if the winds of change are blowing then may I suggest finalising prior to this msd? The longer it takes the more draft periods pass the further out the change will be… unless it is rushed in the interest of ‘fairness’; thereby making it unfair for teams who have traded future draft picks and will be adversely affected
Not going to rush any change, because some coaches will have traded out 2025 PSD picks thinking it was the best strategy for them, so we can't change the rules for the 2025 PSD. But Yes, I take the point that prior to the 2024 MSD would be ideal.
What I find interesting is that when we changed the rule from 4 picks to 4 list changes, both trading and drafting decreased. I'm not sure thats causal, rather coincidental. Maybe after nearly a decade of doing this, either coaches have found their happy place and their strategies, or real life is taking over more as we get older (collectively), and we have less time to dedicate to fantasy, or because we introduced an absolute minimum the majority are doing what they need to do to comply and nothing more. I caution anyone who says "look at the data, we introduced 4 list changes and now there's less trading and drafting" as their primary argument, to dig deeper beyond correlation, and look for causation.
On the point of lower trades that we see in the data, I know I've been much more reluctant over the last few years to trade out my players because I get invested in seeing how they go after I've drafted them. Yes we can't say for sure that the change to list management rules caused the trade reduction. We might have seen a decline in trades because the first few years coaches were getting a feel for list management and now things have settled and we're more cautious or picky about who we trade out. At the same time, the correlation isn't causation point shouldn't discount what we see from the data...it's what we have to go by at the moment. We haven't recorded coach trade intentions but the number of trades is a good indicator. Maybe the pandemic put a dampner on everyone's desire to do trades. Perhaps it's something similar to what I wrote. Maybe it's because coaches now have a few spuds on their list to get rid of each year to meet the 4 list changes criteria through delistment or AFL retirement. It's not easy to conduct studies or analysis that imply causation. It's very uncommon to find studies that definitively say x causes y (or this goes with that...especially at Sussan) because there is almost always a level of uncertainty about what is being recorded/observed or the possibility that something else may be contributing to the effects being seen.
let’s get into confidence intervals @fresh Go real balls deep!! ; ) I personally think the whole phenomenon can be explained precisely by the first point in your latest reply. don’t want to speak for anyone else directly, but I know EE and Ron separately on trade talks have very clearly defined age brackets and roles for any trades. this to me is a quite obvious and deliberate ploy to commit to a rebuild. As in real life, unless you’re the Swans then rebuilds take time. If a coach goes full re-rebuild (never go full re-build… tropic thunder?) then they aren’t going to want to trade, they’re going to want to see their ‘green shoots’ grow into strong oak trees. or fuck, I could be way off… but I reckon it’s a case of patience and mature list building - nothing more complicated than that
All I know is that I'm playing for the now...........although my time frame is probably a little different to most.. I can't wait for a Pick 1 to mature into that 120-130 pt. SC God....cause there's a good chance I won't be here..... So I won't vote on any changes and will just go with the flow... Disclaimer.....its friggin 36C at 7.30pm and I'm 3 sheets to the wind.................but lovin' it...
I think you could come close to holding me accountable for top teams and the bottom team scores this year and last. I’ve gone the rebuild and most of the older guns I traded out, went to contending teams. As I traded out so many, I’m against the idea of a priority pick, for me at least, as my position on the ladder is due to a calculated gamble. Like I said in my previous post, some coaches like to trade, others don’t. I don’t think anything short of a mandate to trade will change this, and that’s not something any of us want. I’m more interested in invigorating the draft, to supplement the enjoyment of trading, to make the game more enjoyable as a whole.
Showing your age there mate. Clearly not a little tacker with the "this goes with that"... I like it.
I think it's worth noting we have never actually had mandatory delisting. We've had a minimum number of draft picks and mandatory list turnover, both of which can be achieved by trading players out and theoretically getting an equivalent value in return in the form of other players or picks. I don't see the point of either of those rules and from the data they don't seem to have been a change for the positive. The gap between the top and the bottom has increased, and trading/draft activity has decreased. Mandatory delisting however should have an equalising effect, which is why many competitions use it. I've made the point before that for a competition to be successful it needs to be enjoyable for all involved. I think for it to be enjoyable there needs to be some hope of success in the not too distant future. How long that distance should be is a matter of opinion and open to debate. There is a limited number of ways of creating equalisation (if that's what we want). The AFL uses the draft and a salary cap. Our only means is the draft - how players are put into it and how they're taken out. As for encouraging trading, I'm really not sure how that could be done but open to hearing any suggestions. I certainly don't think mandatory delisting or any other draft manipulation would deter people from trading.
I think this has been a great topic of conversation and everyone is playing nicely, which has to be a first I think ideally we want a competition where the top 8 is very hard to get into and within a 5 year window all teams should be able to have a crack at the title. The way the current lists are looking there are 3-4 teams that have drafted and traded very well and are reaping the rewards and will possibly keep reaping for the next 3-4 years. From the bloke with the longest losing streak in ORFFU history, it would be nice to be up the pointy end for a few years, I guess my time will come. I think delisting 4 players would be a good idea and might just even up the competition a bit quicker. I don't have anyone on my list that is over 30, so for me getting rid of older players cannot happen and I would be giving up players that are high draft picks because I have been down the bottom for quite a few years! Of note - from my 28 players I have: 18 Players that were picked in the top 25 of their draft year. 9 Players that were picked top 10. 3 Number 1 draft picks - Walsh, Horne-Francis and Jamara Ugle-Hagan. Getting rid of high end, young talent will suck balls but if that is the way, that is the way. I am also in favour of priority draft picks for any team that is based in Sth Australia.
For coaches advocating for four delistings, @eagle_eyed captured the sentiment well in a previous discussion: "Who wants my four worst players? What would they be worth?" The reality is, nobody does. We all discard our unwanted players, and at best, a few might be picked up in the late 3rd or 4th rounds. So, arguing that a couple of players from the 30-odd players delisted seems unfounded. Regarding your point, @Tylo, about coaches will always trade, I can confidently say that I'll be more reluctant and diligent when considering trades. For instance, if I were to trade in two players for draft picks, I'd still need to delist four players. That's a turnover of six players, which is quite significant. If we're serious about assisting the bottom eight teams, I still advocate for coaches to have the freedom to manage their teams as they see fit. However, we should consider restructuring the first round of the draft. The bottom eight teams would receive two picks in the top 18, while the top eight teams would get the next two picks, from 19 to 37, and so forth. The caveat here is that picks 1-9 would not be tradable, ensuring that bottom teams can draft the best talent available, while picks 10-18 remain tradable, giving them the flexibility to select top talent. Let's be realistic; trying to acquire top-end draft picks for elite players is nearly impossible. If we implement the above proposal, we should eliminate delistings altogether. This way, everyone still feels they are gaining something.
I like this - "However, we should consider restructuring the first round of the draft. The bottom eight teams would receive two picks in the top 18, while the top eight teams would get the next two picks, from 19 to 37, and so forth. The caveat here is that picks 1-9 would not be tradable, ensuring that bottom teams can draft the best talent available, while picks 10-18 remain tradable, giving them the flexibility to select top talent. Let's be realistic; trying to acquire top-end draft picks for elite players is nearly impossible." Regardless of where I end up this year on the ladder or in future years, gives everyone a window of opportunity. The fact is though (that I was trying to highlight in my previous post) is that not all top end draft picks end up good SC scorers. There is still the need for research and a little bit of luck!
I posted earlier I would just go with the flow, which I aim to do, but feel like I can still post my thoughts.... Earlier @bryzza posted and @martyg concurred.... I still advocate for coaches to have the freedom to manage their teams as they see fit. And suggests that the bottom 9 teams get 2 x1st rd picks, but can't trade the 1st of these picks...... Isn't that, taking away their freedom to manage their teams as they see fit....
Agreed. I don't think limiting which picks coaches can trade is positive for anyone. If anything, trading top end picks for established players is a way of making lower teams competitive faster as they don't have to wait for the player to reach their prime. That's why the AFL has at times insisted that priority picks given to struggling teams must be traded.
I'm not sure about your math there. If you delist four players and trade in two for draft picks, then you just need to draft two more in. That's still just a turnover of four players! Reality is whenever someone makes a trade, they're doing so because they think it's making an improvement to their list. So whether you are forced to delist players or not, you're still going to make trades that you think will improve your list.
I am rubbing both sides of the coin as i get the feeling some coaches want equalization measures therefore I added a different solution, I would like to see the removal of mandatory delistments
That is under the current rules, but it has been suggested that 4 mandatory delistments to not include trades/retirements
Just how many top picks have been traded for elite players ? as i said its a very rare, hence why I suggested they have two picks inside top 18 using the second pick for trade bait. This would enhance trading as the top teams could look at getting back into the first round At the end of the day its just a suggestion, if enough coaches like the idea we can always have a vote to how we divvy up the first round
I personally think giving the bottom 8-9 teams a priority pick each season is a very strong move, and may be skewing things too far into compensation for poor performance. Stats say first round draft picks play a lot more AFL games than second round picks. How many wins does team 10 in our league usually get each season? 6 or 7? Doesn't feel like that team needs assistance. I'd be more in favour of giving teams that win 4 games or less (less than 25% of matches played that season) a priority pick and then running the draft as normal after this. If coaches want to trade that priority pick (or any of their others), best of luck to them. It feels like this problem is a short term one, with current coaches out of the 8 looking for assistance. If so, provide one-off assistance for next season and move on with the competition as normal from 2026.
Ill insert this table that @fresh posted What you are saying the bottom 4 only need assistance ? based on these averages i am inclined think otherwise. You'll then be alienating the rest who are sitting in no mans land. I believe priority picks become complicated to manage, bottom 4 could just be a revolving door for the bottom 8 teams. If we are trying to equalize then why not give an equal chance to all the bottom 8 teams? If you look at my overall solution the top teams will be severely hindered as there first pick wont be until the mid 30's