Len wrote: TerryinBangkok wrote: I thought Prap picked up Caveat Emptor in the last MSD? Is he now LTI? I need more non giants remember, trade in Don't you mean you need less giants? So Cav is a midget or a dwarf, or just vertically disadvantaged?
TerryinBangkok wrote: Len wrote: TerryinBangkok wrote: I thought Prap picked up Caveat Emptor in the last MSD? Is he now LTI? I need more non giants remember, trade in Don't you mean you need less giants? So Cav is a midget or a dwarf, or just vertically disadvantaged? He's latin, its a different disadvantage, and very clearly non giant
Even though I started the conversation, I am a bit ambivalent to be honest. I have had Ben Reid off the park all year, Andrew Swallow at the start of the year, and Tom Nicholls now... the only one I would have called LTI on was Nicholls, but shit happens and that is the luck of the draw... I also have three non-playing ruckmen who are not injured!
Len wrote: TerryinBangkok wrote: Len wrote: TerryinBangkok wrote: I thought Prap picked up Caveat Emptor in the last MSD? Is he now LTI? I need more non giants remember, trade in Don't you mean you need less giants? So Cav is a midget or a dwarf, or just vertically disadvantaged? He's latin, its a different disadvantage, and very clearly non giant Ah! If he's Italian he should be playing for Carlton.
excellent ideas and discussion. I dont mind the idea of LTI replacements, but I am wary of the admin involved and potential for mistakes in the application of it all. One thing I will add is that I would love for us to have rights over the replacement player in the next draft, as was suggested by Chris. I think this could be done easily with a bidding system in the same vain as the current AFL Father/Son bidding setup. Yanno, declare intent to draft a fill in, and then any other club can bid the pick they are willing to use for that player (which they must use if the highest bidder) but the club with the rights to the player can nominate and use their next draft pick they have after the highest bid. If no bids, then they can use their last pick. Obviously only if it all goes ahead... And I'm not so sure I actually even support the whole idea of LTI replacements. I think LTIs are part of the game. Ive had a couple of players out for long periods - Christensen, Hickey to name just two. It would have been handy to replace them, but you just gotta cop it I reckon. Also, it gives others a bit of a leg-up if the top teams get LTIs, and their improved draft position is no big deal IMO. It all happens in real life. Ask a Spurs fan about whether they tanked for Tim Duncan or not. There were just a number of unfortunate events (and some fortunate) that led to the Spurs snaring a #1 draft pick from their only losing season in 20odd years.
I'm ambivalent towards it too - I can see both sides of the argument. But having this discussion is definitely a winner. We can perhaps get something drawn up as a proposal to put to coaches for a vote at season's end?
Also ambivalent, tending towards no change. Especially when the admin level might be a burden. These types of chats are one of the features that makes ORFFA so appealing to me. Good people, good craic, good value.
Good discussion and really interesting reading. I'm inclined towards no change myself and share the view of others that LTIs are just bad luck and that bad luck comes with the game. I've had a couple of LTIs but that's just how it goes. Also, Chris' post about the classification of an LTI also got me thinking about some circumstances where inequality (I guess?) in LTI replacement might come about. I think the Dayne Beams from last year or Daniel Wells-type situations, where they end up missing 10/12/14 weeks despite being listed as 1-2 or 2-3 constantly, are examples to consider. Now I don't think either of situations should permit a replacement player, but, is it reasonable for one party to be able to replace a best 15 player because they were listed as 12 weeks initially when another party has to go without because because it was listed as 4 weeks, then another 3, then another 2-3 etc? The impact on the teams is the same - a best 15 player unavailable for 12 weeks - yet the outcome is vastly different as one gets an extra player and the other doesn't. In that regard I think injuries are injuries and we all just have to cop them. (Apologies if that isn't as coherent as it could be. A bit sleep deprived recently and the thoughts can get a bit muddled).
melbandy wrote: In the interest of the KISS principle, the reason we increased the list size was to reduce the likelihood of fielding unfilled teams. To a large extent this has worked. Certainly at least for me. We risk making it all too complex and onerous if we bring in exceptions to the rule. If we still feel this is a serious problem, perhaps we can extend the list to 29 or 30 players. People who do their homework and pick players that are not injury prone and turn up to play each week should be rewarded. If you're unlucky, as they say in San Fermin,'Sometimes, the bull, she wins.' I agree Melbandy. I am a life long advocate for a 30 man list We still have teams fielding people OOP or not at all, sometimes even good teams. Also, good teams seem to be finding it hard to stash away young talent.
Prap wrote: melbandy wrote: In the interest of the KISS principle, the reason we increased the list size was to reduce the likelihood of fielding unfilled teams. To a large extent this has worked. Certainly at least for me. We risk making it all too complex and onerous if we bring in exceptions to the rule. If we still feel this is a serious problem, perhaps we can extend the list to 29 or 30 players. People who do their homework and pick players that are not injury prone and turn up to play each week should be rewarded. If you're unlucky, as they say in San Fermin,'Sometimes, the bull, she wins.' I agree Melbandy. I am a life long advocate for a 30 man list We still have teams fielding people OOP or not at all, sometimes even good teams. Also, good teams seem to be finding it hard to stash away young talent. I've advocated in favour of list extensions or expansions in the past - though also with the balancing concern that there simply might not be the scope of players in the FA pool to support all the extra draftees. That said, IIRC I was keen to perhaps expand out list to 27 mid last year rather than the 28 we eventually moved to because of this concern which has probably proven to be rather unfounded! For what its worth, if there was a change to be made, I'd favour a list expansion over a LTI model (though both have their positives). Again, I'd cautiously put forward an expansion to 29 players due to the concerns I've stated above (again, I might be wrong). Something to think about though is this - if we move to 30 players (from 26 at the start of 2013 and 28 mid-last year), I strongly feel we need to enforce an extra delistment each year. This would mean we've gone from 6 delistments on 26-person lists and then 6 delistments on 28-person lists to 7 delistments on 30-person lists. The extra player/s on the list would address a number of previously stated issues - the injury issue, the retention of young players, the avoidance of churn (the 'washing machine league'). Maybe having an extra spot or two on the list would encourage those without injury overloads to take a flyer on a young player or keep a young guy on the list. But that should be balanced by having an extra delistment enforced each year too. There has to be some level of list turnover and some level of difficult or challenging delistment decisions to be made each year..
Good discussion. If there is a vote, mine is for leaving list sizes the same and not having a LTI List. Like has been said earlier, simple is better and I think that overall the ORFFA is going ok. No point making change for the sake of it. We can leave that to the AFL.
ChiefRussell wrote: Good discussion. If there is a vote, mine is for leaving list sizes the same and not having a LTI List. Like has been said earlier, simple is better and I think that overall the ORFFA is going ok. No point making change for the sake of it. We can leave that to the AFL. +1. Agree entirely, CR.
Not certain LTI's are the only issue - I view it more as carrying a player who isn't playing. I think it fair that if you invest in youth, you watch them run around for a while (sometimes a long while) in the magoos. Now if this player cops an LTI in the magoos, are you eligible for a temporary replacement, potentially with an AFL regular? What of those holding Johnno Brown and Dayle Garlett, et al, who, delisted from their sides or not, effectively have the same impact as LTI's? Bandit's opening post was a breath of fresh air, but it seems the more we look into it, the more complex it becomes. Perhaps squad size is the answer? I take Chris' point about the top sides not being able to invest in youth, although I don't entirely agree. And, after our last MSD, I am not convinced that the draft is badly compromised by increasing squad size. Each coach has their own view. We currently have about 4 sides whose so-called premiership window is open. It seems that they invest in players who will have an immediate impact on their score, as well as shoring up their depth, particularly with finals in mind. This group is followed by top 4 aspirants, who are also more likely to be focused on scoring potential. Not investing in youth is a conscious decision by these top 8 sides and the game makes it harder for them with higher draft picks. This group is followed by a bunch with their eyes on the top 8 - almost a group in transition. They have had some youth policy, but are now looking at ways to boost their scoring capability, even if it means 'recycled' players. At the end of the table are the teams with a clear youth policy. As many of these youth 'come online' (start belting out decent scores), these coaches top them up with even more youth. Theoretically, their window, when they hit it, should be open longer. There are many subtle variations on this. The art would seem to be something like the Sydney model of aging stars, youth coming of age and audacious recruiting of a few stars. The point being, every coach has their own views on balance and our current system of drafting and delisting allows them to do that.
Pretty sure it was Len & maybe TiB that originally way back when were proponents of a 'rookie list'......a stash of 1-2 players that hopefully develop in the 2nds over a year or two. Can we not combine the LTI with a Rook List? That is, we increase squad sizes to 30......BUT only 28 are on the active roster. The two additional players cannot be selected without one of the starting 28 being put on Rook/LTI status. To prevent constant shuffling, we can make defined periods, just like the AFL.....is it 11 Rds? Not really sure.....but that's probably too long, we could change that to say 6 Rds. The 29th/30th player are rookie listed devel players or LTI's, whichever you prefer. They can be dropped, just like the starting 28, at PSD & MSD, and go back into the pool. This way teams can if they choose stash a young un or two there. If they just choose young uns not getting a game & one of their starting 28 get an LTI, well, that's too bad....they made that choice. They do have the ability though to drop one of these 29th/30th listed players at the MSD, replace them with a playing player, then after the MSD, put their LTI onto that bench and bring on the sub. Other teams may just squirrel depth players there, or a combo of the two. All we need to do is set a timeframe. Something like IF you promote the 29th player into your starting 28 and send a player from this 28 to the 2 rook/lti's spot.....then it cant be undone for say 6 weeks or something. I also don't think these two non playing rook/lti'ers will dwindle the draft-able pool too much, half the teams at least will use it for magoo kids with their fingers crossed. The admin of such shouldn't be too hard either I think. Some examples of this in action, with regard to my embryonic useless broken leg Hoppers I carried Morabito for two seasons, effectively making my squad only 27. I carry Griffin solely for a Sandi injury, who hasn't played in over a year, dropping my squad to 26. I drafted Cam McCarthy, strictly for tomorrow, now I'm at a starting 25. Yes these are my choices, but I kind of like doing it. Given a R/LT 29th & 30th player, I could have stashed Mora/McCarthy there. Once Mora was brought back to the seniors at Freo, I could move Griff into the 29th spot and bring Mora into the starting 28. This move would be for a minimum of 6 weeks. ......anyway, my 2c snoz
.......maybe the lack of responses to my below post says enough hahaha, but I'm going to bump this for shits&giggles: At years end, I would like to propose an R/LT list. Effectively the same as the AFL albeit on a much smaller scale, two players will be nominated for rookie status & added to lists in the 29th & 30th slot. Orfffans can hibernate kids in here with future aspirations, or a vet (Waite, Sylvia etc) that are strictly depth players in case of an LTI. These two players can be drafted, delisted or swappedonly in the PSD & MSD. During the season, you may nominate a rook elevation at any time (with a corresponding move of a player out of the starting 28) but doing so locks that player in until the MSD and then again at years end. LTI's will be similar. If a starting player goes down, you can place him into the 29/30 hole at any time and elevate a depth player.....but again this cannot be undone until the MSD or years end. I get that it increases squad sizes to 30.....have always been a fan hahaha whilst others aren't......but it does give teams who cop serious LTI's an ability to put that player in the morgue and get their starting squad back to 28......and it does enable a keeper league to invest in speculative youth which is kind of fun without handicapping the starting squad. Anyway, kind of enjoying the ongoing convo's......gives me something to do as I hold tightly onto 18th spot on the ladder......so hope this discussion is healthy & not at all an indication of discontent. snoz
I read your 2c and the follow up 3c. Does that constitute a dime where you live? Given current exchange rates you may need to raise the value a little if you want chels to comment. I have no issue at all with anything stated in your double post. In fact I am smiling, happy and full of goodwill towards my fellow human beings. The sun is shining and no doubt it will still be shining when we get to chew on this towards the end of the year. The central issue will be squad size. Once that is determined, in what is likely to be a close run contest, we can then perhaps look at some of the easier combinations/solutions you have outlined.
If we get a rookie list, I'll sign this guy just so I can have 'Big Ivan' and 'Bloody Hell, even bigger Ivan' on the same team. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/richmond-ruckman-ivan-marics-cousin-ivan-soldo-rookielisted-by-the-tigers/story-fni5f9jb-1226998896598?nk=6ba334a35304006f3c5bd9fb1355669c
I've given these ideas a lot of thought and right now I think we should stay the way are for another year, bed in and measure the 28 man expansion, I don't believe this has been done yet. Of the other alternatives I vastly prefer a squad expansion over all the more complicated LTI measures, including any I may have previously put forward. If it is decided a change is needed I'd like it to be in 2016 and for it to be a simple 2 man expansion.
Be it rookies or some LTI approach, I think we need to have the discussion about a) if we need to change and b) if we do, then I guess naturally it is for next season, and therefore what are we changing! I am quite happy to leave it as is as well... but it might be just you and me Len who are happy in our underperforming ways!
Bandit wrote: Be it rookies or some LTI approach, I think we need to have the discussion about a) if we need to change and b) if we do, then I guess naturally it is for next season, and therefore what are we changing! I am quite happy to leave it as is as well... but it might be just you and me Len who are happy in our underperforming ways! lol, maybe I'm not against increasing, but I'd like to see the impact of 28 first..