Thursday, March 4, 2010

New Draft Issue

I was just looking at the draft, and I've gotta be honest with you, the lower ranked teams are at a total disadvantage. In my opinion, the snake draft is the obvious example. But we voted and it was the will of the league (or the rules, anyway) to keep it as is. The scenario after Round 5 is further proof of the inequity here. Take my draft spot for instance.

Having the 2nd worst finish in the league, I have the #2 overall pick. With that, here are my first 4 picks.


Now, based on "snake rules", I should have a pick shortly after my 4th round pick (pick 47). But since the 5th round is for teams that didn't keep a player, I am excluded from picking in that round (which is fine). However, in round 6, I have to wait till the end of the round before making another pick (thus, giving me pick 64). So let's recap here-

After my 3rd round pick (pick 26), because of the flawed snake draft, I have to wait 21 picks before my next pick (pick 47). Now, instead of getting a pick shortly thereafter, I have to wait an astounding 17 picks before making my next selection (pick 64).

Wouldn't it be fair to start round 6 with the lower seeded teams? One might argue that that wouldn't be fair for the higher ranked teams, who would have to wait just as long. My argument to that would be that the point of the draft order is to help the lower seeded teams gain parity (which is already questionable in the fact that the higher seeded teams get a lions share of the top rated players in an already thin draft pool.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts on this, in my opinion, the draft (as it currently stands) is designed to keep the top rated teams on top and continues to put lower ranked teams as a disadvantage.


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

This league is like MLB...the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I may change my team name to the "Expos" this year. hahahahaha.

Cornholers said...

The same arguments being made for a "re-start" after the 5th round can be made for abolishing a serpentine draft style.

If anything the 5th round shouldn't be treated like an actual round. I might suggest what is done in MLB when it comes to "sandwich" picks. An additional round only for teams receiving compensation picks.

For our league, after the 4th round only the teams that didn't retain a previous seasons waiver wire player will get to select in the "compensation round". Draft rank for this round should be determined by previous seasons finish. After the compensation round, round 5 will commence.

I also move to allow for a resetting of the draft order in Round 5.

Rocky Mike offered a very unique suggestion, albeit while I was lobbying him for his vote 2 weeks ago. He suggested a hybrid draft in which the first 3 rounds were straight style, with a serpentine style going from the 4th round and beyond. I might add one more caveat to that:

Rounds 1-3: Straight Style Draft

Compensation Round: Straight Style

Rounds 4-12: Serpentine Style

This hybrid model I believe will satisfy most people in this league, by incorporating the straight style, maintaining serpentine style and also bumping up the comp. picks a round.

Michael said...

solid points, you should have done this last week to get more votes for a standard draft.

Mike said...

Good point Yankee Mike. It should be noted that I was ignored when trying to reach the Commissioner to submit my hybrid proposal, but I believe he was busy lobbying for votes to help improve his own draft position. Once the vote was denied, my suggestion has found its way back on to the podium. Hmmmmm.

Anyway, I am all for 3k's 5th round proposal, I believe it makes sense.

However, I would suggest we let this season play out before casting judgment on whether or not our draft process is imbalanced. We have debated this and the motion was denied, so let's move forward without everyone lining up their "You'll probably beat me because...." excuses before the season even begins. Please know, I support what is best for the league and would suggest that if the top four teams finish in the top four once again, then maybe we re-introduce the prospect of altering the draft. I do not see that happening, so until then let's keep it between the lines gentlemen.

Cornholers said...

I understand what you're saying Rocky Mike and appreciate that you would like to keep status quo for this draft. The problem with that is due the contract signing environment in our league, a unbalanced draft could have a lasting effect on the competition in our league.

If the top 3 teams from last year, get the best draft positions this season they could potentially run the gamut on talent for the next 2-3 years.

We did debate a straight style draft, it was taken to a vote and denied. We have moved forward from that theory and are pursuing a fair and balanced approach to the draft that will incorporate benefits for every organization in the league. And remember, the rules state that any matter can be brought to the Commish's attention and he then decides whether it is simply a debate or ammendment worthy.

PG said...

Nice dig, Rocky Mike. Your displeasure with my lack of correspondance is duly noted.

However I will point out that we were in the middle of a roll call vote when the 11th hour "hybrid" scheme was proffered.

I will also point out that the February 19th blog post gave you more than enough opportunity to push said scheme. I count 1 post from your camp from the discussion (with nary a mention of the idea).

Sounds a bit to me like egos are getting in the way of progress.

You know, the Republican Party has employed the same strategy with healthcare, offering a "start from scratch" approach on the eve of the vote. Watching a little too much Glenn Beck, are we?

Mike said...

This is great.

3k - Did the 4 teams who picked last during our inaugural season all finish in the top four this year? I don't think so. With that said, there is a draft strategy involved, uncertainty of what will happen in head to head competition, health issues and some luck involved with final placement in the standings. I truly believe the top 4 this year will not finish 1,2,3 and 4 next year.

PG - Talk about 11th hour....we are just a couple of weeks away from the draft and are trying to redirect the entire order of the draft??? What do you say we toss the electoral process a couple of weeks before an election.

Michael said...

Finally watched that video from the last post. Holy Cow!

New Linc said...

Forgive me for not spending the afternoon reading the league by-laws but is there any language on the books that states an issue may only be called to vote one time a year? If not, I would be in favor of such a provision to ensure we don't find ourselves mulling over the same rule change more than once a season.

With that said, so long as issues that are called to a vote aren't verbatim "second bites at the apple" I have no objection having a similar issue called. Let the majority decide the shades of gray.

Personally I see stark differences between the prior draft issue and the modified draft that is currently under discussion. Issues such as this spark league debate and will keep the blog lively.

I say that we finalize the pros and cons of a modified draft, have PG spell it out as it would be stated in the rules, and put it to a vote. If it passes so be it, if it fails the issue remains dead until January 1, 2011.

While I'm hip deep in my rant I also want to take issue with the "it is too close to the draft to make changes" logic. (No offense Mike) Now I agree that 11th hour changes could have an impact on draft strategy but we are still over 2 weeks away from the draft date. Is it possible to add a rule, or simply come to some common understanding that no rule change may be called to a vote 7 days prior to the draft?

Wade said...

I support discussion to be sure the owners discuss and understand as many of the ins and outs of the rules, etc. I support the idea of an item being called to vote a maximum of once per season. I am glad to hear someone bring up that the order of the serpentine draft in year 1 did not dictate the final standings and that draft position had no correlation to outcome.

Its worth stating the obvious, the spread between picks in a snake draft is based on fairness. It gives a quicker 2nd pick to the teams with a worse 1st pick. It gives a quicker 3rd to a team with a worse 2nd.

I know that is ridiculously obvious. But I'm struggling to understand why anyone is so adamently against the system. I get the differing opinions and would expect everyone to see things slightly different, but I don't get the "unfair" argument. That's just my opinion, and in the long run, I just really don't want to see owners not enjoying the league because they feel cheated, etc.

Cornholers said...

Wade - My #1 issue with the serp. draft is directly related to the keeper league format. Due to the lack of depth in the draft I find it extremely unfair that the current top teams in the league will garner 2 of the top 15 draft picks.

I simply believe that for this year, and all subsequent years of this 6-year league, that we could be allowing a "rich to get richer" atmosphere.

PG said...

It's clear the people have spoken here and we weren't able to get it passed. These were the rules we all agreed to and for now we have to play by the rules.

Look, we've only played one season of this league. Let's let this season play out and if we see an emerging trend (where the same teams are staying on top and the last place teams are still in the cellar) we'll have more justification to move forward and make a change.