Future Draft Games

[Laimbeer]

10 rounds and you have to cover all 30 franchises.

How exactly would this work?

All 30 franchises would have to be represented in your roster in that at least one of your players played for them. Upon further review, this would be pretty hairy.

What about a game similar to the four per franchise one, except we limit the number of players that can be taken from each draft class? So for example if the limit is four, then after MJ, Hakeem, Chuck, and Stockton are taken, the 1984 draft is closed to everyone.

I like it.

You guys gotta give me some feedback on the stair step. The more I think about it, the more I like it. You'd have to plan your route and would need to take players of consequence in later rounds, I think.

[Fadeaway_J]

You guys gotta give me some feedback on the stair step. The more I think about it, the more I like it. You'd have to plan your route and would need to take players of consequence in later rounds, I think.

To me that seems like too much of a restriction on team-building strategy. For example, if I take Shaq first, I'm pretty much locked into a conventional two-big alignment unless I take a bench player with my second pick. And from a talent perspective, taking a "regular sized" PG early on would be hard to justify given the links you have to make.

[Dr Positivity]

What about a game similar to the four per franchise one, except we limit the number of players that can be taken from each draft class? So for example if the limit is four, then after MJ, Hakeem, Chuck, and Stockton are taken, the 1984 draft is closed to everyone.

I like the idea but I would limit the all-stars like the franchise game, I don't think there's more than 4 great players in each draft. Even with the max lowered to 3 it still only affects a few drafts. In 2003 presuming Lebron, Wade, Bosh are the three, you lose players like Melo, Korver, West. In 1996 if Kobe, Nash, Allen are taken, you lose Peja, AI, Camby, Jermaine O'Neal. And those are the great drafts.

1 all-star per draft, 3 players total? Or 2 all-stars, 4 total but it would affect the game less

[Fadeaway_J]

What about a game similar to the four per franchise one, except we limit the number of players that can be taken from each draft class? So for example if the limit is four, then after MJ, Hakeem, Chuck, and Stockton are taken, the 1984 draft is closed to everyone.

I like the idea but I would limit the all-stars like the franchise game, I don't think there's more than 4 great players in each draft. Even with the max lowered to 3 it still only affects a few drafts. In 2003 presuming Lebron, Wade, Bosh are the three, you lose players like Melo, Korver, West. In 1996 if Kobe, Nash, Allen are taken, you lose Peja, AI, Camby, Jermaine O'Neal. And those are the great drafts.

1 all-star per draft, 3 players total? Or 2 all-stars, 4 total but it would affect the game less

I'm actually a bit leery of doing that. With only a finite group of draftees to choose from, don't we need to allow more wiggle room? I wouldn't mind a situation where a few drafts don't have the full four (or five, which may be more viable depending on the time frame) players chosen.

[Dr Positivity]

What about a game similar to the four per franchise one, except we limit the number of players that can be taken from each draft class? So for example if the limit is four, then after MJ, Hakeem, Chuck, and Stockton are taken, the 1984 draft is closed to everyone.

I like the idea but I would limit the all-stars like the franchise game, I don't think there's more than 4 great players in each draft. Even with the max lowered to 3 it still only affects a few drafts. In 2003 presuming Lebron, Wade, Bosh are the three, you lose players like Melo, Korver, West. In 1996 if Kobe, Nash, Allen are taken, you lose Peja, AI, Camby, Jermaine O'Neal. And those are the great drafts.

1 all-star per draft, 3 players total? Or 2 all-stars, 4 total but it would affect the game less

I'm actually a bit leery of doing that. With only a finite group of draftees to choose from, don't we need to allow more wiggle room? I wouldn't mind a situation where a few drafts don't have the full four (or five, which may be more viable depending on the time frame) players chosen.

If you're worried about wiggle room 1-2 all-stars from each draft, but all non all-stars are eligible?

A rule like 4 players total would limit some of the role players but I don't think the popular all-stars would be that affected. Personally I think the impact in the Four Franchise game was more felt in the 2 all-stars more than the 4 total players.

[Laimbeer]

I like the idea but I would limit the all-stars like the franchise game, I don't think there's more than 4 great players in each draft. Even with the max lowered to 3 it still only affects a few drafts. In 2003 presuming Lebron, Wade, Bosh are the three, you lose players like Melo, Korver, West. In 1996 if Kobe, Nash, Allen are taken, you lose Peja, AI, Camby, Jermaine O'Neal. And those are the great drafts.

1 all-star per draft, 3 players total? Or 2 all-stars, 4 total but it would affect the game less

I'm actually a bit leery of doing that. With only a finite group of draftees to choose from, don't we need to allow more wiggle room? I wouldn't mind a situation where a few drafts don't have the full four (or five, which may be more viable depending on the time frame) players chosen.

If you're worried about wiggle room 1-2 all-stars from each draft, but all non all-stars are eligible?

A rule like 4 players total would limit some of the role players but I don't think the popular all-stars would be that affected. Personally I think the impact in the Four Franchise game was more felt in the 2 all-stars more than the 4 total players.

I'd agree with two all-stars and two non- all-stars per class and use 15 teams and 30 draft classes so it works out like the Four Franchise. For me that was a big part of the appeal - having to fill all the slots.

[Fadeaway_J]

I'm actually a bit leery of doing that. With only a finite group of draftees to choose from, don't we need to allow more wiggle room? I wouldn't mind a situation where a few drafts don't have the full four (or five, which may be more viable depending on the time frame) players chosen.

If you're worried about wiggle room 1-2 all-stars from each draft, but all non all-stars are eligible?

A rule like 4 players total would limit some of the role players but I don't think the popular all-stars would be that affected. Personally I think the impact in the Four Franchise game was more felt in the 2 all-stars more than the 4 total players.

I'd agree with two all-stars and two non- all-stars per class and use 15 teams and 30 draft classes so it works out like the Four Franchise. For me that was a big part of the appeal - having to fill all the slots.

I actually didn't want to go back quite that far, so I'm thinking maybe five per class instead with a three All-Star limit.

1990-2013
24 draft classes
Five players per class
Three All-Stars maximum

That works out to 120 players just like the previous game.

[Dr Positivity]

Honestly I would be closer to preferring a 1 all-star game going back to 60s or 70s than 3 all-stars. 3 all-stars is too soft a pool for me, I can't find many drafts at all from 1990 on where the 4th best all-star is desirable, it would lose a few guys like AK, Artest, Korver, Kyrie etc. but the bulk of the draft isn't that affected

[Fadeaway_J]

Honestly I would be closer to preferring a 1 all-star game going back to 60s or 70s than 3 all-stars. 3 all-stars is too soft a pool for me, I can't find many drafts at all from 1990 on where the 4th best all-star is desirable, it would lose a few guys like AK, Artest, Korver, Kyrie etc. but the bulk of the draft isn't that affected

Fair point. We could go back to 1984 then. A few big names will be ruled out but there should be enough elite players to go around I guess.

[Dr Positivity]

Honestly I would be closer to preferring a 1 all-star game going back to 60s or 70s than 3 all-stars. 3 all-stars is too soft a pool for me, I can't find many drafts at all from 1990 on where the 4th best all-star is desirable, it would lose a few guys like AK, Artest, Korver, Kyrie etc. but the bulk of the draft isn't that affected

Fair point. We could go back to 1984 then. A few big names will be ruled out but there should be enough elite players to go around I guess.

I meant it the other way, I don't think there's enough good players ruled out with 3 all-stars per draft and 5 total. Going back to 84 would just make the concept even more of just a normal draft in the starting lineups with a minor tweak here and there (although 85 and 87 are probably two of the drafts where some relevant names get ruled out) and then sketchier benches

[Fadeaway_J]

Honestly I would be closer to preferring a 1 all-star game going back to 60s or 70s than 3 all-stars. 3 all-stars is too soft a pool for me, I can't find many drafts at all from 1990 on where the 4th best all-star is desirable, it would lose a few guys like AK, Artest, Korver, Kyrie etc. but the bulk of the draft isn't that affected

Fair point. We could go back to 1984 then. A few big names will be ruled out but there should be enough elite players to go around I guess.

I meant it the other way, I don't think there's enough good players ruled out with 3 all-stars per draft and 5 total. Going back to 84 would just make the concept even more of just a normal draft with a minor tweak here and there (although 85 and 87 are probably two of the drafts where some relevant names get ruled out)

I don't think it would be a minor tweak at all. You're focusing a lot on removing stars which is fine, but those stars aren't going to be replaced by viable supporting players in a lot of cases due to the draft class restriction. A draft like 2000 for example has one player who might normally be taken (Mike Miller) and even then he's borderline. 1990 has Payton and Kukoc and not much else. So when you limit it to two stars from each draft and remove guys like Allen, Barkley, etc, are you going to make that up with Kenyon Martin in 2000 or Michael Finley in 1995? Nope, you'll be stuck with far less star power and a bunch of role players that nobody would actually be interested in having.

I'm going to go through the draft classes in more detail, but I strongly suspect that trying to treat this one in exactly the same way as the Four Per Franchise game would be a mistake.

[Laimbeer]

Fair point. We could go back to 1984 then. A few big names will be ruled out but there should be enough elite players to go around I guess.

I meant it the other way, I don't think there's enough good players ruled out with 3 all-stars per draft and 5 total. Going back to 84 would just make the concept even more of just a normal draft with a minor tweak here and there (although 85 and 87 are probably two of the drafts where some relevant names get ruled out)

I don't think it would be a minor tweak at all. You're focusing a lot on removing stars which is fine, but those stars aren't going to be replaced by viable supporting players in a lot of cases due to the draft class restriction. A draft like 2000 for example has one player who might normally be taken (Mike Miller) and even then he's borderline. 1990 has Payton and Kukoc and not much else. So when you limit it to two stars from each draft and remove guys like Allen, Barkley, etc, are you going to make that up with Kenyon Martin in 2000 or Michael Finley in 1995? Nope, you'll be stuck with far less star power and a bunch of role players that nobody would actually be interested in having.

I'm going to go through the draft classes in more detail, but I strongly suspect that trying to treat this one in exactly the same way as the Four Per Franchise game would be a mistake.

I'll, pile on and agree that a three all-star restriction is virtually none at all. People will use the end of weak classes for end of the bench guys.

[Fadeaway_J]

I meant it the other way, I don't think there's enough good players ruled out with 3 all-stars per draft and 5 total. Going back to 84 would just make the concept even more of just a normal draft with a minor tweak here and there (although 85 and 87 are probably two of the drafts where some relevant names get ruled out)

I don't think it would be a minor tweak at all. You're focusing a lot on removing stars which is fine, but those stars aren't going to be replaced by viable supporting players in a lot of cases due to the draft class restriction. A draft like 2000 for example has one player who might normally be taken (Mike Miller) and even then he's borderline. 1990 has Payton and Kukoc and not much else. So when you limit it to two stars from each draft and remove guys like Allen, Barkley, etc, are you going to make that up with Kenyon Martin in 2000 or Michael Finley in 1995? Nope, you'll be stuck with far less star power and a bunch of role players that nobody would actually be interested in having.

I'm going to go through the draft classes in more detail, but I strongly suspect that trying to treat this one in exactly the same way as the Four Per Franchise game would be a mistake.

I'll, pile on and agree that a three all-star restriction is virtually none at all.

OK, but I'm even less convinced than before that a restriction (apart from draft class) is actually required.

[Laimbeer]

I don't think it would be a minor tweak at all. You're focusing a lot on removing stars which is fine, but those stars aren't going to be replaced by viable supporting players in a lot of cases due to the draft class restriction. A draft like 2000 for example has one player who might normally be taken (Mike Miller) and even then he's borderline. 1990 has Payton and Kukoc and not much else. So when you limit it to two stars from each draft and remove guys like Allen, Barkley, etc, are you going to make that up with Kenyon Martin in 2000 or Michael Finley in 1995? Nope, you'll be stuck with far less star power and a bunch of role players that nobody would actually be interested in having.

I'm going to go through the draft classes in more detail, but I strongly suspect that trying to treat this one in exactly the same way as the Four Per Franchise game would be a mistake.

I'll, pile on and agree that a three all-star restriction is virtually none at all.

OK, but I'm even less convinced than before that a restriction (apart from draft class) is actually required.

It's your baby and you have looked harder at the pool, I'll play either way.

[Dr Positivity]

Fair point. We could go back to 1984 then. A few big names will be ruled out but there should be enough elite players to go around I guess.

I meant it the other way, I don't think there's enough good players ruled out with 3 all-stars per draft and 5 total. Going back to 84 would just make the concept even more of just a normal draft with a minor tweak here and there (although 85 and 87 are probably two of the drafts where some relevant names get ruled out)

I don't think it would be a minor tweak at all. You're focusing a lot on removing stars which is fine, but those stars aren't going to be replaced by viable supporting players in a lot of cases due to the draft class restriction. A draft like 2000 for example has one player who might normally be taken (Mike Miller) and even then he's borderline. 1990 has Payton and Kukoc and not much else. So when you limit it to two stars from each draft and remove guys like Allen, Barkley, etc, are you going to make that up with Kenyon Martin in 2000 or Michael Finley in 1995? Nope, you'll be stuck with far less star power and a bunch of role players that nobody would actually be interested in having.

I'm going to go through the draft classes in more detail, but I strongly suspect that trying to treat this one in exactly the same way as the Four Per Franchise game would be a mistake.

Maybe. But if you go back far enough to say post merger with a 2 per class rule, there would be what, over 75 all-stars available? There's plenty to go around with 16 players, possibly less. Some of them aren't that useful of picks but there are also non all-stars like Conley, Gobert, etc. to make up for it

[Fadeaway_J]

I meant it the other way, I don't think there's enough good players ruled out with 3 all-stars per draft and 5 total. Going back to 84 would just make the concept even more of just a normal draft with a minor tweak here and there (although 85 and 87 are probably two of the drafts where some relevant names get ruled out)

I don't think it would be a minor tweak at all. You're focusing a lot on removing stars which is fine, but those stars aren't going to be replaced by viable supporting players in a lot of cases due to the draft class restriction. A draft like 2000 for example has one player who might normally be taken (Mike Miller) and even then he's borderline. 1990 has Payton and Kukoc and not much else. So when you limit it to two stars from each draft and remove guys like Allen, Barkley, etc, are you going to make that up with Kenyon Martin in 2000 or Michael Finley in 1995? Nope, you'll be stuck with far less star power and a bunch of role players that nobody would actually be interested in having.

I'm going to go through the draft classes in more detail, but I strongly suspect that trying to treat this one in exactly the same way as the Four Per Franchise game would be a mistake.

Maybe. But if you go back far enough to say post merger with a 2 per class rule, there would be what, over 75 all-stars available? There's plenty to go around with 16 players, possibly less.

The problem as I said before is not the number of stars, it's the players that you will have to pick around those stars. Going post-merger now introduces a bunch of support pieces that most of us aren't familiar with to complicate matters further.

It's important to note, just because there's no restriction doesn't mean people are going to be taking four All-Stars from every draft. In fact, I've looked at all the drafts from 1984 on and I see a number of cases where the number of desirable All-Stars ranges from two to none at all. Hell, some don't even have four All-Stars to choose from.

[Laimbeer]

You guys gotta give me some feedback on the stair step. The more I think about it, the more I like it. You'd have to plan your route and would need to take players of consequence in later rounds, I think.

To me that seems like too much of a restriction on team-building strategy. For example, if I take Shaq first, I'm pretty much locked into a conventional two-big alignment unless I take a bench player with my second pick. And from a talent perspective, taking a "regular sized" PG early on would be hard to justify given the links you have to make.

Which to me is sort of the point. Taking certain players first opens different paths. We wouldn't be building teams in conventional ways. You'd have to consider that before selecting him.

I just think games get a lot more interesting when we have to think a lot harder in the early rounds, the later rounds matter more than they usually do, and there are a wider range of possible outcomes for our teams.

[Dr Positivity]

To piggyback off roddy's idea, how about 8 team pods that are assigned 8 franchises. Each team has to take one player from each franchise.

Or a draft where everyone has to draft 1 player from each of Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Warriors, Sixers, Pistons, Suns, Blazers - or whatever 8 teams is determined to have the best pool. We could also have 9 teams but you are allowed to pass on one, which would give people a little more flexibility

I'm thinking about starting this as the next game unless Laimbeer wants to do the stair step. Any disagreement on which 8 teams should be picked? (maybe Rockets instead of Blazer or Suns) If there has to be 16 players from each franchise taken, I figure having the eight most stacked franchises helps

[Fadeaway_J]

To piggyback off roddy's idea, how about 8 team pods that are assigned 8 franchises. Each team has to take one player from each franchise.

Or a draft where everyone has to draft 1 player from each of Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Warriors, Sixers, Pistons, Suns, Blazers - or whatever 8 teams is determined to have the best pool. We could also have 9 teams but you are allowed to pass on one, which would give people a little more flexibility

I'm thinking about starting this as the next game unless Laimbeer wants to do the stair step. Any disagreement on which 8 teams should be picked? (maybe Rockets instead of Blazer or Suns) If there has to be 16 players from each franchise taken, I figure having the eight most stacked franchises helps

What time frame are you looking at? That would affect which franchises are considered the most stacked.

[wackbone]

To piggyback off roddy's idea, how about 8 team pods that are assigned 8 franchises. Each team has to take one player from each franchise.

Or a draft where everyone has to draft 1 player from each of Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Warriors, Sixers, Pistons, Suns, Blazers - or whatever 8 teams is determined to have the best pool. We could also have 9 teams but you are allowed to pass on one, which would give people a little more flexibility

I'm thinking about starting this as the next game unless Laimbeer wants to do the stair step. Any disagreement on which 8 teams should be picked? (maybe Rockets instead of Blazer or Suns) If there has to be 16 players from each franchise taken, I figure having the eight most stacked franchises helps

Depending on the years we would be using, I would rather use the Heat and/or Rockets over the Blazers for sure, and possibly also the Suns. Lakers, Celtics, Spurs, Warriors, Sixers, and Pistons should all be definitely in, with the Rockets as my next team up, and the Heat/Suns/Bulls/Jazz in contention for the final spot(s). Again, it heavily depends on the time period being used. I for one have become exhausted from the high amounts of 90s to present games recently, but we are collectively much more comfortable drafting people we have watched. Post-Merger would certainly increase the talent pool, especially for a team like the Sixers who would otherwise be pretty shallow. If we do Post-Merger than the Blazers would also be in contention.