Author Topic: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2013 offseason: Post-lottery  (Read 308800 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #285 on: September 27, 2012, 07:36:52 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58543
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I'm not really in favor of changing any of the trade rules.  While the goal is ease in keeping track of transactions, I think that a spreadsheet tracking pick movement can keep track of everything.

My concern is that it punishes active / creative GMs.  A team might never be able to acquire a top-3 pick by trading one of its own players.  However, it might be able to work up the first round "ladder" by executing a number of potential pick swaps.  Why punish those teams / GMs?  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

In terms of protections of second rounders, I would agree that some of the more whacky restrictions can get confusing (i.e., "you get this pick unless it's #40", or something like that).  However, I do think there's value in protecting some of the higher #2s, that can have some real value.

As for protected #1s, I don't think we should allow trading of future #1s that fall more than 1 year in the future, even on a contingency basis.  That's been a pretty bright line rule in the past, and I think we should hold to it.  If a replacement GM has to take over for another team, it's going to suck finding out that his pick in the next draft has already been leveraged.

As for changes to league rules and vetos, I think they should both require a majority vote.  If people wanted to do a majority vote of a certain quorom of GMs (say, 10 or 11), that would be fine with me. 

I think with vetoes, we do need to be cognizant of last year's fiasco.  Does *anybody* think that was an unfair trade in hindsight?  KG + Odom + Artest + #4 for Curry + late-1st?

No, that trade shouldn't have been vetoed.  However, because a minority of GMs were biased and/or poor at evaluating the deal, two willing GMs were denied a trade they each wanted to make, all kinds of drama ensued, and one GM left the league permanently.

I just don't think that 7 GMs should be in charge of that type of thing.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #286 on: September 27, 2012, 08:15:46 PM »

Offline Lucky17

  • DKC Commish
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16021
  • Tommy Points: 2352
A team might never be able to acquire a top-3 pick by trading one of its own players.  However, it might be able to work up the first round "ladder" by executing a number of potential pick swaps.  Why punish those teams / GMs?  It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.


Well, I suppose anything is possible. It became extremely tiresome/frustrating trying to disentangle some of the trades from last year. I don't see the need to get so Byzantine about trading mid-to-late 2nd rounders.


In terms of protections of second rounders, I would agree that some of the more whacky restrictions can get confusing (i.e., "you get this pick unless it's #40", or something like that).  However, I do think there's value in protecting some of the higher #2s, that can have some real value.


I agree that a high 2nd rounder can have some value. But if protection on a 2nd were to be triggered, what would the owed team then receive instead? A worse 2nd? Nothing? Or would something be rolled over to the following year (and if so, what might that be)? I'm hoping to simplify things and to make trade evaluations easier for the rest of the league. Something to consider, though.

As for protected #1s, I don't think we should allow trading of future #1s that fall more than 1 year in the future, even on a contingency basis.  That's been a pretty bright line rule in the past, and I think we should hold to it.  If a replacement GM has to take over for another team, it's going to suck finding out that his pick in the next draft has already been leveraged.


Agreed. This is why I settled on limiting protections on 1st rounders to top-3. I want "payment" of a pick to happen during the current season, or the following at the latest. If people want to make a case for alternate/flexible levels of protection on 1sts, I suppose that's doable, so long as protections last for one year, max.

As for changes to league rules and vetos, I think they should both require a majority vote.  If people wanted to do a majority vote of a certain quorom of GMs (say, 10 or 11), that would be fine with me.

I think with vetoes, we do need to be cognizant of last year's fiasco.  Does *anybody* think that was an unfair trade in hindsight?  KG + Odom + Artest + #4 for Curry + late-1st?

No, that trade shouldn't have been vetoed.  However, because a minority of GMs were biased and/or poor at evaluating the deal, two willing GMs were denied a trade they each wanted to make, all kinds of drama ensued, and one GM left the league permanently.

I just don't think that 7 GMs should be in charge of that type of thing.

Speaking as one who vetoed the deal, looking back from right now, perhaps I was wrong in my evaluation. From where I was at the time, I thought it was a poor return on a player that Edgar had publicly championed as a cornerstone given the performance of Odom and Artest, and the uncertainty of KG's future. [I can't remember where that pick was tracking either, but I knew it was outside of the top 2 in a draft that was being touted as Anthony Davis and nothing else.]

Regardless, the veto was enacted within the established league protocols at the time. If we want to change veto decision to a majority, and move trades to Commissioner approval only, then we can vote on it. Perhaps it's time to start posting polls.
DKC League is now on reddit!: http://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #287 on: September 28, 2012, 04:01:33 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
By not casting a vote, isn't a manager in fact casting a vote to abstain?

So what you're saying is, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice? 

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #288 on: September 28, 2012, 05:01:35 PM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20738
  • Tommy Points: 2365
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
BTW Birdman and I have an unofficial trade to announce, pending commish and league approval:

Rusted Rims send:

Andrew Nicholson
Michael J Dunleavy Jr
Wes Johnson
Quincy Miller

Birdman sends:

DJ Augustin
Chandler Parsons
Right to swap 2013 1sts

Sad to see Nicholson go but I wanted another PG and I'm intrigued by Parsons.

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #289 on: September 28, 2012, 05:08:20 PM »

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
BTW Birdman and I have an unofficial trade to announce, pending commish and league approval:

Rusted Rims send:

Andrew Nicholson
Michael J Dunleavy Jr
Wes Johnson
Quincy Miller

Birdman sends:

DJ Augustin
Chandler Parsons
Right to swap 2013 1sts

Sad to see Nicholson go but I wanted another PG and I'm intrigued by Parsons.
Thanks again Rusted Rims for the trade..Really didnt want to give up Augustin but I have 3 more PGs. Really wanted Nicholson. Think playing on a bad team, he should get some minutes and may turn out to be one of the top picks in this year draft. Wesley Johnson may be a bust or steal. Playing in Phoenix should turn his career around but time will tell. Dunleavy may play some IF he stays healthy. Miller is unknown.
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #290 on: September 28, 2012, 05:11:01 PM »

Offline Lucky17

  • DKC Commish
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16021
  • Tommy Points: 2352
By not casting a vote, isn't a manager in fact casting a vote to abstain?

So what you're saying is, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice?

Well, I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will.

I'll update the rosters and trade log with the trade this weekend.
DKC League is now on reddit!: http://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #291 on: September 28, 2012, 05:14:24 PM »

Offline Birdman

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9170
  • Tommy Points: 412
If anyone is interested, I have these players on the market

Marvin Williams
Nick Young
Alonzo Gee
Mike Dunleavy
Carl Landry
Psycho T

so let me know if u interested..like to find a center
C/PF-Horford, Baynes, Noel, Theis, Morris,
SF/SG- Tatum, Brown, Hayward, Smart, Semi, Clark
PG- Irving, Rozier, Larkin

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #292 on: September 29, 2012, 01:42:11 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
By not casting a vote, isn't a manager in fact casting a vote to abstain?

So what you're saying is, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice?

Well, I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will.

I'll update the rosters and trade log with the trade this weekend.
The reason I bring this up is because I have seen it in a fantasy football league I belonged to. 12 GMs with a majority of votes needed to veto, but the rule was votes cast. That year there were like 4 great teams in the league and 6 downright awful teams. A trade happened between a great team and the one mediocre team and the three other great teams wanted it vetoed. When the voting occurred the 6 bad teams didn't vote and because of that in a three to three vote the veto was granted.

3 teams or 25% of the league was able to overturn the trade.

All the GMs were very active but when asked why they didn't vote they each answered, almost to a man, that they didn't care if the trade went through or not because it didn't effect them one way or the other. So they didn't vote.

The next year the rule was changed to majority of the number of teams in the league, or 6 votes, to do the veto. We has decided that by abstaining, you are actually voting.

BTW this was a keep 2 league so there was some continuity long term of teams though most rosters did turn over every year. Just saying to give full disclosure.

Devil's advocate, that was a $200 pay in league so it was easier to sell to people that abstaining is a vote because money was on the line. Once explained that the same thing could happen to then the next year, when they had a chance at winning some money, people saw things differently.


Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #293 on: October 01, 2012, 11:31:13 AM »

Offline ChampKind

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3079
  • Tommy Points: 665
  • I left Indiana. Because it was horrible.
By not casting a vote, isn't a manager in fact casting a vote to abstain?

So what you're saying is, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice?

Well, I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose free will.

I'll update the rosters and trade log with the trade this weekend.
The reason I bring this up is because I have seen it in a fantasy football league I belonged to. 12 GMs with a majority of votes needed to veto, but the rule was votes cast. That year there were like 4 great teams in the league and 6 downright awful teams. A trade happened between a great team and the one mediocre team and the three other great teams wanted it vetoed. When the voting occurred the 6 bad teams didn't vote and because of that in a three to three vote the veto was granted.

3 teams or 25% of the league was able to overturn the trade.

All the GMs were very active but when asked why they didn't vote they each answered, almost to a man, that they didn't care if the trade went through or not because it didn't effect them one way or the other. So they didn't vote.

The next year the rule was changed to majority of the number of teams in the league, or 6 votes, to do the veto. We has decided that by abstaining, you are actually voting.

BTW this was a keep 2 league so there was some continuity long term of teams though most rosters did turn over every year. Just saying to give full disclosure.

Devil's advocate, that was a $200 pay in league so it was easier to sell to people that abstaining is a vote because money was on the line. Once explained that the same thing could happen to then the next year, when they had a chance at winning some money, people saw things differently.

I like the current veto rule. Often times I'll go a week without checking my team (setting the roster in advance). If a trade pops up during then, I may not get the chance to vote on it. That doesn't mean that I'm choosing to abstain, just that I didn't see the trade. I think some other managers might run the same way.
CB Draft Bucks: Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Tobias Harris, Zach LaVine, Aaron Afflalo, Jeff Green, Donatas Motiejunas, Jarrett Jack, Frank Kaminsky, Lance Stephenson, JaVale McGee, Shane Larkin, Nick Young

DKC Bucks. Also terrible.

http://www.anchorofgold.com

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #294 on: October 01, 2012, 12:20:29 PM »

Offline Lucky17

  • DKC Commish
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16021
  • Tommy Points: 2352
nick, that kind of scenario is precisely what I do not want.

I think vetoes and rule changes should hinge upon greater input from the league, not lesser.

I've just set up a poll in the league to ask what's required for a rule change. Will leave it up until I get 20 votes (assuming jgod signs up soon; where is he?).

After that's settled, we'll determine veto procedure, draft pick protections and trade eligibility, etc.

I call everyone's attention to the league "constitution": there are some items I know we need to review, but there may be others that need addressing.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UbfNv4DLkTd7UL98lvPQPNIrJsM8e4wjVln_-bT-37w/edit
DKC League is now on reddit!: http://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #295 on: October 01, 2012, 12:28:14 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58543
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
I think vetoes and rule changes should hinge upon greater input from the league, not lesser.


Amen to that.  Allowing 35% of the league to dictate policy and to screw over consenting GMs is just a terrible idea.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #296 on: October 01, 2012, 12:43:39 PM »

Offline jgod213

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2258
  • Tommy Points: 300
The god is in. My blunder. Let's play some ball!

DKC Utah Jazz
http://tinyurl.com/kqjb3cv

Starters:   Bledsoe-Gordon-Hayward-Patterson-Favors  | 6th-Kanter
Reserves: Warren-Hardaway-Plumlee-Larkin-Evans-Mbakwe-Huestis-Hummel-Calathes

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #297 on: October 01, 2012, 01:44:33 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 48120
  • Tommy Points: 8794
  • President of Jaylen Brown Fan Club
nick, that kind of scenario is precisely what I do not want.

I think vetoes and rule changes should hinge upon greater input from the league, not lesser.

Well that's kind of the point I was trying to make. Roy and I have both brought up that we think a minority of owners effecting what is best for the league is not a good thing and have proposed a majority vote.

Others state that if it is a majority vote, should it be majority of votes cast. My point was that still introduces the possibility of a minority being able to control things and so if it does go to majority, then it should be majority(10 votes) and never majority of votes cast.

Regarding what Champ brought up, if there are many owners that check in just once a week, why not make trade approvals one week long if they are deemed to be brought to veto. Make it a two day approval on any trade not brought up for veto but a seven day approval for any trade brought to veto so that everyone gets to see the trade and can receive an email alerting them there is a veto vote.

If a trade is so contentious as to be brought to veto, who cares if it takes a week to get it approved, that isn't going to have a significant impact on a full season of games.

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #298 on: October 01, 2012, 01:49:09 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58543
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
nick, that kind of scenario is precisely what I do not want.

I think vetoes and rule changes should hinge upon greater input from the league, not lesser.

Well that's kind of the point I was trying to make. Roy and I have both brought up that we think a minority of owners effecting what is best for the league is not a good thing and have proposed a majority vote.

Others state that if it is a majority vote, should it be majority of votes cast. My point was that still introduces the possibility of a minority being able to control things and so if it does go to majority, then it should be majority(10 votes) and never majority of votes cast.

Regarding what Champ brought up, if there are many owners that check in just once a week, why not make trade approvals one week long if they are deemed to be brought to veto. Make it a two day approval on any trade not brought up for veto but a seven day approval for any trade brought to veto so that everyone gets to see the trade and can receive an email alerting them there is a veto vote.

If a trade is so contentious as to be brought to veto, who cares if it takes a week to get it approved, that isn't going to have a significant impact on a full season of games.

I think that all makes sense.  I'd also note that all pending trades are sent out to the entire league via email, so it's not necessarily a matter of "checking in".  If you check your email regularly, you should have plenty of notice of any trades being submitted.

I'd also note that the original rules of this league, which we played under for years, required majority vote for a veto.  They were changed half by fiat, half by mistake, but certainly never by knowing consent.


I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Lucky17's Yahoo! H2H Hoops League: 2012-13 season: Rookie Draft
« Reply #299 on: October 01, 2012, 01:55:57 PM »

Offline Lucky17

  • DKC Commish
  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16021
  • Tommy Points: 2352
nick, that kind of scenario is precisely what I do not want.

I think vetoes and rule changes should hinge upon greater input from the league, not lesser.

Well that's kind of the point I was trying to make. Roy and I have both brought up that we think a minority of owners effecting what is best for the league is not a good thing and have proposed a majority vote.

Others state that if it is a majority vote, should it be majority of votes cast. My point was that still introduces the possibility of a minority being able to control things and so if it does go to majority, then it should be majority(10 votes) and never majority of votes cast.

Regarding what Champ brought up, if there are many owners that check in just once a week, why not make trade approvals one week long if they are deemed to be brought to veto. Make it a two day approval on any trade not brought up for veto but a seven day approval for any trade brought to veto so that everyone gets to see the trade and can receive an email alerting them there is a veto vote.

If a trade is so contentious as to be brought to veto, who cares if it takes a week to get it approved, that isn't going to have a significant impact on a full season of games.

I feel the onus should be on respondent GMs to veto a deal, not for the league as a whole to approve them.

7 vetoes out of the GMs who respond to a deal, to me, still seems like a high bar. Participating GMs will not veto a deal, so that's 7 out of 18 league votes required for veto, and that assumes all 18 GMs have checked in during the 24-hour window. As Champ mentions, that's not necessarily going to be the case. The veto process could in fact come down to 7 of as few as 9 or 10 GMs who have seen the deal and responded.

Keeping Yahoo! league settings at 1/3 allows for me to let the trade review process take its course, instead of having to shepherd each one through, so that's another reason why I'm reluctant to go back to Commissioner Review for trades.

As for sending out trade announcements, GMs can already opt-in to receive those under "Email Preferences."
DKC League is now on reddit!: http://www.reddit.com/r/dkcleague