D2D trash talk and draft comments thread

got it. that puts Rosco at 31 players, need to drop one.

I will drop Chris Denorfia-OF

I’d like to see a change to the 2nd season divisional alignment to see teams distributed in a serpentine manner based on the results of the first season:
East - 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, 24
Central - 2, 7, 10, 15, 18, 23
Midwest - 3, 6, 11, 14, 19, 22
West - 4, 5, 12, 13, 20, 21
(The numbers represent team rankings in the 1st season.)
Here is the current format:
East - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Central - 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
Midwest - 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
West - 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24

Since the rosters don’t change much between the two seasons, under the current format the East division ends up with (arguably) the best 6 teams and the West division has the worst 6 teams. The Central and Midwest fall somewhere in between, but still with a weighted hierarchy. This leads to two problems:
1. Superior teams are left out of the play-offs in the 2nd season while inferior teams are in.
2. Several higher ranked teams will produce lower than expected win totals in the 2nd season due to playing more games against other good teams caused by the imbalanced schedule. This reduces their overall win total from the two seasons combined, giving them a higher draft selection for the following year. Conversely, lower ranked teams improve their win totals and drop their draft position, making it more difficult to improve their team for the next year.

I realize that the benefit of the current method is that it gives all teams a fighting chance in the 2nd season of any year. There isn’t much worse than knowing your team is going to struggle all season just to remain respectable, as you spend that $20 S-O-M credit. This is a valid point. On the other hand, the nature of this league is that it’s a long-term process and commitment. You have to ask yourself I guess, would the Cleveland Browns rather have the first draft pick, or be put into a division with San Francisco, Jacksonville and the Bears where they can win some games and have a shot at the play-offs?

Year-to-year, the 1st season divisional assignments would remain the same as the current method. With more turnover in players, and fluctuations in player performance, it makes the most sense. This proposal is only for the 2nd season of each year, where the rosters are basically the same for both seasons.

Comments? Support? Snickering? Your thoughts are all welcomed.

I support this proposal. I asked Guy to post it here to discuss in case there are unseen flaws or a huge dissension to the idea. I will send it out for a vote next week some time. To change the rule it requires a super-majority (or 16 votes out of 24 owners)


I especially like that he looked at it from both sides. The winning teams are hurt in that they end up playing in the same division against each other in the second season, which means a couple will lose more. Meanwhile the weaker teams are hurt in that by lumping the best teams in a division and the weakest teams in a division some of those weak teams end up winning a decent amount of games in the second season, thus skewing their draft order for the next year's draft. They really need the better draft pick, but suddenly they are getting a decent # of wins in the second season. Likewise some good teams are losing more in the second season and thus "helping" their draft order for the next season's draft. This is the best selling point to this proposal in my opinion. It makes sure that the weaker teams do indeed end up with the better draft picks the next year.


thanks,

Paul

I like this. The idea in my mind is to get the best 8 teams into the playoff and that almost never happens with the other setup.

I think there is a danger of creating a greater separation between the haves and have-nots which could lead too even more tanking because in the old format you have a greater percentage of the league trying to win in season two. But i don't necessarily consider those things a negative.

I vote yes...plus we can always change it back if there are major problems.

for now, just discuss this here. no need to vote yet. I'll send out the proposal in a league email next week to be voted on.

The only concern I can maybe see, and it really revolves around 1 team, is that the 24th place team is stuck in a division with the 1st place team. The easy solution would be just to not finish last, but it's also still quite equitable and fair to reverse the serpentine direction for the last 2 rounds of team distribution.

Here's what I proposed above:
East - 1, 8, 9, 16, 17, 24
Central - 2, 7, 10, 15, 18, 23
Midwest - 3, 6, 11, 14, 19, 22
West - 4, 5, 12, 13, 20, 21

But instead you could do this:
East - 1, 8, 9, 16, 20, 21
Central - 2, 7, 10, 15, 19, 22
Midwest - 3, 6, 11, 14, 18, 23
West - 4, 5, 12, 13, 17, 24
It still distributes the top and bottom teams through the 4 divisions, but doesn't completely crush any hope that team 24 might have.

Personally I have no preference between these 2 methods, because both achieve what I'm trying to accomplish.

Either way- The total divisional competition for the 24th team is virtually the same- so may as well go with the easier first version- This is much better than lumping the teams together by record.

I agree, might as well go with the first method. no need to put multiple options out here as we can only vote on 1 at a time anyway. need 16 votes, don't want people voting against an option "to get to a different option" of the same type.

I vote YES on Falcon's Divisional Re-Assignment proposal. Maybe it's not perfect but it's an improvement on what is. That's good enough.

again, I will send out an email for vote next week. this is just discussion time. I'm fine with you guys giving your opinion and saying "I vote yes" and showing your support for the proposal, but make sure that when I send out the email, you reply with your vote at that time. I'm not taking votes on the ILC and email, just through email.