List Size Discussion

I've moved this to it's own thread Graeme as I think it's a worthy discussion point.
My views are unchanged from the last time it was discussed - I am happy with the current list size but I think we should have a compulsory 6 delists at PSD. I don't believe that the current list size and only 4 forced delists is in the long term interest of the league.

We have at least 6 months for people to contribute to a discussion around list makeups as a whole..

 

Reckon this is a good time to chat about this. Thanks Graeme for bringing it up.

My view has long been towards a larger list in order to avoid the "washing machine" syndrome - getting players (particularly younger players), trying to stick with them for a while or hold them during injuries or as they develop, but being left in a position where they have to be delisted to bring lists down to a certain size ... only to then be re-drafted by the team that delisted them, or replaced with another young player that needs to be nurtured and have patience shown.

Smaller list sizes increase churn and, I'd argue, make it harder for teams that are rebuilding to show patience with young players who are not getting a game and learning their trade in the reserves.

I strongly believe that increasing the list sizes from 26 to 28 has allowed us to draft and hold young guys and rookies for longer as they develop.

That said, Graeme's point is a good one as well - I cut five guys this MSD period, and I had five draft picks at PSD in March ... so I've turned over 10 players in barely four months (and done it easily), as well as trading at least another 3-4 guys. So that's virtually half my team.

I don't know whether compulsory six delists at PSD would be a good thing. But it is worth consideration most definitely.

Personally - I'd be open to compulsory five delists at PSD (up from four) and/or a 27 player list (down from 28).

And not to muddy the waters, but should we consider a maximum number of ruckmen each team is able to hold. Those familiar with NBA Fantasy will have come across the rule through the ESPN Too Serious leagues which limits the number of centres each team can hold (limit is 4 on a 12-13 player team).

This is because there are fewer centres than guards and forwards, every team needs centres to play in certain positions on the "fantasy" court, and that no team should be able to stockpile 8 centres. Similar logic perhaps applies to ruckmen as well. There are fewer of them, there are fewer of them that are worth having as only 2 can play for each team each week as a rule (or, if you are Richmond, one) ... I don't know. Is this worth considering too?

 

I'm for expanding the number of compulsory delists to 5 or 6, but I am against the decrease in size.

I pulled the rebuild trigger this season. That involves a lot of guesswork come the draft, and you need to see if you hit pay dirt or you don't. I traded my arse off and delisted a few others to get my list to the best it could be.

Two particular players in Sean Darcy and Willem Drew I knew when I drafted wouldn't get a game this year, or if they did I was very lucky... however I have drafted them as I think longer term they will be the ducks nuts. Now I'm prepared to carry these guys for two years to see if they get a run. Could I do that with 26.... maybe but not as easily.

When you go rebuild, you have to take 4-6 calculated gambles... this year I took Sam Petrevski-Seton, Jack Bowes, Oliver Florent, Griffin Logue, Sean Darcy, and Willem Drew. SPS I was confident will be a perm fixture in my team for years to come. The rest are a raffle... 17 combined games out of the other 5 for an average of 43 says I may have more hits than misses... but Zac Merrett averaged 63 in his first season too...

In summary I think there is enough player churn, we are seeing players get recycled into other clubs all the time. I would support an increase in the compulsory PSD delists, but not a squad reduction

 

I hear where you are coming from regarding rucks Chris but I currently have a view that their associated trade value is a free market factor and not something that should be restricted, They are regularly traded and the only teams that have had to play without one have done so as a result of abysmal luck or poor list management.

 

Positional changes can influence this too, through no fault of the team manager.

 

100% how would you see that factored into a restriction?
Compulsory delist or trades don't sound right to me

 

That's the gauntlet you run with someone like Blitz... a standard ruckman will typically always remain a ruckman

 

I agree with that Len - that sort of action wouldn't work and isnt fair.

Ideally, we should've put this type of limitation in place at the start of things - but geez, not exactly something we would've thought of back then!! We had other things to do!

I don't know if there is a way this sort of measure could now be put in place in a fair and reasonable way.

 

One other thing on this that I didn't think of yesterday that may be worth consideration.

There would be a number of coaches that have planned to either cut deeply into their list over the past 2-3 drafts, or to take action on their list in recent drafts, with the view/in the context of continuing to have 28 players lists and 4 compulsory PSD picks.

If we now step forward and say: "Ok, next PSD we are changing things up - cutting lists, increasing turnover of lists" - then that perhaps isn't quite right.

I note Bandit's post above in which he talks about taking chances on long term youngsters. There are others who might feel similarly as they clean out their lists. I am in a slightly similar boat having utterly blown up my list since MSD last year (and had no intention of making finals last year - and won't this year).

If we have been operating in a context where's there's expectation of lists of 28 and the current delistment situation, then changing that context too quickly would leave a number of teams currently embarking on rebuilding disenfranchised. For example, if I'd known that in six months time we'd have to get rid of extra players, I would've kept Bastinac/Gleeson and saved them for delistment at year's end.

I've slightly modified my opinion in relation to Graeme's excellent post that kicked off this discussion. I would be in favour of a cut to the lists from 28 to 26. But if we did that, I believe the current delist levels - 4 at PSD, 6 overall - would be adequate.

Reducing lists and upping delists would create churn and would in fact stop people taking chances on those young players - Sean Darcy for example, Kayle Kirby for me ... and there would be others on other teams. As Graeme pointed out, we upped list sizes to 28 at least in part due to concerns over injured players and not being able to field teams - I think we still have that issue with 28 players at times, so I'm not sure it has entirely cured that problem.

But, and this is important, if we were to reduce list size, then we need a fair amount of lead time to prepare. My suggestion would be at the next MSD.

Almost all of us found a couple of guys to delist at this MSD. In 2018, the situation would be the same except we'd be delisting two players without replacing. Maybe an option is to have three delists required at the next MSD - two to reduce lists and one further to ensure everyone takes part in the MSD.

(And with 55 extra players in the draft pool, it would be worth delisting a couple of extra players maybe!)

But if we are to make changes like this, we need lead time to prepare and plan. The whole idea of a keeper league is to prepare and plan for the future as well as operate in the present, and we need to keep that in mind if changes are to occur.

 

good discussion. I think the expanded list sizes have worked really well, it is much easier to hold onto young developing players now which is why I advocated for it in the first place. I would NOT like to see the list size decreased. I wouldnt mind it being increased to 29 or 30 - I think 30 is optimal size, combined with more forced delists of course

I think the current delist numbers are working well for squad size of 28. As bandit mentioned, there are plenty of players being recycled. I know last PSD I picked up two players that Venus Bay had delisted, which is a good thing with the top teams' players being good enough to be selected (even though I finished higher on the ladder than Fitzy last year). Admittedly, I have already delisted 1 of them this MSD, but that was Stewart Crameri whose injury troubles combined with his age being the only reason/s I let him go.

Also, we are seeing that a cycle is beginning, with teams like Gundagai, Cradle Mountain and Marble Bar up in the top parts of the ladder so far this season. Even Venus Bay finished in the bottom 8 our first 3 seasons and just 8th last season, but is near unstoppable this year.

If the list size was increased I would support more forced delistments, but if not, I'm happy with status quo.

 

But what if you don't want to participate in the MSD... I see very little value in it unless you have picks 1-4... I'd prefer to run deeper at the PSD than worry about the MSD.

I'm not about to delist early if everyone else gets the advantage of running extra players until the MSD, but that then stops me executing my strategy of cutting deep at the PSD, as I would have to hold off on two spuds so I could delist them at the MSD. (well that's my thinking, I could delist and redraft but then I'm making a call on guys that have only had 10 weeks to impress me)

 

Absolutely see your point Bandit. I guess I was thinking that with lots of extra players in the MSD after the list reduction, it might be more attractive to take part.

But it is again something we could discuss - maybe the two compulsory delists with no further compulsion to take part is another option.

 

The more I think about all of this the more I realise I'm pretty firmly in the 'I don't think it's broken so let's not fix it camp" on this.

I think the squad sizes are about right, I think the amount of churn is about right, and I think I am seeing teams improve and degrade in about the right ratio.

@ChiefRussell is a classic example, he is trading hard to try and stay competitive, but you have to cough up young guns like a Seb Ross to do so... a bit like my beloved Hawks, it's only a matter of time before you have to acknowledge the premiership window is closed and you draft a Ty Vickery.

The only anomaly is @That KI Guy ... but we all know he is a bit NQR

 

The only other thing I would add is those 36 players aren't going to be sure bets or close to breakout players. I am sure Lenny wouldn't have thrown Clayton Oliver into the mix, or myself Blake Acres. If you are rebuilding like me you probably get rid of an old dude who maybe has one year left in him (LeCras I'm looking at you), or one of your bust draftees from the previous year.

I just don't think you are going to add ready to go quality players to the pool, you are going to get some of the older horses, and some of the young bucks who would be a speculative pick. Going back to my earlier post... if you are taking a punt on speculative pick, you ideally want to hold them for 2 years minimum to see what they have got before having to move on them... I'm not sure you can you do that with a reduced squad size.

 

I'm pretty comfortable with current list size and delist amounts.
Yes, I think there were a number of benefits to the increase list size we implemented, mainly being capacity to increase depth to mitigate injury and/or scope to draft and develop slow burn youth.
In the end, its still horses for courses as to how an individual coach elects to take advantage of those "extra" two players.
In the last few years, I focussed purely on experienced and durable playing depth across 3 lines (even at the risk of holding only one ruck) to maximise my likelihood of premiership glory. This was largely at the expense of nurturing any young projects. Not to say you can't do both. I have now swung in the completely opposite direction (perhaps too far) and will look to slowly develop a heap of draftees (Ok my situation is perhaps not a great example of the benefits of a 28-list, but it shows the potential).

As evidenced, the concept of trading your way to continued success is a viable strategy. However, what is encouraging to see is the fruits of drafting quality youth and the occasional dark horse, starting to pay off for some of the lower ranked teams.

Graeme did pose quite a few questions here and i'm not sure I answered any of them that well, other than:
Q: "is our squad size of 28 too large?"
A: I don't think so.

 

Lots of flotsam and jetsom.... without casting dispersions on this years MSD... I don't see any players that are going to be absolute breakouts past pick 5-6.

It would be interesting to see if anyone has drafted someone in previous MSD's that has turned into an absolute bolter.

 

Ping @dmandrews

 

I had a quick look at 2015 & 2016 Jordan Roughead at Pick 10 by Cradle Mountain in 2015 for an 2017 average of 82 is the only one I would consider a somewhat success