Question concerning lottery protected draft pick
- Thread starter MindzEye
- Start date
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
I'd make that argument that the term "what we were doing" is meaningless as at the time of the trade, no agreement had been made about exactly what we were doing.
On July 18th "lottery protected" meant top 5. On the 19th it became top 8. The trade was made on the 18th with no explicit mention of slotting other than lottery protected.
axlsalinger
Well-known member
At that point (ie. the last page of the poll thread), I was ready to go with an 8-man lottery starting in 2015, based on the result of the poll, which produced a clear winner. Not too many managers had commented in the thread so I left it open for further discussion, but nobody else did. I suppose the majority of managers voted and didn't have anything further to add.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
That is a big part of the issue yes, and has been a problem of ours as a group for ages. Tons of good ideas, we argue them and then nothing happens. Kind of a microcosm for the board when you think about it.
We really should have a proper rule book and no change is official until it's in said rule book.
axlsalinger
Well-known member
It has been discussed a few times to work on a constitution or complete set of rules. There is a sticky thread for it. We should do it for sure. Maybe we could divide the work into a few sections, get a couple of people to handle a part of it, then we can edit it together into the main post of that thread.
There was a website, the URL is probably listed in one of the very early threads, but it seems unlikely the site would still be there.
Leafman provided a constitution from another similar league at one point, if he could get me that link again it would be a great starting point.
There was a website, the URL is probably listed in one of the very early threads, but it seems unlikely the site would still be there.
Leafman provided a constitution from another similar league at one point, if he could get me that link again it would be a great starting point.
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
I'd be down for lending a hand....I think that's one of the reasons it's never happened is that people don't want to volunteer themselves for something that could turn into a fair bit of work. If we break it down into manageable chunks, I'm sure we could find the people to get it done.
axlsalinger
Well-known member
Yep, definitely agree with that.
Montana
Champion
To add on to what Mindz said, my thought has always been that we should be able to do it almost in an open source type way......make an official rules thread, everyone chips in with posting a specific rule as detailed as possible, and then Axl, HP, whoever, can edit those posts into the top post, until we have a completed rule book.
Then the rule book can basically be a Wiki entry of sorts, that is constantly evolving improving as we continuously revise any old rules to close any loopholes, or update things such as our draft lottery, etc etc....
That way everyone takes a "manageable chunk" of the workload.....and no one person is burdened with an obscene amount of work.
/2 cents.
Then the rule book can basically be a Wiki entry of sorts, that is constantly evolving improving as we continuously revise any old rules to close any loopholes, or update things such as our draft lottery, etc etc....
That way everyone takes a "manageable chunk" of the workload.....and no one person is burdened with an obscene amount of work.
/2 cents.
Last edited:
That's pretty much what I was thinking.
axlsalinger
Well-known member
Yeah, me too. I'll edit everything into the main post. We can divvy the work up into sections or points, if you guys have ideas for different sections or if somebody wants to take on a portion, send me a pm.
That wasn't the spirit of the trade...was lotto protected. If lotto is 8 teams then would be protected for top 8. Both of us knew there was a vote going on and that the first round of voting showed that it was going to be very likely to increase in teams for lotto.
In real life, if there was a chance in the draft rules, I wouldn't think it would change the conditions of the pick like we are discussing.
Remember, I have full right to switch picks...so being pretty honest here.
Really weird that jays hasn't commented on this. I've sent him a PM and nadda
Last edited:
MindzEye
Wayward Ditch Pig
You keep repeating the term "in the spirit of the trade" as if I wasn't part of the deal or something. That you and Jays had an understanding in your discussions doesn't matter to my end of the trade. What matters is what was agreed to and the rules that it was agreed to under. That discussions were ongoing about changing the draft shouldn't matter, or at minimum, any expectations outside of the rule at the time (which was a top 5 protected pick) should have been communicated. I did some digging and have found the original PM's I received at the time of the trade. I usually wouldn't do this, but I think we're at the point in this discussion where this isn't a dick move
So I was approached about this, with discussion about a lottery protected pick 3 days prior to the voting thread: http://www.forumice.com/showthread.php?62287-Draft-Lottery-2-The-Final-Poll-Down , being opened
Here's every PM I received from you during the conversation, in order, unaltered
So we started trade discussions involving a "lottery protected" 1st round pick prior to the opening to the thread voting on the topic, and concluded our deal prior to the vote finishing, and I have no record of discussion pertaining to it being a top 8 instead of top 5 protected. I fail to see how a private expectation discussed between you and Jays, but not communicated to me other than calling it "lottery protected" (with a definition of the term lottery protected that had not yet come in to play until after everything was concluded) somehow constitutes becoming the defacto "spirit of the deal".
If you have PM's from the discussion (I don't have my sents from the time) that indicate otherwise, I'll apologize for wasting your time and **** off about this, but I seriously don't recall any discussion of the pick's protection beyond the term "lottery protected" and shouldn't be expected to live up to a definition of the term than you and Jays felt was going to come into play after the fact.
With that said, this is the last argument I'll make concerning the pick. I'll leave this in Axl's hands, and frankly I don't see Jays club ending up making this an issue.
Last edited:
The lotto protected pick trade was between me and jays, as its protected for him. Why spirit of our trade, not yours.
For your trade, it's buyer beware - has been what I'm saying. You knew there was a vote going on, pretty sure we finished round one of the voting by then and round two was basically done, which showed a lot of interest in increasing lottery teams (there were multiple votes). It's not like it came out of no where that the draft might be changing.
And no clue why you are posting our convo. Even weirder as most of our discussion was done via texting offsite.
For your trade, it's buyer beware - has been what I'm saying. You knew there was a vote going on, pretty sure we finished round one of the voting by then and round two was basically done, which showed a lot of interest in increasing lottery teams (there were multiple votes). It's not like it came out of no where that the draft might be changing.
And no clue why you are posting our convo. Even weirder as most of our discussion was done via texting offsite.
Last edited:
leafman101
Well-known member
I think that the intent of "lottery protected" when trading a 2015 first would have to mean "if I have a shot at McDavid you don't get the pick". Otherwise he'd never trade that pick for Seabrook. As of now that means top 8 protection.
I could see the argument if the terms of the deal were "top 5 protection". Does that mean "lottery protection"? But where he literally says 'lottery protection', how can that mean anything other than 'lottery protection', despite the meaning of that changing.
I could see the argument if the terms of the deal were "top 5 protection". Does that mean "lottery protection"? But where he literally says 'lottery protection', how can that mean anything other than 'lottery protection', despite the meaning of that changing.
Last edited:
leafman101
Well-known member
Here is the official trade post:
Flat out says "lottery protected", not top 5 protected. If that is what the wording used was, and the intent can safely be inferred as Connor McDavid protection, then I think both the wording and intent suggest full lottery protection after the rule change.
Flat out says "lottery protected", not top 5 protected. If that is what the wording used was, and the intent can safely be inferred as Connor McDavid protection, then I think both the wording and intent suggest full lottery protection after the rule change.
Last edited: