|
Post by Commish_Ron on Feb 28, 2020 20:40:42 GMT -5
This change I am strongly recommending and would actually appreciate hearing thoughts behind any “no” votes. Several seasons ago we reduced that setting. Since then we have witnessed a significant drop in the quality of the players in the draft. In sand box testing I have definitively confirmed that this change and the result are directly correlated. The proposal here is to return to what we were doing before.
Changes would go into effect this season. While it might not be completely fair if people made moves with another bad draft in mind, if we wait a season we will end up with 50 comp picks rolling over.
This vote needs 75% to pass. Proxy votes will be cast to Yes.
|
|
|
Post by David_ExposGM on Feb 29, 2020 7:11:57 GMT -5
This did not pass last off-season (I believe it was).
Much as this would help those that pick first (read: struggling teams) it also "floats all boats" and because of that also helps the best teams. I realize some see an overall increase in the talent level as a good thing. I would rather have more of a separation of talent for those that rely heavily on the draft compared to those that really do not need to rely on the draft to stock their teams, specifically the first round.
I would also rather we concentrate on change that will narrow the gap between the best and the worst in PBL.
The "quality" of any draft fluctuates annually. And every GM would interpret the quality differently (based on perception, where their team is in it's evolution and how they value draft picks for trading, or how their last trade of a first rounder worked out). I cannot deny that less rounds lowers the quality, but I simply don't view that as being the same level of problem.
There are probably some other reasons for my no in the last poll thread. May have to re-read.
|
|
|
Post by MetDaMeats on Feb 29, 2020 7:54:21 GMT -5
I can't argue with the fact that good teams will benefit with the bad. But two arguments I've seen don't hold water:
Argument 1) Good teams will trade up for those high picks to get them.
Of course they will. That's the whole point! If you're a team with relatively few assets, turning your draft picks into prospects and players is exactly what you want to be able to do. The more value your picks have, the more leverage you have when you trade with a more powerful team. If your picks are the market equivalent of a scratch off lottery ticket, you may end up trading even the highest picks for peanuts. It's the gamble that a pick can get a game changing player that gives it value. Decreasing the odds of that gamble just makes lottery teams weaker. Who is going to trade a player with proven value for a lottery ticket, unless that ticket brings the possibility of transcendent change? Average change isn't good enough to encourage those types of deals.
Argument 2) Even if I draft a great player, some big market team will grab him after arbitration.
This is true. But guess what? They're going to do that anyway. Take Kendall's off season in St. Louis last year. Having weaker drafts didn't keep Jorge Taylor or Alfredo Sanchez in town. Teams with money will spend it to get the top tier talent. And if there's less top tier talent in the league, they benefit more when they do so.
Having less talent come into the league doesn't protect small market teams. It just narrows one avenue for small market teams have to improve. There's no such thing as narrowing that avenue "equally" for everyone. Big markets just spend to make up the difference. Free agency, international free agents, and scouting still exist, and are (to different extents) regulated by how much money you can throw at them. The draft is the one place a small team can improve mightily on the cheap. So, I highly suggest increasing the size of the draft.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_NatsGM on Mar 1, 2020 13:02:29 GMT -5
I haven't chimed in on the Slack chat on PBL inequality (mostly because I'm hopelessly behind at this point), but I think changes like this (increasing the amount of cheap talent available) are the key to fixing those problems. Revenue/gate sharing changes will help, but ultimately rebuilding small market teams have to build a cheap core of talent. Having more cost controlled talent in the draft provides more options for building that core.
|
|
|
Post by Texas Rangers on Mar 1, 2020 15:34:22 GMT -5
I haven't chimed in on the Slack chat on PBL inequality (mostly because I'm hopelessly behind at this point), but I think changes like this (increasing the amount of cheap talent available) are the key to fixing those problems. Revenue/gate sharing changes will help, but ultimately rebuilding small market teams have to build a cheap core of talent. Having more cost controlled talent in the draft provides more options for building that core. Agree completely. The best thing that can happen to a struggling team is Bill Kachmar, or John Howe, or Duane Hansen, or David Williamson (throwback to the old schoolers).
|
|
|
Post by Commish_Ron on Mar 2, 2020 20:58:59 GMT -5
This poll passes. Change will be made tonight.
|
|