|
Post by Gashouse Gang on Mar 2, 2021 13:50:20 GMT -2
Following the example of MLB and knowing how difficult it is to step into a new league and inherit a team that needs a total rebuild - I would like to suggest we implement Competitive Balance Draft picks for new team owners. MLB does it based on a blend of revenue and market size, but here I think we look to do it based on standings before the new owner took over the team. It would ONLY apply to new owners taking over teams. The concept goes like this: 1) Number of picks - we take the average finish of the team over the last 2 seasons and assign bonus "competitive balance" draft picks to the new team Average Finish
** Between 1-4 = 0 additional picks ** Between 5-8 = 1 additional pick ** Between 9-12 = 2 additional picks ** Between 13-16 = 3 additional picks 2) Competitive Balance pick placement - the picks would be at the end of each round ** 1st additional pick follows round 3
** 2nd additional pick follows round 2
** 3rd additional pick follows round 1
We usually lose owners of bad teams as they are not engaged with managing their teams. There are the occasional owners of good teams who leave because their personal lives got busier and they no longer had the time. Trying to set this up so we can make the bad teams better quicker for the health of the overall league and use a tiering system so we do not over compensate the other way should anyone take over a very good team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 14:27:37 GMT -2
Order of picks being awarded should be flipped. I don't see why a team who has averaged a 5th place finish should get an extra 1st rounder.
The 1st awarded pick should be 3A, 2nd awarded pick should be 2A, 3rd awarded pick should be 1A
|
|
|
Post by Mini Moguls on Mar 2, 2021 14:59:45 GMT -2
I agree with KC, we might want to re-structure that ad we aren’t trying to give a playoff team an extra 1st round pick I don’t think.
|
|
|
Post by n8carnes on Mar 2, 2021 15:17:08 GMT -2
I agree with Royals too. The idea isn't to make good teams even better. The idea is supposed to be to help a new owner taking over a shitty team get better more quickly.
I have reversed the order of the compensation picks. Please review and re-vote.
|
|
|
Post by Hanging Sliders on Mar 2, 2021 15:36:34 GMT -2
I would question if it makes more sense. Typically when a team finishes high and has a manager turnover it is because they have gutted the future and have no prospects or good contracts. They trade away all their picks and prospect to make a big run in the playoffs, burn the team’s future and leave.
We are trying to let a new manager start fresh with a good future. Where a team finished the prior season doesn’t equate to future success at all. Maybe even inverse.
|
|
|
Post by kaw on Mar 2, 2021 15:40:13 GMT -2
I assume this only applies to the initial year that a new owner takes over? Wasn't stated and would like to know before casting my vote.
|
|
|
Post by Hanging Sliders on Mar 2, 2021 15:52:26 GMT -2
Let’s also keep in mind the rankings is the average of last 2 years. A 5th place avg could mean winning the league two years ago and finishing 10th in the previous year.
|
|
|
Post by n8carnes on Mar 2, 2021 15:53:33 GMT -2
I assume this only applies to the initial year that a new owner takes over? Wasn't stated and would like to know before casting my vote. Yes. These picks only apply to the new owners 1st draft after taking over a team.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 15:55:01 GMT -2
I would question if it makes more sense. Typically when a team finishes high and has a manager turnover it is because they have gutted the future and have no prospects or good contracts. They trade away all their picks and prospect to make a big run in the playoffs, burn the team’s future and leave. We are trying to let a new manager start fresh with a good future. Where a team finished the prior season doesn’t equate to future success at all. Maybe even inverse. By this logic we shouldn't use standings for draft order either. Agreed that there's no perfect predictor of future success, but are you really going to argue that giving more successful teams higher picks helps the competitive balance for the league?
|
|
|
Post by Hanging Sliders on Mar 2, 2021 18:25:53 GMT -2
I would question if it makes more sense. Typically when a team finishes high and has a manager turnover it is because they have gutted the future and have no prospects or good contracts. They trade away all their picks and prospect to make a big run in the playoffs, burn the team’s future and leave. We are trying to let a new manager start fresh with a good future. Where a team finished the prior season doesn’t equate to future success at all. Maybe even inverse. By this logic we shouldn't use standings for draft order either. Agreed that there's no perfect predictor of future success, but are you really going to argue that giving more successful teams higher picks helps the competitive balance for the league? The idea, and assumption, is that when a manager turns over the team is left in poor position. The additional draft pick(s) provides assets to help that new manager be competitive faster. Part of that long slope is learning the league values, so regardless how well a team is built that is taken over new managers CONSISTENTLY trade for worse valuations. Giving addition draft pick is to help that curve speed up. A single pick after 48 have been made isn’t much value, its a 4th round pick. So yeah, I think the 17th pick will help them a lot more and provide a more competitive balance for the league and transition for a new manager.
|
|
|
Post by Hanging Sliders on Mar 2, 2021 18:29:25 GMT -2
I would question if it makes more sense. Typically when a team finishes high and has a manager turnover it is because they have gutted the future and have no prospects or good contracts. They trade away all their picks and prospect to make a big run in the playoffs, burn the team’s future and leave. We are trying to let a new manager start fresh with a good future. Where a team finished the prior season doesn’t equate to future success at all. Maybe even inverse. By this logic we shouldn't use standings for draft order either. Agreed that there's no perfect predictor of future success, but are you really going to argue that giving more successful teams higher picks helps the competitive balance for the league? Just to make sure we are on the same page after your question “giving more successful teams higher picks”. The more successful teams don’t get higher picks, they get LESS picks. So 5-8 ranked finish get ONE pick after the first round. 9-12 get TWO picks, one after first round and another after 2nd round. 13-16 get THREE picks, one after each round 1,2, and 3.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 18:34:14 GMT -2
Agreed that managers generally leave a bad team, no dispute there. The question is how do we quantify how bad that team is, and determine appropriate compensation. Every other time we define this across this league, we use team record. Why would this be any different? The 2 year average wasn't my idea, and frankly I don't care if that ended up being 1 year or 3 or whatever folks settled on. But you don't give higher picks to better teams because they were better.
If your issue is that new managers make bad trades, then address it with a trade review committee for rookie managers. This isn't that place to do that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 18:57:15 GMT -2
As an aside, we haven't seen this issue of owners going all-in on a season and then bailing. Waky finished 10th and 14th in his last 2 seasons. Bedlam was 14th and 15th in his last 2 seasons.
|
|
|
Post by Hanging Sliders on Mar 2, 2021 19:42:50 GMT -2
Better teams aren’t getting better picks. You’re reading it wrong. The worse teams just get MORE pucks later in the draft.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2021 19:48:37 GMT -2
Now we're playing hockey (more pucks?)
And no, I'm reading it correctly, but could have phrased my point better. I meant better picks via the original schedule vs. the revised (can we agree a 1st is better than a 3rd?) Bad teams deserve better picks than good teams. The marginal value of tagging on an extra late 3rd rounder isn't commensurate with the difference in team talent between a team finishing 5th-8th vs. a team finishing 13th-16th. An extra late 1st makes far more sense there, hence the revised schedule.
I'm happy to simply agree to disagree if you'd like.
|
|