PDA

View Full Version : IKL - PLEASE VOTE - we need to change the set-up



Los Angeles
09-10-2010, 02:37 AM
Please forgive my first rookie commish mistake. I set up a list of expansion draft rules without figuring out what exactly would happen if we followed those rules. Let me tell you, it wasn't at all pretty and it was even less fair. It just puts the two expansion teams WAY behind the eight ball with their only real asset being a top 2 draft pick. Honestly, that's just not going to be enough to make is a fair fight even among the lowest standing teams.

First, I have to remove the "only one player can be chosen from an existing team" rule. I've run three mock expansion drafts with the rule in place and it is just laughable how terrible these teams will be with that rule in place.

So we have a choice:

1) we make the expansion draft protected list *7* players instead of *8*. The expansion teams will have the first two picks in the regular draft as well. Yes, I know, that cuts a little bit into your team, so consider the alternative:

2) we keep the expansion draft list at *8* players BUT we award the top 4 picks overall to the expansion teams. Picks 1 and 4 go to team A and picks 2 and 3 go to team B. to balance things just a bit, they will then receive no second round pick and will pick last in the third round.

Please vote - which of these options would you prefer?

Frostwolf
09-10-2010, 04:06 AM
both of them sound ok to me, though with option two, that means there will only be 16 first round draft slots for the existing owners. so the last two first round picks would actually be the first two second round picks?

1~4 will be the two new owners
5~20 would be the first 16 first rounders
21~22 would the final two first rounders (21 is the start of the second round)
23~40 follows the normal second round order.

am I getting this correct?

Pig Nash
09-10-2010, 10:33 AM
Either is fine with me, but I think the first option is better.

SoupIsGood
09-10-2010, 12:54 PM
I think the first one is the fairest. Expansion always means the existing teams get chipped away at a bit.

diamonddave00
09-10-2010, 02:50 PM
Glad to see you realize just how bad us new owners teams would be. With 7 protected players for 18 teams thats 126 protected players roughly 4 of every 5 starters in the nba protected.

At least that way Morning and I should be able to build a team that can win more than the 5 games max I told you I thought we "might ' win with the original 8 protected per team.

As far as 7 protected or us having the first 4 rookie picks , I truly don't have any problem either way. As an expansion team I don't expect to be a play off contender either way. I just want a chance to be competitive .

diamonddave00
09-10-2010, 02:55 PM
As things stand 7 or 8 protected there is still a good chance I would still trade my 1st pick for depth on my roster. Have a feeling Mourning would consider doing the same.

SycamoreKen
09-10-2010, 10:58 PM
I'm going with the first because the second makes the draft picks I traded for even less valuable than they were when I traded for them last season. But now that i look at it, I may change my vote if I would rather keep my 8th player than lose him. Sorry i didn't read that more closely.

Jose Slaughter
09-11-2010, 02:39 AM
Not to make things more complicated, my vote tied things up at 4 votes each.

I could have lost a guy I want & picked 4th or kept him & picked 6th.

Los Angeles
09-11-2010, 02:55 PM
both of them sound ok to me, though with option two, that means there will only be 16 first round draft slots for the existing owners. so the last two first round picks would actually be the first two second round picks?

1~4 will be the two new owners
5~20 would be the first 16 first rounders
21~22 would the final two first rounders (21 is the start of the second round)
23~40 follows the normal second round order.

am I getting this correct?

If we choose the second option:
1-4 = new owners
5-22 - rest of league, first round
23-40 - rest of league, second round
41-58 - rest of league, third round
59 & 60 - new owners, final picks

SycamoreKen
09-14-2010, 11:39 PM
My vote has definitely changed to the second one. That makes it 7-4.

Los Angeles
09-15-2010, 03:27 PM
My vote has definitely changed to the second one. That makes it 7-4.

OK, noted.

bumping this one more time so that people can chime in.

By the way, has anyone seen Boston Connection around? He's the only one who hasn't created a team yet.

bulldog
09-15-2010, 03:34 PM
By the way, has anyone seen Boston Connection around? He's the only one who hasn't created a team yet.

Skaut is looking for him in the other league as well. Hasn't been around for a few months.

Los Angeles
09-17-2010, 01:06 PM
Welp, it's decided then. 8 player protected lists are due at the end of the month. Our expansion teams will have their expansion draft as soon as possible after that, and everyone will get another week before their final 9-player protected lists are due.

I know it's been a relatively quiet month, but October is fast approaching and we have a lot of fun ahead of us!

Kent

bellisimo
09-19-2010, 10:54 AM
is it bad that i've forgotten who was on my team? :(

Los Angeles
09-19-2010, 04:59 PM
is it bad that i've forgotten who was on my team? :(

A few threads lower:

YOUNG TURKS - Bellisimo
Ben Wallace
Carlos Boozer
Lamar Odom
Kenyon Martin
Andrei Kirilenko
Andre Iguodala
Baron Davis
Luke Ridnour
Chase Budinger
Mike Miller
Brad Miller
DeAndre Jordan

diamonddave00
09-20-2010, 01:47 PM
If Boston Connection doesn't want to continue or can't be found. I suggest finding a 3rd Expansion team owner and dissolving Boston's team adding the 12 players to the expansion pool.

MESILLA GARGOYLES - BostonConnection (BostonCnextion)
Andrew Bynum
Zach Randolph
Anthony Randolph
Tyreke Evans
Jameer Nelson
Brandon Roy
Mehmet Okur
Wilson Chandler
Josh Howard
J.J. Hickson
Dorell Wright
DeMar DeRozan

Thats a nice bunch to give expansion owners a chance to build a semi competitive team getting 3 or 4 of those 12 plus 2 top picks in 1st round. It most likely wouldn't be a playoff team but would be at least competitive, something the current expansion plans will not provide.

Or if the team is disolved go back to the original plan of new owners getting one early pick in all 3 rounds and the original suggested protected number.

Getting say Brandon Roy , Zach Randolph and Wilson Chandler plus a top rookie say Elston Turner would be a lot fairer to the new owners than 2 rookies and the 9 th -10th and 11th guys of current rosters.

Just my thoughts on the expansion draft and regular draft. Of course if Boston chooses to continue this is all irrelivant.

Los Angeles
09-20-2010, 04:47 PM
I wrote this in a PM to dave, but figured I'd post it here so everyone knows what's up.


I appreciate the suggestion but it will just mess up several decisions and votes that have occurred over the last two seasons. Plus, I'm inclined to let BC keep his team. He's always late to the party, but he always comes back. This will be the third time he's been kicked out of the leagues due to not showing up in time. Then as soon as the regular season kicks in, he's back, takes over another one of the teams whose owner is awol and proceeds to kick everyone's behind.

I'm just going to have to make his protected lists based on his game 56 lineup from last year, protecting the first 8 players listed on that line up for the expansion draft and the first 9 remaining players for the regular draft.

He's a great owner, but we've been down this road before with him, and I know he's going to check in right around draft time.

Now that I read it back, I don't know if he's been kicked out 3 times, but it's been at least a few times that he's the last one to show up.

diamonddave00
09-20-2010, 07:35 PM
I have no problem with BC . It was just a suggestion if he doesn't want to play this season.

Skaut_Ech
09-23-2010, 10:04 AM
I don't mean to be a hard ***....okay yes I do. I personally am tired of team owners who inconvenience everyone else. I think it's disruptive and one of the things that made me almost quit all the league a couple of years ago.

I have nothing against BCon personally whatsoever. I've always liked him quite a bit, but at some point you have to say enough is enough. I'm not going to reward bad behavior by saying, "Oh, that's just BCon being BCon." It's not like a KEEPER league is a surprise. We do the same stuff at the same time year after year.

For my part, for ABA KL, he's gone and I've got a new owner already lined up chomping at the bit to take over his team. If wants to join up again next year, he is more than welcome, but this year, he's gone.