Did we ever have a vote in regards to Option 1 keep mandatory delisting Option 2 let coaches do as they please
We don't have mandatory delisting and never have. Mandatory delisting would actually be a useful rule making it harder for strong teams to horde players. What we have is mandatory list turnover, which in my mind is pointless as you can simply trade a player for another of equal value so doing nothing to equalise the competition.
Apples and oranges , same same but different. Once again hording of players raises its ugly head. We have debunked this so many times wth actual stats, we need to move on and be more flexible
Yeah. I haven't got the numbers. But I feel like even a 2nd round pick on average does better than player 27 on a team.
@Tylo we’ve gone over mandatory delisting a lot already, and there have been plenty of chances to dig into it in earlier threads if you want to revisit those discussions. We also debunked the idea of mandatory delisting with stats — most coaches already take around four picks in the main draft, plus picks in the MSD, so forced delisting doesn’t really solve the problem people think it does. My bigger concern is that policies meant to rein in top teams actually end up hurting bottom teams more. Lower-ranked teams rely on higher draft picks, and mandatory delisting can make it harder for them to hold onto speculative picks for a year or two to see if they develop.
A quick look at this year's delistments seems to disprove what you're saying. A lot of the higher ranked teams have delisted less than 4 players, whereas most of the lower ranked teams have delisted 4 or more. So the evidence or "stats" don't seem to be saying what you think they are.
To put it into stats, 1 of the top 9 teams delisted 4 players 6 of the bottom 9 teams delisted 4 players, 3 of them delisted more If you forced each team to delist 4 players, where do you think the higher quality players would return to the free agent pool from? The higher ranked teams or the lower ranked teams? And of course it's the lower ranked teams that get first crack at drafting those players. It's pretty basic logic really. I'm not saying it would make a huge difference. But there's no doubt it would be at least slightly beneficial to lower teams. Obviously the higher the delist number, the more effect it has. edit - I didn't dig as deep as to include retirees, I'm guessing they're roughly evenly spread
I agree with you @Tylo. I’ve always advocated for list changes rather than delistings, but I feel that list changes doesn’t really deliver the desired outcome. Sitting in between, including trades, does not help to equalise the comp. The best teams turn over their aging stars and top up with high picks. I think there should be no rule or it should be mandatory delisting/maximum squad sizes pre-draft, as it is in the other leagues. With the squad size rule, it makes picks in the third and fourth, even fifth, rounds, more relevant. It would extend our draft, but we could do something around the time limits or in-draft trading to pull it back.