Future Draft Games

[Fadeaway_J]

I'd throw out 50M with some of the bargains out there?

That seems low, I mean Lebron made 33 himself last year. A full salary cap would be fine since if it's just 17-18 players the talent pool is going to get drained for the normal reasons. A player like Jokic's salary is a crazy bargain but it's part of the strategy whether to take him over the best players in Rd 1

A full salary cap seems like no constraint at all. The elite big salary guys will naturally get divided and people will avoid bad contracts.

Lots of non-stars have big salaries. Joe Ingles cost Utah $14M last season. And it's harder to avoid "bad" contracts in such a restricted pool.

The full salary cap is too high for just eight players, but $50M is way too low. I'd probably split the difference at around $75M.

[Laimbeer]

That seems low, I mean Lebron made 33 himself last year. A full salary cap would be fine since if it's just 17-18 players the talent pool is going to get drained for the normal reasons. A player like Jokic's salary is a crazy bargain but it's part of the strategy whether to take him over the best players in Rd 1

A full salary cap seems like no constraint at all. The elite big salary guys will naturally get divided and people will avoid bad contracts.

Lots of non-stars have big salaries. Joe Ingles cost Utah $14M last season. And it's harder to avoid "bad" contracts in such a restricted pool.

The full salary cap is too high for just eight players, but $50M is way too low. I'd probably split the difference at around $75M.

Looking at the top salaries for elite players, I like $75M a lot. If either of you guys or anyone else wants to run this feel free.

[LA Bird]

Auction drafts have had trouble getting sign ups because of people having commitments that day.

I think the one Bird refers to is a group of players made available each day and everyone has 24 hours to submit a sealed bid, then the next day the players are awarded to the high bidder, another group is up, etc. It's actually ideal in terms of getting everyone on the same page from a time standpoint.

That could work but 1 pick a day and an 8 day draft, even 5 with no bench is pretty drawn out. I would suggest there also has to be a starting bid on players. Otherwise with the first group of players the logical move is to bid $1 on every player and you're guaranteed a $1 MVP.

As previously discussed with Fade, a minimum bid is unnecessary. You can bid $1 on a MVP if you want but as long as somebody else bid more, then you aren't getting him. You aren't guaranteed a player just because you bid on them first. The price would be determined by market demand and high demand = high price.

I'll come up with some guidelines to better explain what I had in mind for the auction

Edit:

• Depending on the number of participants, we pick a suitable era period (eg. 1990 onward)
• Each team is given $100 to bid on players
• We will have 2 bidding rounds per day. It would be less time requirement than a normal draft since you just need to send your bid and then check back 12 hours later to see which players you won and who is still available.
• Every single player from the chosen time period is available for bidding in round 1.
• Teams can bid on as many players as they want as long as they can afford all the bids. If the total bid exceeds the money they have, the lowest priced bids are removed by default.
• In each round, each team PMs their list of bids to the game commissioner. (The commish himself PMs his list in advance to a non-participant before the start of each round)
• At the end of the round, all the bids are publicized. Each player goes to whichever team bid the most for them. The players who weren't bid on in a round is available in the next round.
• In the event of a tie in bids: If all the teams bid $20 on Jordan, then nobody gets him. Jordan is left to the next round with a minimum bid of $20
• In the event of a team winning more than 8 players: If a team already has 7 players and they won the bid for 3 more players, they get whoever they bid the highest amount on. If there is a tie (eg. they bid $5 on all 3 players), then the bids are all voided and those 3 players either go the next highest bidder or next round if there are no other bids.

Thoughts?

[Laimbeer]

I think the one Bird refers to is a group of players made available each day and everyone has 24 hours to submit a sealed bid, then the next day the players are awarded to the high bidder, another group is up, etc. It's actually ideal in terms of getting everyone on the same page from a time standpoint.

That could work but 1 pick a day and an 8 day draft, even 5 with no bench is pretty drawn out. I would suggest there also has to be a starting bid on players. Otherwise with the first group of players the logical move is to bid $1 on every player and you're guaranteed a $1 MVP.

As previously discussed with Fade, a minimum bid is unnecessary. You can bid $1 on a MVP if you want but as long as somebody else bid more, then you aren't getting him. You aren't guaranteed a player just because you bid on them first. The price would be determined by market demand and high demand = high price.

I'll come up with some guidelines to better explain what I had in mind for the auction

Edit:

• Depending on the number of participants, we pick a suitable era period (eg. 1990 onward)
• Each team is given $100 to bid on players
• We will have 2 bidding rounds per day. It would be less time requirement than a normal draft since you just need to send your bid and then check back 12 hours later to see which players you won and who is still available.
• Every single player from the chosen time period is available for bidding in round 1.
• Teams can bid on as many players as they want as long as they can afford all the bids. If the total bid exceeds the money they have, the lowest priced bids are removed by default.
• In each round, each team PMs their list of bids to the game commissioner. (The commish himself PMs his list in advance to a non-participant before the start of each round)
• At the end of the round, all the bids are publicized. Each player goes to whichever team bid the most for them. The players who weren't bid on in a round is available in the next round.
• In the event of a tie in bids: If all the teams bid $20 on Jordan, then nobody gets him. Jordan is left to the next round with a minimum bid of $20
• In the event of a team winning more than 8 players: If a team already has 7 players and they won the bid for 3 more players, they get whoever they bid the highest amount on. If there is a tie (eg. they bid $5 on all 3 players), then the bids are all voided and those 3 players either go the next highest bidder or next round if there are no other bids.

Thoughts?

How can every player be available in round one?

I'd tweak it to current players and one round per day. I found that more interesting as you don't have all the fall backs you would have in this pool.

[LA Bird]

How can every player be available in round one?

I'd tweak it to current players and one round per day. I found that more interesting as you don't have all the fall backs you would have in this pool.

Is there any reason why every player can't be available in round 1? It's not a live auction where it would be too big of a mess to keep track of multiple ongoing bid wars. Sealed bids are very straightforward - just send the bid and then wait until the end to tally up all the bids and see who won which player.

I personally thought dividing the players into arbitrary rounds was what led to the failure of previous auction games.

[Dr Positivity]

So if I understand correctly you can draft your whole team on the first day of bidding? This seems pretty messy as you don't know which players you get and whether they will fit.

I prefer either 1 hr draft or group of players listed each day for 5 days (no bench) with minimum bids

[Laimbeer]

I was thinking of a pair of players per decade, 1980s onwards.

We've done that, but how about with a twist?

In the last one people were able to take their top options from one or two decades, so their teams didn't really cross eras. Since people like drafting multiple players at times, how about this -

Four rounds, each round you select two players from the same decade. You must select a pair from all four decades in the course of the draft. In each pair, you get a star player (no accolade or FGA restriction) and a support player (10 or less FGAs). Your four star players must play 36 minutes. No team FGA limit.

The teams would be pretty stacked but we'd have a true cross era game and there would be the added strategy of which decades you draw on first.

[migya]

I was thinking of a pair of players per decade, 1980s onwards.

We've done that, but how about with a twist?

In the last one people were able to take their top options from one or two decades, so their teams didn't really cross eras. Since people like drafting multiple players at times, how about this -

Four rounds, each round you select two players from the same decade. You must select a pair from all four decades in the course of the draft. In each pair, you get a star player (no accolade or FGA restriction) and a support player (10 or less FGAs). Your four star players must play 36 minutes. No team FGA limit.

The teams would be pretty stacked but we'd have a true cross era game and there would be the added strategy of which decades you draw on first.

Sounds very good, definitely a good strategy with 4 stars and 4 support or even non star players. I think 8 rounds with only 1 player picked each round is more even for all.

[Laimbeer]

I was thinking of a pair of players per decade, 1980s onwards.

We've done that, but how about with a twist?

In the last one people were able to take their top options from one or two decades, so their teams didn't really cross eras. Since people like drafting multiple players at times, how about this -

Four rounds, each round you select two players from the same decade. You must select a pair from all four decades in the course of the draft. In each pair, you get a star player (no accolade or FGA restriction) and a support player (10 or less FGAs). Your four star players must play 36 minutes. No team FGA limit.

The teams would be pretty stacked but we'd have a true cross era game and there would be the added strategy of which decades you draw on first.

Sounds very good, definitely a good strategy with 4 stars and 4 support or even non star players. I think 8 rounds with only 1 player picked each round is more even for all.

Does a support player make that much difference? We could put a further restriction on them - it just occurred to me Wilt could get drafted as one.

[Dr Positivity]

I would forget the 10 FGA restriction and just make it so stars have no restriction and the support player is a non all-star

[Laimbeer]

I would forget the 10 FGA restriction and just make it so stars have no restriction and the support player is a non all-star

Yeah, same. I guess I have no issue with someone grabbing a high scorer who never even made all-star. I know from past games you won't get a real impact guy from non all-stars, though some are good.

[Fadeaway_J]

I would forget the 10 FGA restriction and just make it so stars have no restriction and the support player is a non all-star

Yeah, same. I guess I have no issue with someone grabbing a high scorer who never even made all-star. I know from past games you won't get a real impact guy from non all-stars, though some are good.

Why no team FGA limit though?

[Laimbeer]

I would forget the 10 FGA restriction and just make it so stars have no restriction and the support player is a non all-star

Yeah, same. I guess I have no issue with someone grabbing a high scorer who never even made all-star. I know from past games you won't get a real impact guy from non all-stars, though some are good.

Why no team FGA limit though?

I'd like everyone to get as high an impact guy as possible from each decade. The prior game had people drawing a disproportionate share of FGAs/star power from some decades. I thought about a FGA limit on each decade, and maybe a minimum but that could get a little messy.

[8on]

I like the talent level of the Choose Your Accolades Draft. Good to see different names. Maybe one or two All-NBA guys per team could be a nice change of pace

[Fadeaway_J]

Yeah, same. I guess I have no issue with someone grabbing a high scorer who never even made all-star. I know from past games you won't get a real impact guy from non all-stars, though some are good.

Why no team FGA limit though?

I'd like everyone to get as high an impact guy as possible from each decade. The prior game had people drawing a disproportionate share of FGAs/star power from some decades. I thought about a FGA limit on each decade, and maybe a minimum but that could get a little messy.

We're only picking one star from each decade. I don't see why that should be a major concern.

[migya]

I like the talent level of the Choose Your Accolades Draft. Good to see different names. Maybe one or two All-NBA guys per team could be a nice change of pace

So do I. The way to do that is to have a restriction per decade, like 21fga for 2 players from each decade.

[Fadeaway_J]

I like the talent level of the Choose Your Accolades Draft. Good to see different names. Maybe one or two All-NBA guys per team could be a nice change of pace

So do I. The way to do that is to have a restriction per decade, like 21fga for 2 players from each decade.

That's too low. You're basically telling me I can't pick MJ with that rule.

Just use the usual 85 FGA limit and it should be fine I think.

[8on]

I like the talent level of the Choose Your Accolades Draft. Good to see different names. Maybe one or two All-NBA guys per team could be a nice change of pace

So do I. The way to do that is to have a restriction per decade, like 21fga for 2 players from each decade.

That's too low. You're basically telling me I can't pick MJ with that rule.

Just use the usual 85 FGA limit and it should be fine I think.

more restrictive games would be nice. getting tired of seeing the same first round picks. i liked the last several weeks worth of games for that reason.

[Fadeaway_J]

So do I. The way to do that is to have a restriction per decade, like 21fga for 2 players from each decade.

That's too low. You're basically telling me I can't pick MJ with that rule.

Just use the usual 85 FGA limit and it should be fine I think.

more restrictive games would be nice. getting tired of seeing the same first round picks. i liked the last several weeks worth of games for that reason.

MJ was just an example. If you want, you can replace him with someone less popular like Rose or C-Webb. A FGA limit like that is pretty much forcing you to pick certain types of players.

[migya]

That's too low. You're basically telling me I can't pick MJ with that rule.

Just use the usual 85 FGA limit and it should be fine I think.

more restrictive games would be nice. getting tired of seeing the same first round picks. i liked the last several weeks worth of games for that reason.

MJ was just an example. If you want, you can replace him with someone less popular like Rose or C-Webb. A FGA limit like that is pretty much forcing you to pick certain types of players.

Can have up to 5fga taken from one decade to give to another but it makes each participant pick the same level from each decade.