+1 I think this is a really good point. If the rule only refers to drafting players, you could in theory trade out players for 1st round picks and bring in players of equivalent value, thus doing nothing to help even the competition.
I'm a bit slow on the uptake here. I've had to read this 6 times before I realised your version has "delist" instead of "draft'. And I agree with it totally......must "DELIST" x number of players. That would get my vote.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the delisting requirement is the equivalent of list turnover isn't it? Couldn't delisting just be met by a coach announcing he's delisting players who have retired eg Lake and Hale at the end of last year?
Not as I understand it, fresh. If we decide that the number to Delist is 4 and you trade out 4 players during the trade period and trade 4 in, you would still need to Delist 4 players prior to the PSD, giving you 22 players, and take 4 picks in the PSD........... And if you traded out 4 players but only traded 3 in, you would need to Delist 3 players to bring you back to 22 and have 4 picks in the PSD..... I think that's how it works......
I just don't get how it's different to a drafting requirement. Say I trade out 3 players at end of year and the delisting or drafting requirement is 4. In both situations would I need to delist 1 player? What about if I trade in 3 players...under both it would be 7 delistments wouldn't it?
That's what we're trying to clear up - what everyone agrees is fair. Examples: How do we define list turnover / delisting / whatever name we use? Is it that a minimum number of picks must be taken in the PSD? Is it that you must have a minimum number of "new faces" in your team each year? If you have two players retire, does this count as part of your "list turnover" quota? Or is it only players that become available again for other coaches (so if we say that 4 players must be turned over, and two of yours retire, do you need 6 in total to meet the quota?) Do trades count in the quota, or is it only drafting? If Someone trades 4 picks for 4 players, do they then have to delist and participate in the draft? (note: 4 used as an example number only!) If we stipulate that every coach must make atleast "4" picks in the draft, but a coach has delisted 4 players to make space, and then traded in 4 more players (is up four players in uneven trading), then should he still have to draft players? These are only examples, but this is what we need to clear up. The majority seem to support the idea of some form of list turnover, so its just a matter of how we do it. Personally, I think that it should be 6 new faces per team per PSD and PST, with an increase of 2 players on each playing list. In my opinion, it shouldn't matter if these are through trades, delistings and drafting, or retirements and drafting. Its not your fault someone retired, so you shouldn't be penalised for it. Meanwhile, any player who is traded, or delisted back to the FA list, is available to all coaches, which is where the turnover and equalisation opportunities come in. This is however just my personal opinion.
To keep it simple and fair weather or not you trade delist or have retirements you must use the quota of PSD picks that we set Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk
Wouldn't the easiest stipulation be squad size? If we want extra players in the pool couldn't we just say squad size can be no greater than 22 (example only) prior to the PSD taking place? How you get to 22 is your own decision; minus retirements this would put 72 players back into the draft pool. Obviously we'd need to work out squad sizes and number of picks but it seems a relatively simple solution. If for example I trade 4 players for 4 picks to get to 22 the coaches that have picked up the players will have to delist to get to 22 as well; everyone starts the draft in the same position.
I think it should be new faces based, so if you trade 2 players you would then have to delist X - 2 players. Retirement should count towards this quota, as most of the players delisted are players not viable at the time and retired players fit into this category anyway.
My problem with this, and the reason I think it should be a "turnover" thing, is that it then devalues trading players. What's the point in trading in four players, if I then have to go and drop 8 of them? While a traded player is not a complete free agent, he's still a player on the market available to any coach to pick up, which for mine, is the point in this - that we create opportunities to improve your team.
I see your point and in the end I feel as though with my suggestion I am doing myself a disservice but if we want a healthier competition with more teams competing for the 8 then we need to make it easier for the lower sides to acquire players. As @choppers has mentioned before the only players people want from his squad are the ones he needs to keep to build a competitive side. Delisting strategies will be interesting as we may see some 1st/2nd year players that haven't broken out being thrown in the pool for others to take the risk on whilst some other coaches may toss a 75 ppg player in the hope of drafting the next gun. I can't see anyone delisting elites but a few more players with 75+ ppg ability would hand the lower clubs some depth and ability to compete. I will say one thing for certain though not everyone will delist their kids at draft time I've had guys on my list for 2 years that are still there and have only just started playing. My personal opinion is that if we have a maximum squad size with all clubs taking the same number of picks then at a minimum 1st to 4th round selections have value which can only be a good thing for trading and the comp. I've had 22 available players for the season at a maximum so I will lose some depth when I delist but I see that as the price I pay for a more even and exciting comp.
Fair argument! I guess the more 70-odd ppg players sitting in the pool, the better for all of us! How about this one? In the beginning some coaches wanted a "rookie list" for speculative picks and to reward research. Not quite to that extent, but we could increase list sizes from 26 to 28, and then make it compulsory to have 6 picks in the PSD. So, no matter what trades are done prior to the draft, everyone ends up with 22 players (trading picks could become hot property???) and then we all pick 6 players (or, potentially 4 to get us back to where we were, and 2 more for speculation and depth). I'm allowed to change my train of thought, aren't I???
@JPK so in 2018 would we then have squads of 28 with maximum squad sizes pre-draft of 24 (4 selections) or 22 (6 selections)?
This is not a mandate or ruling, its just my opinion (which has been changed, thanks to you!). From 2017 I'd like to see 22 players pre-draft, with each team drafting 6 players, and holding 28 for the season proper. PST, MST, and MSD would all occur as normal. I think that'd work.
Lol, didn't think you were mandating, just interested if you were thinking we go to 22 in 2017 & bring in 6, then go to 24 in 2018 and bring in 4. I don't really see the point in having an extra 2 places for kids if we are making judgments on them after 12 months; some will take longer to develop. As a purist I would think stick with 26 and cut 4, as a self serving coach I would think add 2 then draft 6 in 2017, then cut 4 add 4 in 2018.
I disagree with this. I think the point is to level the competition. That player might be on the market available to any coach to pick up but the point is the stronger teams have more existing value to bargain with compared to the lower teams. I think if teams are allowed to trade to meet any turnover requirements then they wont be weakened in any way. That's why I think forced delisting will be more effective than forced drafting to achieve a more level competition.
Fair enough. You also make a good point. You guys are turning me into a politician - flipping and swaying with the breeze!!!
@Tylo could you kindly explain what you mean by forced delisting to this slow poke coach of the Crocs? Say I trade in 2 players. The way I see it if I'm required to take 3 picks in the draft forced drafting requires me to delist 5. So if I'm required to delist 3 am I only forced to delist 3 (2 of which could be retirees) and I end up with only one pick in the draft? Is that it?
Before I'd like to commit to anything like all the above mentioned I would only agree if we 1st agreed to increase list sizes by at 2 Sent from my GT-N7105T using Tapatalk