2014 Draft Rule Amendment

Jen wrote:
Lenh191 wrote: Jen wrote:I vote no - we should be able to cut when we like as long as it tallies up to 6 delistment through the year. I am not sure if you meant that literally Jen, but if so I am completely against it, we need healthy draft pools and only deepish cuts provide those. I meant it, looking at my list I can't see 6 players that I want to get rid of at the start of next season. I have young guys that will play and take over players spots as they move on. If I am forced to delist 6 players then I would be looking at trying to get them back because they are players I don't want to get rid of and only did so because of the rule. when we like as long as it tallies up to 6 delistment through the year.

This, strictly interpreted was what I meant Jen, if we don't cut to a minimum standard at least once in the year than there is no validity to the draft process, we become a waiver league, I am 100% against that.
Re the hurt on cutting 6, that's the point. You don't grow roses by simply removing the easy outer bits, you prune hard. AFL teams every year have to delist players they would rather keep in order to maintain a forward momentum, otherwise they turn into St Kilda, or worse, Melbourne, I am advocating the same for us. Specifically, cut deep enough to notice (hurt if you will), but not deep enough to have to divest young talent you have invested in, ie maintaining the sanctity of the 2 additional team members.

 

Fitzy wrote:
A quote from Chris which I really agree with 'I'll still vote against it, given that we are trying to encourage a keeper league rather than a washing machine league where players are spun in and out of teams. ' And Lenh there is plenty to draft with mate, a fresh bunch of draftees and we realised mid-season how much depth there actuallly is that still havn't been picked up yet. Just gotta search mate. Those of you with memories faultier than my C&P skills must have forgotten me stating that the draft talent pool ran much deeper than people thought, well before the MSD commenced In my opinion if we do not make the cut at least this deep we remove the ability to rejuvenate/refresh the league from year to year, the downside of the extra squad members, if not combined with a stronger squad cut is the fact that the best of teams can play at the edges, only ever having to delist depth players. ie, it's not only about what's available to draft from.

 

Assuming it is relevant, I am wondering how many of the new recruits from this year's PSD were later discarded in the MSD. Almost a double dip? Thus, is the MSD a chance to make up for mistakes made in the PSD? I think yes. In considering this discussion you have, as Jen alludes to, the right to recruit back your discards. Also a common AFL practice.

 

TerryinBangkok wrote:
In considering this discussion you have, as Jen alludes to, the right to recruit back your discards. Also a common AFL practice. Shane Savage as case in point for the Spelunkers

 

I will join with the people against the proposal. At present, I like having the compulsory delistings spread over both drafts, mainly due to the enjoyment of building a squad/list, rather than rotating players so much. I realise that the total amount of forced delistments is not changing, but there will inevitably end up with more delistments as the MSD will still be utilised by people. Personally, I think 4 at preseason is more than enough. I also believe it is better for the league to not change it in line with the OP proposal. We are getting to know each others squads and having players swapping so readily will encourage disengagement, i feel. Just a hunch though, but I will come back to my personal preference not to have to delist more than 4 players in the PSD. I love my players and Im not going to let you take them away from me!! Just kidding but seriously, I am finding it really hard to work out 1 player I am willing to delist, let alone 4 or 6

 

Just I guess to clarify a bit - I'm not at all against delisting heaps of players - hell, I reckon I delisted and traded about 10-12 or so in the pre season and mid season drafts during 2013. And I'm not at all against delisting six players - even 8 players - but what I am against is having to do it all in one hit. Part of a keeper league is being able to continually assess and re-assess the performances of your players across the year. The players you might've discarded in February might end up being in your best 15 by June. The players who look the goods in June might be utter rubbish by September. I reckon it is important that we do cut teams continually and do turn our lists over. And making hard list decisions is a good part of this type of league. But we need to do it in a way where we have ample opportunity to see our 'investments' and either gain a return on them or cut our losses. Doing all the cuts all at once is a serious amount of churn at one time. Cutting the same (or even more) players across a longer period promotes less churn and more strategic list planning.

 

Bumping this for relevance.
Note that I am perfectly comfortable delisting to 24 as is the current rule, but I see that as the problem, it's not a stretch, I have no hard calls to make. I think the league will be healthier long term if we make it a little more painful.

 

I have a couple of hard calls, so guess it just depends on your squad status...

 

The flip side of that though mate is that each tough call is a decent player released to the pool. Every draft would be stronger by ten or more players at the pointy end..

 

Yeah I get that, but I've put all the time into getting my squad to where it is... Don't want to do all the hard work and watch the misfits benefit because they have early draft picks... I'd prefer to choose when I can delist them
And that was a joke about the Misfits for all the captain serious' out there!

 

That works this year, but in 4 years time when the Misfit's young guns are all firing you will be begging for my scraps...

 

For reference - I remain against the amendment for the reasons I've listed above. Again, I have no issue delisting lots of players and trading lots of players, but an increase in the mandated minimum number of delistments at one time each year encourages unnecessary churn and does nothing I feel to improve the league. The trade period we are having, as well as others during the year, shows that we are all willing and able to facilitate player movement. But churn for churn's sake isn't something I am in favour of.

 

chels wrote: No worries Chris, I respect your argument and your position. No skin off my nose If I have to delist no more than four. As noted above, if I were trying to move forward and improve my list I think I would delist more than four for the PSD. Ooh, sorry Chels - my comment wasn't meant to come across as a response to yours. Apologies if it did! Guess I just wanted to re-state where I was on this, but also in the context of the movements of players occurring during this trade period as well.