While I don't disagree with either of you @insider @choppers on "face value", you have to remember that the minimum 6 list changes here was just a number... and when you look at the results of the other poll, the majority wanted to maintain the minimum 4 list changes. http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/poll-number-of-minimum-list-changes.90289/#wErYmirUDjqoJstZ.97
EDIT: Helps if you read the second page - as JPK said everything I did. Of course the majority was for 6 - it was the only option and an assumption of the poll apart from no changes (which was the equal clubhouse leader).
Well no... there were three broad options - do nothing, 6 and ‘other’ To assume 6 was an arbitrary number is to assume you know the reason why the majority voted how they did... and you know what they say about assumptions. In any case, once again I reiterate, do what you like. I’m just trying to bring some balance to the situation.
In my view there’s a few questions here: 1) Should list changes be mandatory picks, trades or a combination of both? 2) If mandatory picks, should the MSD be included? 3) If trades & the MSD are included, is 4 list changes enough? My take is: 1) Whichever way you like 2) Yes. By doing this MSD picks hold greater value. 3) No. By having 6 picks, if coaches don’t want to trade you’d expect PSD picks after round 4 would hold greater value and in turn MSD picks past round 2 would be more valuable should a coach not trade or take 4 picks in the PSD. I’d be interested to hear @Len ’s take. Looking at the free agents pool in the ORFFA it’s pretty similar to ours however they have greater list turnover due to different draft rules. Teams will rise and fall naturally but as we can see in the AFL some do it by drafting with their high picks Giants, Demons, Eagles & Tigers (I know these teams have traded for talent too, but it is a lower % compared to what they draft) whereas others trade them out for established talent Cats & Hawks (I know these teams draft too, but it is a lower % compared to what they trade). Obviously there’s varying degrees of success (Power tried to top up and failed), but in general most teams do it with a combination. As the little Mexican girl says...
Well no...six was arbitrary - it says so in the poll question. There may be a majority support for a change and it may be for six spots but this poll doesn’t support that conclusion like you stated. My $0.02 - I’m not opposed to rule changes, but in this case there’s been no clear reason given for the need to make the change and the last season was the closest on record with numerous trades - so I can’t see a case to change.
Evidently I didn't make this poll clear enough, and its causing some confusion. I'm going to make another poll, because we all love a good poll. We have one good poll: http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/poll-number-of-minimum-list-changes.90289/#a5cqUyv1BfJfV4iy.97 Which shows that the majority want to keep minimum mandatory list changes at 4 (per year). So what the new poll will do is as how many of these should be draft picks. You can find the new poll here: http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/poll-picks-trades-or-both.90300/#d8X7Qp4uJHZHD8jW.97 The reason behind asking for change was put forward (by myself) in the rules discussion thread. My concern is that coaches will become less inclined to trade players, knowing that they have to delist and have four spots available prior to the PSD. Keeping the same number of mandatory list changes, but not specifying how, allows coaches to follow the path of some AFL clubs (thanks @eagle_eyed for stating this more eloquently than I will), by bringing in players from other clubs, while other coaches will take punts in the draft on untried kids. Anyway, lets see how this new poll goes... (sorry if I made things more confusing)
Cool, so we just keep running polls until we get the “correct” result? I’ll address the “reason for the change” comment as I’ve raised that a couple of times. I understand that you said @JPK that you were concerned that there would be a lack of trade activity, but that simply didn’t occur in the one sample (2018 PSD trades) we have under the new delistment rules. So it may be an issue in future years (maybe even this one) but there’s no evidence to support it at this stage. What there is evidence of is the closeness of the comp under the new rules (refer Fresh’s end of year review post). Why we would choose to make a change that will in all likelihood decrease the competiveness of the League and not change the amount of trades is beyond me, especially given it’s been only one year since we brought those changes in. And I say this as a coach who doesn’t rate drafting (I don’t think I’ve taken a first round pick since the inaugural draft) and would much rather trade.
Yep, ask the same question until we get the result we want. Just wanted to remove any confusion I had created. Personally I'd prefer the change, but I don't think its got much of a chance of getting up.