2014 Draft Rule Amendment

chris88 wrote:
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. I wonder if Chris has fully thought this through. /Portals/0/User%20Images/churn.png

 

'To Everything (Churn Churn Churn)
There is a season (Churn Churn Churn)' /Portals/0/User Images/treenware-butter-churn.jpg

 

Watch out, you might get what you're after<br style='margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: #474747; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 23px;[/img] Cool babies, strange but not a stranger<br style='margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: #474747; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 23px;[/img] I'm an ordinary guy<br style='margin: 0px; padding: 0px; color: #474747; font-family: 'Times New Roman', Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 23px;[/img] Churning down the house

 

Showing my age, but Talking Heads clearly in front

 

Raptor wrote:
[span style='font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;]The time has come
To say fair's fair
To delist some spuds
To pay our share

The time has come
A fact's a fact
They belong on your list
Let's give them back

How can we trade
When our list is turning
Who do we keep
While our teams are churning HAHAHA, this is great lol Still dont agree with 6 forced delistments for PSD tho.

 

Think Midnight Oil sweeps the pot, but must 'fess that when I first read Chris' original post The Byrds tune immediately started circumnavigating the brain, and of course it is one of those tunes that puts itself on auto-play when you are in the shower or driving the car, sipping a pinot - or typing a post in TS.

 

chels wrote:
Big props to Raptor and JC for using two neologisms that Lisa Simpson drew attention to. Warms the heart of any metrosexual during his staycation. A somewhat nebulous contribution chels. Expected more. The coach formerly known as Philosoraptor may indeed be Jebediah Springfield in disguise. As might JC be Edna Krabappel. Now there's a thought. And Len should always think twice when bumping something for relevance - in every case it is a clear invitation for Bandit to play. One suspects 'staycation' is a term oft used by Snoz and probably has its origins somewhere in the bowels of Manhattan where denizens stay at home for fear of being clobbered on the streets.

 

Boys will be boys, it's said.
Just to clarify, as Raptor has indicated and I have tried to explain this is a call between self interest and the interest of the league, it's pretty much that simple. I am not against self interest, it's a fundamental human condition & I have plenty of my own, as I said above personally I'd like to stop at 24 myself. So far this looks like a roughly 50/50 split and I have no interest in trying to push a non majority call on this topic down anyone's throat, but will raise it at each opportunity because I do believe it is in the best interests of the league. There will come a time when the self interests of enough coaches align with those who can believe in the greater good concept.

 

Len, it seems as though you consider that only your proposal is for the greater good of the Association. I'd already mentioned a while back that I personally believe that it is better for league to keep it how it is. I know I went on about not wanting to drop anyone, but truth be told, I could easily pick 6 players that aren't up to the same standard as the rest of my squad, and I'd imagine that I would end up with a better overall squad afterwards; so, if I was advocating in self interest, I'd be supporting your proposal; but, I'm not. As mentioned earlier, this is a keeper league and to keep everyone's interest high, I believe it's imperil ice that we allow us to build a squad, developing players over time if we choose. Part of the reason we increased squad sizes was because of that, and if we force six delisting in preseason, those extra 2 squad spots are no longer keeper spots. Also, if it is decided that we should change it, it should not happen this preseason. Most of us have been trading draft picks and the value of those draft picks change considerably if we all are forced to delist 2 more players than expected. Fitzy would have a field day with 3 picks in the top 13, or whatever he has. Abyway, I don't like it. I already think 4 may be excessive, but it's not so bad. 6 on the other hand, I don't believe it will be good.

 

anthak wrote:
Len, it seems as though you consider that only your proposal is for the greater good of the Association. I'd already mentioned a while back that I personally believe that it is better for league to keep it how it is. I know I went on about not wanting to drop anyone, but truth be told, I could easily pick 6 players that aren't up to the same standard as the rest of my squad, and I'd imagine that I would end up with a better overall squad afterwards; so, if I was advocating in self interest, I'd be supporting your proposal; but, I'm not. As mentioned earlier, this is a keeper league and to keep everyone's interest high, I believe it's imperil ice that we allow us to build a squad, developing players over time if we choose. Part of the reason we increased squad sizes was because of that, and if we force six delisting in preseason, those extra 2 squad spots are no longer keeper spots. Also, if it is decided that we should change it, it should not happen this preseason. Most of us have been trading draft picks and the value of those draft picks change considerably if we all are forced to delist 2 more players than expected. Fitzy would have a field day with 3 picks in the top 13, or whatever he has. Abyway, I don't like it. I already think 4 may be excessive, but it's not so bad. 6 on the other hand, I don't believe it will be good. I think your response would fail an applied logic test to be honest ant, despite your opening line your arguments are in favour of the good of your team in isolation and not necessarily the league as a whole. I believe it inarguable that in a draft with less depth (due to lower team cuts), those teams with higher draft picks will do demonstrably better than those without, to use your example but my plan, Fitzy would no longer have just the top 10 or 15 2013 AFL draft picks to look at, but better existing talent as well, sure he would have more to pick from, but much more to leave behind for others also. Good luck to him for trading so hard either way. FWIW we wont be changing this preseason, but primarily because the opinion is split 50/50, trades made in this period for players or picks, are or at least should be, always be made on the buyer beware principle, I don't consider that at all a relevant reason to resist change. Indeed under that argument there would be no window for change.

 

I think you may have missed my point. If everyone had to delist 6, it would clearly benefit the lower teams, personnel wise. Including mine (yeah, I finished 9th, but going into the last round I potentially could have finished as low as 13th, from memory, and I don't consider my team as good as most). but is that better for the league? I don't think so. This is a keeper league. Just my opinion though and I'm not sure if its in line with others. Both sides have merits and could be argued for. I also acknowledge that both sides could be argued that they create greater engagement too, for different reasons (and potential loss of engagement was one of my reasons for dissent when this was first raised; although I did note that it was just a hunch, cause its only hypothetical really) ... so I'm not claiming I am right, but rather that it is not necessarily a question of self interest against the greater good, because they are subjective. They could potentially even be looked at as one and the same.
Also, I believe my point about the timing of the introduction of a rule change such as this is completely valid. Yeah, buyer beware on players, but draft picks are traded with more of a tangible value. And I disagree that this creates no window for change - if we're gonna change this, we should finalise the decision before the MS trade period of the previous year.

 

Ant is correct. My concerns over this rule change centre around the fact that this enforced delisting of so many players in one go encourages unnecessary list churn and discourages teams sticking with young players as they develop or having patience with injured players as they recover. If a team has to cut to the bone in one hit (and six players out of 28 being ousted in one hit constitutes that in my view) who is going to go first - the young guy not getting a game, or who is injured, or the guy scoring 65 points a game and getting on the park. Even with 28 players in our teams we still had teams in the league unable to field full sides in the second half of the year due to injuries and the variances of form. But Ant also nails it when he says this forced delisting favours lower teams.My team finished 7th this year - one less win/a little bad luck and it would've been 10th or 11th given my poor points for. That being the case my team could've very clearly benefited from being able to pick up good players the top end teams have been forced to cast aside due to the extra cuts proposed. Self interest be damned. I love trading, drafting and cutting players (as many of you will have noted during the last couple of trade and draft periods) and I have no qualms delisting lots of players. My issue is in fact with the interests of the league and the need for a keeper league to allow teams to show patience with, and faith in, the players they pick up without heavy list cuts.

 

Chris raises a good point, that I did not. I had said yhat personnel wise, this change would clearly benefit the lower teams. i still think it would (personnel wise), but its not as clear cut, with yhis point in mind. The extra 2 players cut in most cases would be young development players or injured players and it is questionable how much extra depth the draft will have with a whole heap extra of those types. Related to this, there are teams at the moment, at all different stages of list development, but I fear that a change like this could encourage everyone to start building their list with immediate impact in mind only, for the here and now; which, I don't believe is good for the league at all. It's already bordering on that now, but with an extra 2 forced delistments, we could easily move into that realm.
And if we did, it is possible that it would suit some of the better teams and the bottom teams would be disadvantaged - initially at least. Gee, I had another point to raise, but I can't think of it I may have to come back later if It comes back to me.