|
Post by Gerald on Apr 19, 2008 22:03:35 GMT -5
If this passes, then the rookie draft order will be the same as the regular draft. And we could do it next month. Keeper round status has yet to be determined if this passes.
|
|
|
Post by Thunderstruck on Apr 20, 2008 0:31:31 GMT -5
Befor I vote I would like to have the GURs and all that figured out first. I know Im an asshole! Sorry G!
|
|
|
Post by Mudslingers on Apr 20, 2008 9:08:51 GMT -5
I aggree, i just think its a ploy so people with no picks in the first 5 rounds of the draft can get more players for there stacked teams, i think if you vote yes or no you should state why you aggree or disagree. Its just my opion.
|
|
|
Post by Thunderstruck on Apr 20, 2008 20:55:31 GMT -5
After a little thought Im going to vote no. Heres why... I think with out a rookie draft it keeps the pool of talent in the draft alot deeper. Which I feel keeps this league more competitive.
|
|
|
Post by Gerald on Apr 20, 2008 23:00:00 GMT -5
Well it's not going to pass anyways, so i'll stop racking my brains on how to make it work with the GUR and everything else.
|
|
|
Post by The Chicken on Apr 21, 2008 1:01:53 GMT -5
Gerald it is not fair to implement this change for this year. People have strategized and made trades without knowing this proposed rule.
I propse we implement next year..
I think all teams will agree to this if there were ZERO implications for this year.
As for Thunder's comment - It actually increases the pool of players and talent if some of your protected players have to be rookies.
lets say 4 protected players (non rookies) and 2 protected rookies.
Now you are guaranteed a highly touted rookie and you are guaranteed more talent in the normal pool
CHICKENS
|
|
|
Post by nkullar on Apr 21, 2008 13:24:27 GMT -5
I originally voted no, but I actually like Chicken's idea of reducing the protected players (non rookie) from 5 to 4, and then forcing at least 1 rookie protected. The fewer the non-rookie protected, the more competitive the league is. It places a higher emphasis on the draft as well. And by protecting 1 rookie, it forces owners to use a little intuition and strategy. Teams will be required to either take a chance on a future superstar (e.g. Calvin Johnson) or take a less risky approach by protecting a player with less upside but decent stats in rookie year (e.g. someone like James Jones).
Thus, I don't think the commish should drop this agenda yet. I would break it down into 3 seperate changes as follows. 1) Whether we should continue with 5 protected vs 4 non-rookie and 1 rookie protected; 2) whether their should be 1 draft vs 2 drafts with 1 for rookie in May and the other for non-rookie in August; and 3) if we protect 1 (or 2) rookie(s), how do we assign GUR to those players.
At this point, I would recommend proceeding with more discussion and input on how this could work. We can try to reach some consensus than take a final vote on the matter later.
I think the vote was taken prematurely because their was no discussion on the matter and their was not enough interpretation on how it would be implemented.
I also agree with Chicken that any changes not be implemented until the 2009 offseason.
P-I-M-P
|
|
|
Post by Gerald on Apr 21, 2008 14:21:22 GMT -5
I'll revise it and we'll do another vote on it next month sometime. I like the idea, and i like just rookie drafts. So we'll see what happens then.
|
|
|
Post by Mudslingers on Apr 21, 2008 14:57:43 GMT -5
I like the idea, but i made trades for the old rules, but i think it could work. I would make the GURs for the round there taken, if you have the first pick its GUR 1 second pick GUR 2 and so on till 12. Then the second round all of them GUR 16. Before the veteran draft if you dont want your pick you can drop the player and he can be drafted in the veteran draft. The first pick in the rookie draft is always a stud so GUR 1 is were it should be, and the next best player is GUR 2. What do you think. Plus you keep your two rookies the year there drafted, the GURs kick in the second year.
|
|