OK - We have some consensus that this rule should change.
We have consensus that there should be a 30 minute break after the ED, before the PrD during which prospect drops are to be announced.
Currently the only rule on these drops is that no team can keep more than 8 prospects on their roster going in to the PrD.
So, the question is, once the PrD has started, what drops are allowed, and how do we handle them?
I would propose that we discuss as follows:
1) Do you agree that when a fresh P1 is picked in the PrD, he cannot be subsequently dropped during the same PrD - Yes/No
2) Do you agree that after the PrD has started, no further P2/3/4's can be dropped - Yes/No
3) Do you agree that after the PrD has started, P2/3/4's CAN be dropped - Yes/No
(Essentially to verify that the answer to 3 should be the opposite of your answer to 2)
4) If you agree that prospects CAN be dropped once the PrD has started, the current rules stipulate that the newly dropped player is then offered to each team (except the one that dropped him) in order of the unaltered PrD order to be picked up as a P1. The dropping GM is precluded from reselecting the dropped P2/3/4 until 12 REGULAR PrD picks have passed (to prevent a GM from dropping a P4 and immediately repicking him as a P1)
a) If you voted YES to #1, then a GM cannot pick up a dropped P2/3/4 by dropping a P1 - Do you agree with that consequence - Yes/No
b) If you agree with #4 as above, there is an implicit consequence that if a P2/3/4 is dropped, and another GM picks them up and in doing so, may drop a P2/3/4 themselves, that newly dropped prospect must in turn also be offered through the league as per #4. Do you agree with that consequence - Yes/No
5) Any other variations to consider?
8 comments:
I believe Rob is correct, when a prospect is dropped we do not go back and re-offer him to anyone.
Part of the manifest unfairness of the current system is that a prospect gets released after the draft has started, and isn't made available to those who picked prior.
That said, the cure of going backwards and offering him to everyone is actually worse than the disease.
I am frankly staggered at the resistance to simply making cuts known prior to the draft.
Yes it might be a minor inconveniece to some GMs with questionable P3's and P4s. But the gains in fairness, speed, and equity are more than enough to make that quibble just that, a quibble.
Here's a legalese suggestion;
Given that Option 2. wasn't present in the debate boards discussions, it is invalid as an option to be voted on.
Given that it was invalid, and there were 12 votes to change the system...it logically follows that Option 1 recieved full support.
;-)
Ok, it's specious in the extreme. But then the circus around option 2 is even more heinous.
I think we have made this way more complicated than it should be.
There are two options on the table, 1 and 2 (we have taken voting 'no' to any change out of the equation).
All we need to do is hold a debate and vote on those two options (ie. there is no point in creating 15 new options).
Let the GMs decide which of the two is best for the pool and vote. If neither side gets the required numbers we stay status quo (and I go through this all again next year).
Atomizing the debate to get into P1s vs P3s being dropped is simply retarded.
Rob,
On the one hand, your compromise proposal looks to be just that, a fair compromise.
However, it actually doesn't do anything to fix the problems of the prospect draft (length, unfairness, etc.)
Why? Because having 12 'bubble' prospects is a virtual gurantee of having 12 cuts/redrafts in the prospect round - a number which would actually exceed what we normally see.
In effect, your compromise would actually make things worse, not better - and it would entrench the deeply unfair practice of arbitrary prospect releases.
As far as proposals go, I think we already have them set - Option 1. and Option 2. It's too late to go back and reinvent the debate around P3's or P4's (with respect to Dan who has laboured with Herculean effort to get these items managed properly).
Simply put we had a split vote which didn't resolve the issue, and this split is complicated by the fact that one option wasn't ever presented or debated prior to the vote, and that it further was included in a three way option for voting which all but guranteed a resolve couldn't be passed.
In short, I think the solution is simple. A short period of time (a week?) for debate on the two options, and another vote. If neither gets acceptance by 8 GMs we stay with status quo and run this again next year. If one wins (and I believe one will), then we have the will of the pool reflected as it should be.
But lets not re-open the entire can of worms over one proposal.
But lets also be fair about what the options the pool should reasonably consider - and those are Options 1 and 2.
This discussion has been worth it if only to see Cam and Brian agreeing (loudly) with each other. Really guys, its touching.
Cam's point about the proposal differing from the wording offered in the "ballot". In my opinion it is worth reposing this proposal - and this proposal only - back to everyone as it appeared in the original blog post:
All prospects being dropped from a Team’s Prospects List must be announced and dropped EITHER prior to the start of the Entry Draft, or after the conclusion of the Entry Draft, and prior to the start of the Prospect Draft. No prospect, regardless of when selected, can be dropped during the Entry Draft, or dropped once the Prospect Draft has started (i.e. once the first overall pick has been made).
Dan did a remarkable job but I think that on this proposal we threw in some wrinkles that were not part of the original proposals.
How ever did we get by without a blog?
OK, maybe the rules don't refkect it, but maybe Doug or others can help me out here - I have a VERY CLEAR recollection of unexpected drops in the PrD when we DID go through the exercise of offering the newly dropped player to the GMs in order of PrD ranking.
The reason for this, quite legitimately, is that it is unfair that a P3 suddenly be available as a P1 to the GM lucky enough to have the next pick. (There are also issues of potential collusion here, though I hope they are secondary).
If the notion of offering a player dropped mid-draft through the ranks of GMs is overly odious, I respectfully submit that we would have to then exclude the option of ANY drops during the PrD ("bubble" or otherwise...)
In the hopes of a quick settlement, I have sent out the original proposal for voting. With any luck we won't have to quibble about this any further...please check email and send me a vote asap
Thanks!
Post a Comment