Rule 15.x – Prospect dropping during PrD
(Recall Prospects dropped between ED and PrD, after which
Option 1 = no drops during PrD, Option 2 = can drop all but new P1’s)
*
In part because we were essentially splitting votes between three options (no, yes1, yes2) this rule failed to pass despite unanimous (or almost) recognition that there is a need for the rule to be fixed.
Once a few years back, Mike G. drafted a player with his 1st rnd pick, and then cut him (or threatened to, I believe the universal opprobrium may have changed his mind). The obvious incongruity of a GM making a selection and then ditching him for another guy later on, simply blew minds.
But, it is the only case of its kind that I can think of. Option two in effect addresses only this instance (and its not really an instance) and confers no actual benefit to the pool, or its processes. It is in fact, missing the entire problem with the prospect draft - that players - ANY players - can be cut during the draft forcing everyone to participate for another round of votes, etc. What drives us nuts year in and year out is not Mike G, drafting a guy and cutting him, it's GMs waiving a prospect during the 4th rnd of the draft forcing GMs to blow up their lists and make new plans on the fly. THAT is the absurdity that needs to be addressed.
There are in my mind, very clear reasons to prefer Option 1, to Option 2.
- Simplicity. The rule would simply state that all prospect cuts are made final prior to the prospect draft. When it comes to interpreting this rule, it couldn't be easier.
- Fairness. The best case scenario for Option 2. is this;
I have Grigorenko, a 22 year old rookie who is a P3. As the prospect draft progresses I take note that I can get a guy higher on my list than Grigorenko as a P1. So in rnd 3 I cut Grigorenko.
In Option 1 - I've already had to make the call on Grigorenko, one way or another, the decision has been made, and everybody knows ahead of time what it is.
In Option 2 - let's say Bob wants a shot at Grigorenko, but because he has just loaded his team up with P1 prospects (Bob only has one prospect at present), the rule FORCES him to pass. How is that fair? I release a prospect, and the one guy who could most make use of him is now obligated to cut the only prospect he kept rather than a lower pick in the current draft?
How on earth is that fair?
Further, if Bob was a low finisher, then his pick should be worth more than a middle round pick. Yet the player he wants (the secretly amazing Grigorenko) won't be available because of my dump-chase strategy till the middle rounds.
In effect, the current rules, and Option two rules PUNISH the low finishers by making the late cuts unavailable to them.
Nice.
- Time. The prospect draft takes too long. Why? Because it has an infinite number of rounds. Gms go into spin cycle after the first two rounds and everybody wastes time holding until we are into rounds 9-10 etc, 'pass', 'pass', 'oh wait...', etc. and to what end? If everybody had been honest about their cuts from the start the maximum number of rounds we pick is 8. The number of prospects you pick is determined by how many slots you have open on your roster to sign rookies. With option one I know EXACTLY how large my prospect list needs to be - to the man. Simple.
-Planning. Because we have just ensured that untested players are available as prospects, the ability now exists to plan out exactly who will be available when based on your lists. However, if we allow option two to be the rule of the day, then no planning is possible because the cuts aren't known until some random points through the draft.
So to sum up;
- Option two doesn't address any actual problem, and is unfair.
- Option one is simple, fair, speeds things up, and rewards GM planning.
If there is a counter case in favour of Option 2, or benefits to the practice that I seem to be missing, I'm interested in debating it.
Cameron
10 comments:
Cam,
I'm not comfortable with the idea that the vote was somehow flawed because it didn't reflect the result we wanted.
I'm ok with a drop during the PrD as there are a finite number of prospect slots and one can't say for sure what will still be left in the 3rd round. If it still is the problem you describe this draft (which I don't think it will be) we can always propose a change in the rules for next season.
Doug,
As I read the rules, without a voting majority for change we are stuck with the status quo (not the vote that recieved the most votes) - hence my suggestion that we refine the options to just two (option 1,2) and hold a debate to see if we can reach a consensus.
It is NOT the result I wanted (that would be obvious from my post) but given that we all think the status quo is flawed it seems perverse to be stuck with it because of the way the rules voting was conducted (which is another post I'll have to put together at some point).
Honestly, I can't see any reason for option 2 to even exist as a choice. It is venal, small and frankly stupid as an option. It fixes nothing, and actually makes the situation worse (more unfair) rather than better.
Actually in reality, the vote is sufficiently clear to already render a final reading of the rule.
# GM's supporting rule change: 12 of 12
# GM's supporting change in 06: 12 of 12
# GM's supporting the fact that a P1 just drafted (this year) cannot be dropped this year once picked: 12 of 12
# GM's supporting the fact that P2/3/4's cannot be dropped once PrD draft starts: 5 of 12
So by our own rules, the change with sufficient support to pass and be implemented for this year (fair or not) is:
Prospect drops are announced between the ED end and the PrD start.
Once the PrD starts, any players newly picksd (ie P1's) cannot be dropped.
Retained prospects (P2/3/4) CAN be dropped during the PrD (at which point we have the additional proviso that:
In the event that a prospect from a prior year is dropped, there is an automatic League time-out, and that player is offered to each GM in the order of the PrD master template (excluding trades) except the GM who is dropping the prospect, who is precluded from drafting the prospect (as per rule 17) until 12 REGULAR PrD picks have passed.
Like it or not, the masses have spoken...
Dan,
You are making an inference based on faulty premises.
By offering GMs three choices rather than two (status quo or a new rule), we don't have a fair vote on the subject.
Nor can you infer a majority because of similarities between the two offerings.
The fairest thing to do is to hold a refining vote and see if we can reach a majority.
All we have done here is made the situation worse rather than better, and done so undemocratically (8 GMs did not vote for option 2).
To say I am dissapointed (more than I would have been if we lost the ED changes vote) that we have INCREASED the unfairness of the prospect draft, would be an understatement.
Let me add that I found the inclusion of option 2 remarkable based on the fact that it was NOT proposed as a rule change until the day of the vote. There is nothing about it on the rule proposals in the blog as an option.
If it were, I would have savaged its lack of integrity, fairness and sense sooner.
I disagree with going back to the beginning of a natural round on a player who is dropped. If you want to draft the player dropped then trade for the slot and include one of your just drafted picks in the trade.
- Ok, but the fact is what you describe as being your concern HAS NEVER HAPPENED.
An ammendment I just thought of is that at the drop time you can name one and only one prospect who is on the bubble. That way everyone knows he might be available.
- In option 1, you know everyone who is available. Further because we have got the ED restrictions in place, we will all know with perfect certainty who is available. The 'bubble' prospect situation then wouldn't exist because you would know prior to the start of the draft where your released prospects fit into the pool of prospects available.
I can understand the desire to improve ones team by releasing a prospect to take a new one in the later rounds (I have done this myself), but the fact is it is unfair to have prospects released mid-draft arbitrarily. Not to mention that our prospect drafts now take as long as the ED despite being 10 rnds shorter.
OK, fair enough, I am assuming things based on the fact that one option encompasses another.
As for what Rob refers to never having happened - Incorrect. We most certainly have had GMs during the PrD drop a P2-3-4 to pick up a P1, at which time we HAVE HAD to offer the newly dropped guy to all GMs in order of the PrD ranking. Otherwise, the guy with the next pick has an unfair opportunity to draft the newly dropped player.
I can set out a vote on the two options again, but I have little reason currently to believe the result would be any different. If so, we are left with agreement the rule should change, but not what it should change to...
I will start a new post for said discussion asap...
Dan
With respect to Option 2 (and what I was trying to impart with regards Rob's comments) we have NEVER had a GM release a prospect just drafted (a P1) in order to take a prospect later on.
Has. Never. Happened.
Yet that is all that option 2 prevents.
It's a rule without a problem to fix.
As for Rob's preferrence to see the lay of the land before releasing his marginal P4/P3 to take a new P1, my thoughts are relatively simple.
Yes - it is a strategic choice (indeed, one most of us have made).
No - it is not fair, equitable, or fast.
The fact that is not fair, equitable or fast is obvious - and if the only harm caused is that dithering GMs have to man-up and make some cuts that are tough, I say that is more than worth it.
Option 2 exists to give the impression that change is occurring, without any actual change taking place, and in effect makes the inequity of the system for low ranking teams WORSE.
That all said, I'm in agreement with Rob on the fact that 7 votes does not constitute sufficient votes to pass, and I look forward to reading Dan's post on potential resolves for this dillemna.
Please see new post
With respect to Option 2 (and what I was trying to impart with regards Rob's comments) we have NEVER had a GM release a prospect just drafted (a P1) in order to take a prospect later on.
Has. Never. Happened.
The only reason this hasn't happened is becasue when a GM has tried to do so, the uproar was sufficiently virulent as to make the GM change their mind! It is, nonetheless, allowed under the current rules...
Dan said;
"The only reason this hasn't happened is becasue when a GM has tried to do so, the uproar was sufficiently virulent as to make the GM change their mind! It is, nonetheless, allowed under the current rules..."
- which validates my point - Option 2 is a rule that fixes a problem THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.
Whereas the real problems of endless prospect dropping/repicking, infinite prospect rounds, the manifest unfairness and inequality of the system, etc. isn't even addressed.
Post a Comment