1999 Draft Discussion

All Draft related information will be here

Moderators: UOducksTK1, Zyme, lukeyrid13, Oregon Ownage

User avatar
Craig
Senior
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2017 3:16 pm
GM: Phoenix Suns GM

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by Craig »

UOducksTK1 wrote:
Craig wrote:
UOducksTK1 wrote:
jibbajabba614 wrote:
lukeyrid13 wrote:
offtheheezy wrote:Baron Davis be disrespected by these ratings and notes :lol:
Matrix as well.

Both look super mediocre.
To be fair I had Baron as B- B- B- B- C B

And then people complained about rating inflation.

Damned if you do damned if you don’t
I don't think rating inflation is going to be fixed in the drafts. It can't be, and it would negatively effect everyone with picks moving forward.

A solution for inflation is beyond drafts. So you do you.
Spoken like someone planning to pick at the top of the draft for a while :lol:

Why would starting at the draft files not be helpful?
If you adjust draft files, you won't see even a slight impact for at least 4-5 seasons where there's a solid 20% of newly adjusted player ratings in the league. Probably a solid 8 seasons or so before it makes a big difference.

Additionally, it'll have a negative effect on drafting and trading. No one will want to trade for picks, which will significantly hurt draft picks. Additionally, it gives unfair advantage to teams with good players currently and no future picks. That would be a bigger problem than the inflation problem we have.
Ok but if you employ your other idea of adjusting the current players for an immediate impact and then tone down draft files to try & help it be more sustainable moving forward, doesn't that hit on both fronts?

I dunno I'm just dumb I guess, I'll leave it alone.
SUNS GM
Briezy
Five Star Recruit
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:04 pm
GM: Cleveland Cavaliers GM

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by Briezy »

jibbajabba614 wrote:I had Wally #2 on my list. I’d be a hypocrite to not get him for a mid teen pick
My roster is basically empty. I can afford to wait on these guys to pan out so the more shots I can take in this unpredictable draft the better lol. Hopefully we both get what we wanted.
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37688
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by UOducksTK1 »

Craig wrote:
Ok but if you employ your other idea of adjusting the current players for an immediate impact and then tone down draft files to try & help it be more sustainable moving forward, doesn't that hit on both fronts?

I dunno I'm just dumb I guess, I'll leave it alone.
Well yes of course if you did both. But I jibba felt pressured to adjust draft files now without any adjustments to players currently in the league.

You’re not dumb Craig, you’re above average for sure.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37688
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by UOducksTK1 »

I’m shopping my pick to a few GMs, so just waiting on responses.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
jibbajabba614
Senior
Posts: 2410
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 6:32 pm
GM: Milwaukee Bucks GM

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by jibbajabba614 »

Had a chance to read the whole discussion.


Honestly we should implement all these ideas for 3.0…

I personally think we should stop maybe in 2030. I think last time we played til 2040. It would be nice to go longer but by 2030 it was majority fake players.
User avatar
pistolpetejr
Senior
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:48 pm
GM: Los Angeles Clippers

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by pistolpetejr »

jibbajabba614 wrote:Had a chance to read the whole discussion.


Honestly we should implement all these ideas for 3.0…

I personally think we should stop maybe in 2030. I think last time we played til 2040. It would be nice to go longer but by 2030 it was majority fake players.
Fully agree about resetting earlier than last time.
It was part of the reason I left. It got quite boring after the Ingram-AD-Kawhi trio I had won like 6 chips total or something lol
---
Image

PistolPeteJR
User avatar
lukeyrid13
All-American
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
GM: Portland TrailBlazers

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by lukeyrid13 »

^ I agree on ending earlier
User avatar
jibbajabba614
Senior
Posts: 2410
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 6:32 pm
GM: Milwaukee Bucks GM

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by jibbajabba614 »

We could start earlier. I know it 1970 it was like 15 teams. But I’m pretty good at researching. Start from 1970 NBA/ABA players and work from college… might be fun to have Kareem in his prime and Bill Russell at his decline
bellsduck
Senior
Posts: 3549
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:40 am
GM: Utah Jazz

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by bellsduck »

jibbajabba614 wrote:We could start earlier. I know it 1970 it was like 15 teams. But I’m pretty good at researching. Start from 1970 NBA/ABA players and work from college… might be fun to have Kareem in his prime and Bill Russell at his decline
That would be awesome
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37688
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by UOducksTK1 »

jibbajabba614 wrote:We could start earlier. I know it 1970 it was like 15 teams. But I’m pretty good at researching. Start from 1970 NBA/ABA players and work from college… might be fun to have Kareem in his prime and Bill Russell at his decline
I think starting as early as possible would be super fun. And if we started say 1970, we could combine some guys from 50s/60s to fill out players.

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
pistolpetejr
Senior
Posts: 2964
Joined: Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:48 pm
GM: Los Angeles Clippers

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by pistolpetejr »

UOducksTK1 wrote:
jibbajabba614 wrote:We could start earlier. I know it 1970 it was like 15 teams. But I’m pretty good at researching. Start from 1970 NBA/ABA players and work from college… might be fun to have Kareem in his prime and Bill Russell at his decline
I think starting as early as possible would be super fun. And if we started say 1970, we could combine some guys from 50s/60s to fill out players.
I think the idea of bringing in 50s/60s into the 70s would be a ton of fun, way more fun than just starting with 1970. Mikan, Russell, Cousy, Pettit, Schayes, West, Baylor, etc. So much fun.
---
Image

PistolPeteJR
Marzeial
Freshman
Posts: 1420
Joined: Sat Jan 25, 2014 10:19 pm
GM: Atlanta Hawks

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by Marzeial »

Yeah I do like the idea of the older players. Not only does it make you appreciate them but also know them a little more
User avatar
UOducksTK1
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 37688
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 11:28 pm
GM: Boston Celtics GM
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by UOducksTK1 »

Yeah older would be fun. But still got 30 seasons to focus on here. I need a couple more rings. And a better lotto system ;).

Do Not Fear. Isaiah 41:13
User avatar
jibbajabba614
Senior
Posts: 2410
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 6:32 pm
GM: Milwaukee Bucks GM

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by jibbajabba614 »

Slowest draft all time…

Given GM’s looking at moves
User avatar
lukeyrid13
All-American
Posts: 10484
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:58 am
GM: Portland TrailBlazers

Re: 1999 Draft Discussion

Post by lukeyrid13 »

UOducksTK1 wrote:Yeah older would be fun. But still got 30 seasons to focus on here. I need a couple more rings. And a better lotto system ;).
Same :lol:
Post Reply