Posted by xxevilivexx on 11/29/2012 7:47:00 AM (view original):
In terms of clones of the same player on a team, I don't think it will matter with a hard cap, but that is just my feeling.

If you have a separate draft pool for each conference, you wouldn't have to worry about clones on the same team.

Posted by ncmusician_7 on 12/1/2012 4:19:00 PM (view original):

Posted by xxevilivexx on 11/29/2012 7:47:00 AM (view original):
In terms of clones of the same player on a team, I don't think it will matter with a hard cap, but that is just my feeling.

If you have a separate draft pool for each conference, you wouldn't have to worry about clones on the same team.

The way I understrand it so far. The initial draft would have clones but one exclusive only for each conference.
ie Rodman goes Eastern & Rodman would go Western and you can use any of his first three yrs.
Second season draft would clone from all 1950's players and they're eligible to any team.
Wilt could be drafted on the same team he's already on. 
But as Spock would say highly unlikely. 
Third season draft would clone '60's.
Is this correct Evil?

That is the way I'd like it to go. Does it make sense that way?

If you have separate draft pools, you might not need to introduce additional clones.  Also, there aren't many players who started in the 50's and 60's who are useful in a $52M league.

Yeah I agree nc, with two draft pools I don't think you need more clones. Guys are gonna have to be cut to stay under the cap.

I am just trying to throw in the element of incentives on drafts. Reasons to gain new owners, if old owners draft poorly or give up after one season. I know the set up didn't make sense going 50's and 60's since any of the good selections will have been taken initially, but it was honestly just my example. I like the two draft concept, that is definitely going to be something that remains.

I'd do it.

I like most of what I read and would definitely do this. evil, would you be willing to re-summarize at some point? I just read through most of this and see:
  

1. Year 1 double draft (1 for each conference) for all players with choice of that players season 1, 2 or 3 to start there progression
2. No contracts? Maybe still undecided
3. 52mill cap
4. season 2 draft of undrafted players???, cuts and 50's decade players (with season 3 and beyond player pool adding the next decades)
5. tanking protection of "no top 2 in consecutive years" and 22 win minimu for a top 3 pick

Did I miss any big points?  Also, just a question/observation... could you have more than 2 versions of player?  
Did I have season 3 right?  Could I draft Russell in season 3 as well?  Not saying I don't like it, just confirming the rules of the decade overlap.

In terms of the potential draft pools, or how we will work that out, it is really just an idea. I used the 50's/60's as an example. It could end up being a case where we just introduce new players and add the cut players to the available list, but there could be more benefit to longevity if there was also a further incentive for the teams who may be a few pieces away from contending for whatever reason. In terms of contracts, I do feel that with a hard salary cap, it almost eliminates the need for this, however it would need to be an agreed upon structure, something simplistic to avoid confusion. The other idea is making is so that only a certain amount of keepers can carry over from one year to the next, again, just an idea, but it would be something if each owner could only save let's say six guys each off season. It really drives home a draft strategy, keeps all owners on their toes, sure you can build an excellent team with six perennials, but what if each year you had to slightly rebuild your roster and stay under a cap, the talent pool would always be large enough to entice people to stay. Anyone can tell me if that idea sounds too far fetched.

You could also put a salary cap on the keepers as well... Like you can keep up to 6 players with a maximum combined salary of 35 million. This would make the draft important for every team every offseason.

I also really like the idea you had about the splitting up the years and creating draft classes.. But maybe we could set them up differently. 

10 draft classes that could be rotated through perpetually would contain rookies from:

51/61/71/81/91/01/11
52/62/72/82/92/02/12
53/63/73/83/93/03..
.
.
.
60/70/80/90/00/10/20

Or if you didn't want to deal with that many clones you could break the classes up into 20
51/71/91/11
52/72/92/12
53/73/93
.
.
60/80/00
.
.
70/90/10

I never really thought of that idea either, I do find that the off-season drafts can be really boring at times. Having every team around the same starting salary does make things interesting come off-season time.

I updated my post a little to put forth new draft class ideas.

The set number of keepers with a keeper cap and salary cap was the primary way hockey progressives ran on this site for years.

some of this is getting too complicated.

Here's an idea:

10-year progressive, $52M cap.
Entire NBA database available.
Owner picks 1st, 2nd or 3rd season for a newly drafted player and then the player progresses from there.
All players advance each season, both drafted & undrafted.

Each owner puts up a $5gc to start to encourage the sticking out of 10 seasons.
At the end of the 10 seasons, the prize money gets divided:
1st place 70%
2nd place 20%
3rd place 10%

Regular season: 1 point per win
Make the playoffs: 2 points
Make the finals: 5 points
Win the Championship: 10 points

So the max points in a season 99 points... which is almost impossible since nobody has ever gone 82-0 to my knowledge.

End of 10 seasons, total points dictate prize money.

If an owner drops out or abandons his team, he forfeits his rights to the prize money.  Any newcomer that takes over the team gets to play for free.

That should be enough incentive right there to keep owners for the long haul, avoid tanking and reward players for devotion and hard work.

Thoughts?

yea....keep it simple