Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:Honestly I think that tanking IS where the worst trades happen. Yeah occasionally a team mis-judges their future and trades a pick that ends up good, but most of the terrible trades we've had to me are people dropping really good players for next to nothing to top teams because they want to lose. It bleeds into the inflation issue too, one reason so many good players go cheap in FA is that there are teams intentionally loading their roster with bad players to tank.

Changing the lottery would only further encourage people to make bad deals and strip down their rosters to nothing. Teams in the middle get stuck because they try to get better by trading a draft pick, only for the top teams to trade every pick they have and pick up top level talent at every position because the tanking teams want to lose more.

Honestly I think bringing in the Stepien rule would help FAR more than changing the lottery. Prevents mid-level teams from burning too many picks, stop top teams from picking up everyone cheap.

I get your argument, but now I can not trade some guys that I would normally trade knowing that I’ll be at the 6 or 7 spot of lottery (as opposed to trading them and being 1 projected lottery) and can still end up getting a top pick.

Again it is the least incentive for the most unfortunate or least talented teams. Which makes no sense. The best way to get the bottom feeders out of the bottom is with a top pick in the draft.

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:Honestly I think that tanking IS where the worst trades happen. Yeah occasionally a team mis-judges their future and trades a pick that ends up good, but most of the terrible trades we've had to me are people dropping really good players for next to nothing to top teams because they want to lose. It bleeds into the inflation issue too, one reason so many good players go cheap in FA is that there are teams intentionally loading their roster with bad players to tank.

Changing the lottery would only further encourage people to make bad deals and strip down their rosters to nothing. Teams in the middle get stuck because they try to get better by trading a draft pick, only for the top teams to trade every pick they have and pick up top level talent at every position because the tanking teams want to lose more.

Honestly I think bringing in the Stepien rule would help FAR more than changing the lottery. Prevents mid-level teams from burning too many picks, stop top teams from picking up everyone cheap.

I get your argument, but now I can not trade some guys that I would normally trade knowing that I’ll be at the 6 or 7 spot of lottery (as opposed to trading them and being 1 projected lottery) and can still end up getting a top pick.

Again it is the least incentive for the most unfortunate or least talented teams. Which makes no sense. The best way to get the bottom feeders out of the bottom is with a top pick in the draft.

I mean... good? Why should we incentivize stripping down a roster. Bottom feeders stay at the bottom because they strip down. With a couple top 7 picks and all your FA money you can easily build a competitive team. It's harder than getting lucky on a top player (though even then, plenty of guys drafted 5-7 end up better than guys who go #1 depending on the draft years, some are deep, some are weak, that's just luck).

Edit- we shouldn't WANT a league where half the teams aren't even making an effort to be good because they are chasing the worst roster, especially since most of the time even the #1 pick won't save them because all the talent is accumulating in the few teams trying to win. Being encouraged to keep some good players because you might still get the #1 pick and become competitive is good. Encouraging a race to put out the worst possible team is bad for the league.

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:

UOducksTK1 wrote:

Cellar-door wrote:Honestly I think that tanking IS where the worst trades happen. Yeah occasionally a team mis-judges their future and trades a pick that ends up good, but most of the terrible trades we've had to me are people dropping really good players for next to nothing to top teams because they want to lose. It bleeds into the inflation issue too, one reason so many good players go cheap in FA is that there are teams intentionally loading their roster with bad players to tank.

Changing the lottery would only further encourage people to make bad deals and strip down their rosters to nothing. Teams in the middle get stuck because they try to get better by trading a draft pick, only for the top teams to trade every pick they have and pick up top level talent at every position because the tanking teams want to lose more.

Honestly I think bringing in the Stepien rule would help FAR more than changing the lottery. Prevents mid-level teams from burning too many picks, stop top teams from picking up everyone cheap.

I get your argument, but now I can not trade some guys that I would normally trade knowing that I’ll be at the 6 or 7 spot of lottery (as opposed to trading them and being 1 projected lottery) and can still end up getting a top pick.

Again it is the least incentive for the most unfortunate or least talented teams. Which makes no sense. The best way to get the bottom feeders out of the bottom is with a top pick in the draft.

I mean... good? Why should we incentivize stripping down a roster. Bottom feeders stay at the bottom because they strip down. With a couple top 7 picks and all your FA money you can easily build a competitive team. It's harder than getting lucky on a top player (though even then, plenty of guys drafted 5-7 end up better than guys who go #1 depending on the draft years, some are deep, some are weak, that's just luck).

Edit- we shouldn't WANT a league where half the teams aren't even making an effort to be good because they are chasing the worst roster, especially since most of the time even the #1 pick won't save them because all the talent is accumulating in the few teams trying to win. Being encouraged to keep some good players because you might still get the #1 pick and become competitive is good. Encouraging a race to put out the worst possible team is bad for the league.

Yikes way to assume every bottom feeder is a result of stripping down. There's plenty of teams with just bad luck and never get off the ground. A lot of other teams have older teams that taper off and need to rebuild.

It's a pretty intolerant view to think people may not be at the bottom because of unfortunate situations. The assumption that everyone that has a poopy team wants that lifestyle and picked it out is a false narrative. Sometimes people need a helping hand to pick them out of the dump. Not to be told that they didn't try hard enough and that's why they can't succeed.

Tax the rich, and give to the poor. Don't live your life with one narrative but then not apply it to your sim league. That would be hypocritical!!

Craig wrote:Have you ever heard a convincing argument that differs from your own though?

UOducksTK1 wrote:Topic: Rating inflation

I feel like ratings haven't been too inflated up until maybe the last 5+ seasons or so. Drafts are a lot better and overall we have more stars, and the amount of depth in the league is very deep. There are players in FA right now that would have been starters a decade ago.

Personally, as ratings get inflated, my interest in any league generally dwindles. Naturally, sim leagues restart when rating inflation is so high (some people blame running out of draft names the reason for most league restarts, but my personal opinion is 80% of 'GMs losing of interest'/'league restarting' is due to inflation, not the names associated to players).

So I was curious, are there things we can do to help curb the problem? I had a random idea today of taking the current players in FA, and significantly dropping their ratings. That way, it doesn't hurt draft pick values. It might effect FA slightly, but there's still plenty of talent on rosters right now.

Personally it bothers me when guys like Bo Outlaw get MLE. And too much talent is available in leftover FA. Thoughts?

jibbajabba614 wrote: More rules to prevent tanking could be beneficial to the league

Boom wrote:

jibbajabba614 wrote: More rules to prevent tanking could be beneficial to the league

I think the rules are adequate. I just think there’s a segment of GMs that are casual players and don’t really know or care to make the moves to get somewhere.

jibbajabba614 wrote:And personally, I feel tanking is the main issue. I mean I arguably started the worst PG in the league (including free agency) and we were still 6th worst team…

And he still balled out for his ratings. So I don’t think inflation is all the problem. Heck Danny Manning went to pistons for pennies out the dollar when your considering he should of been a 50-90 million dollar man. So yeah I see why Bo got MLE.

More rules to prevent tanking could be beneficial to the league

DrBradBuss wrote:Just cause I like a little chaos, I hope that no one bails out the teams that are over or near the cap until after FA is done.

dd10snoop28 wrote:

DrBradBuss wrote:Just cause I like a little chaos, I hope that no one bails out the teams that are over or near the cap until after FA is done.

TRUTH but don't underestimate the nefariousness of those toeing the hard cap.