping really good players for next to nothing to top teams because they want to lose. It bleeds into the inflation issue too, one reason so many good players go cheap in FA is that there are teams intentionally loading their roster with bad players to tank.
Changing the lottery would only further encourage people to make bad deals and strip down their rosters to nothing. Teams in the middle get stuck because they try to get better by trading a draft pick, only for the top teams to trade every pick they have and pick up top level talent at every position because the tanking teams want to lose more.
Honestly I think bringing in the Stepien rule would help FAR more than changing the lottery. Prevents mid-level teams from burning too many picks, stop top teams from picking up everyone cheap.
At the surface without thinking much about it right now, I like the idea of the Stepien rule because I do agree that tanking bleeds into lopsided trades to a good extent.
Cellar-door wrote:Honestly I think that tanking IS where the worst trades happen. Yeah occasionally a team mis-judges their future and trades a pick that ends up good, but most of the terrible trades we've had to me are people dropping really good players for next to nothing to top teams because they want to lose. It bleeds into the inflation issue too, one reason so many good players go cheap in FA is that there are teams intentionally loading their roster with bad players to tank.
Changing the lottery would only further encourage people to make bad deals and strip down their rosters to nothing. Teams in the middle get stuck because they try to get better by trading a draft pick, only for the top teams to trade every pick they have and pick up top level talent at every position because the tanking teams want to lose more.
Honestly I think bringing in the Stepien rule would help FAR more than changing the lottery. Prevents mid-level teams from burning too many picks, stop top teams from picking up everyone cheap.
I get your argument, but now I can not trade some guys that I would normally trade knowing that I’ll be at the 6 or 7 spot of lottery (as opposed to trading them and being 1 projected lottery) and can still end up getting a top pick.
Again it is the least incentive for the most unfortunate or least talented teams. Which makes no sense. The best way to get the bottom feeders out of the bottom is with a top pick in the draft.
