BaTATAS 1.0: DISCUSSION THREAD 1 - LOCK PLEASE!!!

[LBPTarHeel27]

Updated the picks and posted the trade in the draft thread in the 2nd post.

[LBPTarHeel27]

Also just updated the google spreadsheet.

[EArl]

An interesting idea I just came up with to spice up the end of this draft a bit more...

Technically, there are 300 players that can be drafted. As of now, with 20 teams and 10 rounds for players...we will draft 200 of those 300, leaving a rather large pool of players.

In past B-a-T's there is a FA period where you get to round out your roster.

How bout something like this...and let me know what you think...

We perform a silent auction for the remaining All-Stars. Every team is given a budget of $100 to spend on FA's. They E-mail me with a list of 4 players they are interested in, two of which will round out your 12 man roster (instead of 10, where it is now). You bid a certain amount towards each player. based on how much you want them. If you outbid all of the other owners to get a player, they are yours. With 100 players remaining, this would mean that we would be selecting an additional 40 of them. Everyone would have a list of those 100 players at this point, as well.



It would create an interesting wrinkle, in terms of depth and additional strategy. You could go hard for who you think is the BPA still available or you could play it smart, bidding high for the next step down...knowing there is a much better chance you will land them.

At this point, this is just a discussion about the idea...let me know what you think or how it could be improved.

I'm all for this, but what if two people offer the same amount to the same player?

[Grinditout]

An interesting idea I just came up with to spice up the end of this draft a bit more...

Technically, there are 300 players that can be drafted. As of now, with 20 teams and 10 rounds for players...we will draft 200 of those 300, leaving a rather large pool of players.

In past B-a-T's there is a FA period where you get to round out your roster.

How bout something like this...and let me know what you think...

We perform a silent auction for the remaining All-Stars. Every team is given a budget of $100 to spend on FA's. They E-mail me with a list of 4 players they are interested in, two of which will round out your 12 man roster (instead of 10, where it is now). You bid a certain amount towards each player. based on how much you want them. If you outbid all of the other owners to get a player, they are yours. With 100 players remaining, this would mean that we would be selecting an additional 40 of them. Everyone would have a list of those 100 players at this point, as well.

It would create an interesting wrinkle, in terms of depth and additional strategy. You could go hard for who you think is the BPA still available or you could play it smart, bidding high for the next step down...knowing there is a much better chance you will land them.

At this point, this is just a discussion about the idea...let me know what you think or how it could be improved.

How would you decide ties? It sounds interesting.

[LBPTarHeel27]

An interesting idea I just came up with to spice up the end of this draft a bit more...

Technically, there are 300 players that can be drafted. As of now, with 20 teams and 10 rounds for players...we will draft 200 of those 300, leaving a rather large pool of players.

In past B-a-T's there is a FA period where you get to round out your roster.

How bout something like this...and let me know what you think...

We perform a silent auction for the remaining All-Stars. Every team is given a budget of $100 to spend on FA's. They E-mail me with a list of 4 players they are interested in, two of which will round out your 12 man roster (instead of 10, where it is now). You bid a certain amount towards each player. based on how much you want them. If you outbid all of the other owners to get a player, they are yours. With 100 players remaining, this would mean that we would be selecting an additional 40 of them. Everyone would have a list of those 100 players at this point, as well.



It would create an interesting wrinkle, in terms of depth and additional strategy. You could go hard for who you think is the BPA still available or you could play it smart, bidding high for the next step down...knowing there is a much better chance you will land them.

At this point, this is just a discussion about the idea...let me know what you think or how it could be improved.

I'm all for this, but what if two people offer the same amount to the same player?

Duel to the death?

I dunno...I think the odds of that happening are extremely low, outside of the cases where someone may bid the most they can for one player and so does someone else. But it is a valid question...

We could say whoever had the lower pick in the 1st round of the draft would win the tie?

[EArl]

An interesting idea I just came up with to spice up the end of this draft a bit more...

Technically, there are 300 players that can be drafted. As of now, with 20 teams and 10 rounds for players...we will draft 200 of those 300, leaving a rather large pool of players.

In past B-a-T's there is a FA period where you get to round out your roster.

How bout something like this...and let me know what you think...

We perform a silent auction for the remaining All-Stars. Every team is given a budget of $100 to spend on FA's. They E-mail me with a list of 4 players they are interested in, two of which will round out your 12 man roster (instead of 10, where it is now). You bid a certain amount towards each player. based on how much you want them. If you outbid all of the other owners to get a player, they are yours. With 100 players remaining, this would mean that we would be selecting an additional 40 of them. Everyone would have a list of those 100 players at this point, as well.



It would create an interesting wrinkle, in terms of depth and additional strategy. You could go hard for who you think is the BPA still available or you could play it smart, bidding high for the next step down...knowing there is a much better chance you will land them.

At this point, this is just a discussion about the idea...let me know what you think or how it could be improved.

I'm all for this, but what if two people offer the same amount to the same player?

Duel to the death?

I dunno...I think the odds of that happening are extremely low, outside of the cases where someone may bid the most they can for one player and so does someone else. But it is a valid question...

We could say whoever had the lower pick in the 1st round of the draft would win the tie?

You can also use a randomizer.
http://www.random.org/lists/

[Grinditout]

How about instead of players sending in a list of 4, we do it by rounds. Everybody sends their first choice in round 1, then people that weren't lucky enough to get their top guy resend another player until thy get a pick. Then round 2 starts, etc

That way you don't get all confused with the lists.

[EArl]

Multiple sources say the Lakers rejected the Bulls offer for their 36th pick.

[Coaster80]

Sources are saying that while the Houston Rockets are not actively shopping Michael Jordan, they are willing to entertain trade proposals.

[LBPTarHeel27]

Multiple sources say the Lakers rejected the Bulls offer for their 36th pick.

Don't f*** with the Bulls....

[LBPTarHeel27]

How about instead of players sending in a list of 4, we do it by rounds. Everybody sends their first choice in round 1, then people that weren't lucky enough to get their top guy resend another player until thy get a pick. Then round 2 starts, etc

That way you don't get all confused with the lists.

That is essentially how it was presented, no?

You would send a list of 4 broken down by priority, or round, so...

1. Player W ($60)
2. Player X ($20)
3. Player Y ($15)
4. Player Z ($5)

It would just be a lot quicker of a process. Maybe I misunderstood you?

[spree8]

Multiple sources say the Lakers rejected the Bulls offer for their 36th pick.

[Grinditout]

How about instead of players sending in a list of 4, we do it by rounds. Everybody sends their first choice in round 1, then people that weren't lucky enough to get their top guy resend another player until thy get a pick. Then round 2 starts, etc

That way you don't get all confused with the lists.

That is essentially how it was presented, no?

You would send a list of 4 broken down by priority, or round, so...

1. Player W ($60)
2. Player X ($20)
3. Player Y ($15)
4. Player Z ($5)

It would just be a lot quicker of a process. Maybe I misunderstood you?

My idea was basically to eliminate the lists because I think it might be confusing for you to try and look at everyone's list and comparing them, while doing it a single player at a time would be easier. But whatever works for everyone is fine with me.

[LBPTarHeel27]

How about instead of players sending in a list of 4, we do it by rounds. Everybody sends their first choice in round 1, then people that weren't lucky enough to get their top guy resend another player until thy get a pick. Then round 2 starts, etc

That way you don't get all confused with the lists.

That is essentially how it was presented, no?

You would send a list of 4 broken down by priority, or round, so...

1. Player W ($60)
2. Player X ($20)
3. Player Y ($15)
4. Player Z ($5)

It would just be a lot quicker of a process. Maybe I misunderstood you?

My idea was basically to eliminate the lists because I think it might be confusing for you to try and look at everyone's list and comparing them, while doing it a single player at a time would be easier. But whatever works for everyone is fine with me.

Spreadsheets are a beautiful thing. Thank you google docs.

[Manhattan Project]

Wilt was an interesting choice, mainly because he retired after the 72-73 season. We're essentially looking at a three year player.

[Grinditout]

That is essentially how it was presented, no?

You would send a list of 4 broken down by priority, or round, so...

1. Player W ($60)
2. Player X ($20)
3. Player Y ($15)
4. Player Z ($5)

It would just be a lot quicker of a process. Maybe I misunderstood you?

My idea was basically to eliminate the lists because I think it might be confusing for you to try and look at everyone's list and comparing them, while doing it a single player at a time would be easier. But whatever works for everyone is fine with me.

Spreadsheets are a beautiful thing. Thank you google docs.

Haha, touché

[Grinditout]

Wilt was an interesting choice, mainly because he retired after the 72-73 season. We're essentially looking at a three year player.

Actually according to my understanding and what LBP has said, we're looking at the player's peak/prime years even if they were before 1970. So Wilt gets his prime years in this one.

[LBPTarHeel27]

Wilt was an interesting choice, mainly because he retired after the 72-73 season. We're essentially looking at a three year player.

Actually according to my understanding and what LBP has said, we're looking at the player's peak/prime years even if they were before 1970. So Wilt gets his prime years in this one.

Correct. I said before that as long as a player made a All-Star appearance from 1970 on, their "good years" are all in consideration.

[Manhattan Project]

Yeah just went back and read the thread, I assumed we were disregarding any years prior to 1970. With that being said, Wilt is an obvious choice.

[Grinditout]

I'm surprised one guy is falling, whoever picks him up eventually will be getting good value. That's all I will say lol.