NLD 33

We "could" do a park draft before the regular live draft and the order could be based on record, best to worst. Whereas the live draft always starts with the worst record the park draft would reward the good teams. Additionally, I really don't think the slanted parks gives anyone a big advantage. Even if it does, field a good team, get a good park.

I don't know, it's kind of a tradeoff to have to take your park early if there is something you want and trying to guess at the parks is a part of the fun of the draft to me.

Plus, sometimes you don't the players you want for the park you start off targeting and have to adjust on the fly so I'm not sure if I'd be in favor honestly.

If we *do* decide to do it, I would suggest "bidding" draft picks for your park and the highest pick gets the park. That way you can get the park y ou want, but you have to pay for it. Seems more fair.

But, I would probably vote for leaving it the way it is although I'm not hard stuck on either way.

OK...doesn't make any sense to me at all but i'm ok either way.

Still not sure why *guessing* what parks guys will pick and when they'll pick them and adjusting is the highlight of the SOM season.

I love the challenge of everyone knowing everything from the start and drafting the best team based on that information, but maybe i'm just old fashioned that way.

Still need AT and Hawk to confirm partipation for NLD 33, but with 6 votes for $100m it looks like the cap is decided.

To re-cap the ballpark discussion, Corky has suggested that we consider some way of determining parks BEFORE we live draft players. Corky, Jeep, Joe and myself have chimed on this so far, and the options proposed are:

1) Do a live park draft prior to player draft using best to worst record from NLD32
2) As above but using worst to best record
3) As above but random draft order for park draft
4) Random parks allocation (trust me, this is challenging and fun)
5) Bidding draft picks for parks (perhaps Joe can explain this concept better)
6) Stay with traditional park selection method

It would be good to hear from others on this issue!

East
Stoney - IN 100m
Big M - IN - 100m
Semper - IN - 60 m
DJ - IN _ 100m

Central
Jeep - IN - 100m
Corky -IN 100M (I'd rather wait until the 15th also)
AT
Keyzick - In - 100m - after July 15 (or at least he doesn't have to pick until he's ready after July 15

West
Hawk
Big A - IN
JTJ - IN 60 let's do something different.
GB - IN - on the fence regarding cap

Pinged AT on FB. Hopefully he'll check in soon. Guess we could send Hawk another email....

So, bidding on parks would go something like this:

A manager "nominates" a park to be bid on by offering their 20th pick for it.
Others bid draft picks for it until everyone passes.
Whoever bid the highest pick gets the park.
The order of nomination can work in any of the ways you described for the other possibilties.

Pinged AT on FB. Hopefully he'll check in soon. Guess we could send Hawk another email....

So, bidding on parks would go something like this:

A manager "nominates" a park to be bid on by offering their 20th pick for it.
Others bid draft picks for it until everyone passes.
Whoever bid the highest pick gets the park.
The order of nomination can work in any of the ways you described for the other possibilties.

I'm OK with this proposal, if that's what people want to do. I like the drama of picking the ballpark as part of the live draft (i.e. the way we did it last time), but I can see how this can be frustrating if you end up losing out on a park that you were hoping for (like BigMahon last time). So the "bidding" for a park sounds like another interesting way to handle it, with more certainty of result. Works for me!
Geoff

OK, I've emailed AT. No response. Joe, I can't find Hawk's email. Would you mind pinging him?

As for changes, I'm not sensing much passion either way. We've had some interesting but disparate proposals. Not sure we've made any progress there though...

Big M,

Sent him one email already. I'll wait another day or two and send another and CC you this time.

Pinged AT again too.

Yeah, we'll need to get some chatter to confirm a change in picking parks.

For what its worth I like options 1-4 for the parks. If I had to pick one it would be option 2. Maybe we should all select the number of our choice and paste it next to our names on the sign up list. Hopefully we will get a majority with one of the options.

Chosing parks is not a big deal for me,

If I have to decide, i would favor number 4, then number 1.