Hi all, As posted in the original discussion thread... We have a situation regarding pick status that is going to occur but didn't get discussed during the MSD trial run. (a) All picks owned are tradeable and can be made usable, regardless of whether or not they were active at the start of the draft OR (b) Only the picks active when draft started are able to be traded or used to pick a player Initially I was leaning to (b) but this does mean some strict conditions around what type of trade is legal would have to apply and I'd like to ensure we all have a voice of some sort on this. Bear in mind, at the end of the draft regardless of (a) or (b) each team must be exactly 28, there is no delist period and this outcome would have to be factored into any trade. Before starting the PSD I'd like to get an indication of support for the open or closed book approaches. Majority vote count over the next 8 hours will carry the day for this draft, regardless of how many votes we get, I don't want this to hold up the draft proceeding as scheduled. Can discuss any required revision post draft if needed.
For sure; Example 1 I've delisted 4, so have 4 active picks at the start of the draft. I also had picks not activated. Under (b) I can only trade using players I have, or those 4 picks, if I trade out a player I MUST trade in someone else's active pick in order to complete my side. Under (a) I could trade a player for an MSD pick and the next pick I had would become active. Alternate example I've still delisted 4 with 4 active picks Under (a) I could trade pick 5 for a player, 2 players or an MSD pick Under (b) again only active picks from this draft can be used meaning all trades have to be one for one (pick or player but of equal volume). Effectively (a) allows for MSD picks to be traded and for the activation, via trade, of picks for this PSD Whilst (b) requires that every player or PSD pick traded must have exactly the same number of picks or players come back. b is vastly simpler but restrictive potentially not what people wanted a is almost a free for all, again potentially not what people wanted
If the trade period closes and then the delistment period happens after the close of the trade period (not concurrently as is the case now) this should clean some of it up. The messier bit (as I understand it) is the MSD. I believe that we shouldn't be able to trade these picks during the pre-season draft period, because not everyone is obligated to participate in the MSD so effectively people could be trading picks that don't exist (I assume this is what you are saying). It is very different to trading PSD picks during the mid-season trade period because everyone has to delist at least four picks, so four picks minimum will be active for each side in the PSD. I don't know what option this is. I don't think it falls into either (a) or (b).
To be honest I think it's one of a number of potential complications surrounding using option a. We've only ever allowed delists prior to a draft, should we allow them now then we allow for an LTI incurred in the next 3 weeks to be delisted, as an unintended consequence. Culling MSD picks from trades during the draft is an option for sure, but restricts one form of value adjustments. I do think it's possible to apply the mythical (or real) asset label to a deactivated pick 5 in my example, equally to a currently inactive MSD pick? I'd really like us to be in one camp or another if possible, ie a free for all, or keep it within the prescribed boundaries of this draft. the more I think about it the less I have a personal preference either way, but we need something for us to run this one with.
this is a good question, but I reckon its gotta be option b in my opinion. I also think we still should be able to trade MSD picks.
also, I don't believe picks that are not active are actually owned, not any more anyway. its not really fair for everyone else down the order
Its worth waiting until this poll is finished, and if option b gets up, I don't reckon the draft list needs the inactive picks listed. I guess this is the plan anyway.
My preference is for option B. Even then I think everyone should have to pick at least four players with live picks during the 2016 PSD. For instance, I only have four selections in the draft, picks 8, 26, 44 and 62. I shouldn't be able to trade one of my picks for a player, meaning that I only select three players with live draft picks during the PSD. A consequence of this is that ORFFA coaches should enter the draft with more than the minimum draft selections to retain some flexibility. Even if we were going to use Option A which allows picks that weren't active at the start of the draft become active during the draft, it should be done in a MSD first when there aren't as many selections and the stakes aren't as high.
For this draft, they are in (option a) or out (option b), can always change it going fwd, but just to keep it simple and on point, as per my examples to CR, MSD picks are potentially one of the seriously complicating factors with option a and we need to wrap this up in an hour or so.
Potentially a variant for later, b plus some aspect of MSD, as cheif has pointed out, at least three coaches have nothing of value in that draft, but entered this draft not knowing that.. I prefer an even playing field, when weather and cyclones permit
Is it possible to enforce a system that is based on a moral obligation? I have no obligation to be part of the MSD this year (as I have de-listed 6 players in the PSD). If I offer (say) my second round pick in the MSD, surely I should have to create that asset by de-listing at least two more players? A corollary being that in a PSD I only have four picks to trade. If I were to trade my fifth round pick I then create an ("legal)" obligation to create that pick by creating a fifth round pick via a de-listment or via a trade of two players out for one player in as well as de-listing four players.
I have suggested this in the past, a couple of years ago, and I remember graeme that some guy called chels supported the idea back then. But from memory, which may not be 100%, we didn't get much support from others though. We certainly didn't get enough support from others for it to become a rule. I remember when we started the ORFFA, that I presumed this would be a given, and it wasn't until we'd already been going for a year or so that I realised we could trade picks that we weren't even going to end up having. I seem to remember that one of the arguments given for how we do it was that AFL clubs can trade draft picks that they wouldn't necessarily use.
Don't disagree with the concept Graeme, again though, too complicated for just now, as the poll suggests, all in, or within the boundaries of this draft only. I am not entirely sure how we could enforce a forward condition of that sort, honor feels like an alien concept to so many these days. We currently have nothing stopping a coach trading a 5th round MSD in the trade period prior, nor penalising them for not actually activating it. I'd prefer not to go there right now in this last hour or so before we start.. btw, Weitering and Mills winning the poll
Indeed, and it still holds true, regardless of the morality, the new artificial bidding system the AFL has created has made many trade concepts redundant
hey mate, I wouldn't have thought that option b should mean that MSD picks are not allowed to be traded. What if a trade involved a MSD pick going both ways, like: 'player A' & MSD round 1 pick, in exchange for, PSD round 3 active pick & MSD round 2 pick or just one way, but the numbers were still fine, like: 'player A', in exchange for, PSD round 5 active pick & MSD round 2 pick
I don't think this should be avoided DMA. I think its one of the main points why you should have trading during drafts... to be able to trade one of your players for a draft pick to get you back into the draft. In fact I did this in our MSD last season. Having a rule as you have proposed wouldn't have penalised the person who traded the draft pick, it would have penalised me, and I had already drafted my mandatory players anyway.
I don't have anything overly insightful to add here as I reckon Len has spelled it out pretty clearly as how it will potentially apply for this draft. However, I have spend the better part of half an hour trolling through these responses trying to decipher what the hell you are all on about. The complete over use of double negatives is doing my head in, and worst of all, i think its contagious. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the use of double negatives should be avoided, and I don't disagree with others right to use them. However, it would be appreciated if in future, that all authors highlighted all double negatives in bright yellow, so i can easily overlook them and cut to the chase. Heaven knows, my time is precious!
Rule 7 has been edited to read as I have stated it above, it's clear and not up for argument for this draft. Only live activated picks within this draft or players can be traded, and on a one for one basis, at the conclusion of the draft all teams must consist of 28 players. Following the draft we can discuss future incarnations, or do away with the whole trade within a draft concept.