We are all well aware of the 6 FORCED delistments we all have to make at seasons end and im sure everyone knows my stance on this that its ridiculous trades arent included in this. I just think if we take punt on players that we should be rewarded rather then having to get rid of set amount each year. But i see what H is trying to do. So ive been thinking and i reckon we should implement some kind of "father/son" style system where if you want to re-draft a particular player you should get first crack at it. Other clubs can "nominate" that they want them and what round pick they'd use to secure that player and if previous coach wants him they must use pick closest to that. Thoughts?
I understand your thinking SKT but personally i'm not keen for it 2 reasons - 1 - it complicates the system 2 - the main one is that i've drafted my team knowing i'm cutting 6 players at seasons end. I would have drafted differently if that wasn't the case. As an aside i also think having the bigger drafts makes the game more fun.
Not for one moment would I suggest anything, just simply make the observation that the ORFFA are moving towards a figure of 4 mandatory, 2 optional. The thinking has been that with no new franchises there will be fewer diamonds.
Will not be the last time you have been fruitless in your quest for logic, nor the last time you will be floored.
Thanks, Relton. Look, explain to me the premise that if there are less diamonds because there are no longer new franchises being added to the AFL, then clubs should have delist less players. For starters, I think "diamonds" is a subjective term. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Literally. Which brings me to my next point. If there are indeed less "diamonds" would it not make sense to provide more rough for people to search in.
Rules are set can't see why we would change them, like Eddie said he drafted to this plan it would just throw out his tactics.
SKT just having a crack. Again. We went through all of this earlier and nothing has changed in the meantime.
<blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on June 21, 2012, 18:18 Thanks, Relton. Look, explain to me the premise that if there are less diamonds because there are no longer new franchises being added to the AFL, then clubs should have delist less players. For starters, I think "diamonds" is a subjective term. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Literally. Which brings me to my next point. If there are indeed less "diamonds" would it not make sense to provide more rough for people to search in.</blockquote> It's fairly simple really. A flawless diamond is a new player who gets to play in the A team. In any normal season, all teams have a list of players outside the 22, as well as rookies. Some of these players will get a game due to injury or form. Many won't, and these are the ones usually cut at the end of the year. They are the rough diamonds, to continue the analogy. By virtue of new franchises (and I am assuming here that ORFFL was first introduced - and rules developed - during a new franchise year) you have a whole team of new players added to your choice, quite a few of which are high draft picks that you would like to develop over a few years in what is called a keeper league so that you enjoy the fruits of their progress. The question facing every team is who is better, the 6 cut or the 6 new? Probably 50/50. So there could be a case for some means whereby some of the delistings can be redrafted to their original home. In the real world the salary cap and the veterans list are also factors in delisting. Also in the real world teams know that they will have to reduce certain numbers at the end of the year. But every recruit they take on they hope will be that shining 300 karat. Rules are made to be developed. This is not a suggestion. As for beauty, it is not what is on the outside that counts. It is what is on the inside. Eating away at you.
<blockquote>Quote from TerryinBangkok on June 21, 2012, 19:57 <blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on June 21, 2012, 18:18 Thanks, Relton. Look, explain to me the premise that if there are less diamonds because there are no longer new franchises being added to the AFL, then clubs should have delist less players. For starters, I think "diamonds" is a subjective term. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Literally. Which brings me to my next point. If there are indeed less "diamonds" would it not make sense to provide more rough for people to search in.</blockquote> It's fairly simple really. A flawless diamond is a new player who gets to play in the A team. In any normal season, all teams have a list of players outside the 22, as well as rookies. Some of these players will get a game due to injury or form. Many won't, and these are the ones usually cut at the end of the year. They are the rough diamonds, to continue the analogy. By virtue of new franchises (and I am assuming here that ORFFL was first introduced - and rules developed - during a new franchise year) you have a whole team of new players added to your choice, quite a few of which are high draft picks that you would like to develop over a few years in what is called a keeper league so that you enjoy the fruits of their progress. The question facing every team is who is better, the 6 cut or the 6 new? Probably 50/50. So there could be a case for some means whereby some of the delistings can be redrafted to their original home. In the real world the salary cap and the veterans list are also factors in delisting. Also in the real world teams know that they will have to reduce certain numbers at the end of the year. But every recruit they take on they hope will be that shining 300 karat. Rules are made to be developed. This is not a suggestion. As for beauty, it is not what is on the outside that counts. It is what is on the inside. Eating away at you. </blockquote> Fair cop. Look the issue has always hinged on fantasy coaches desire to keep their players (especially their young) and the nature of the draft; an equalisation method. I argue that the more players teams have to cut, the greater it acts as an equalisation method. The poorer teams have dibs on a greater selection of players. I think I read an Anthak post that contended that some teams may have drafted a young, developing side across the board may be disadvantaged by such a deep cut. Maybe so, but in the ORFFL teams went into the season knowing they'd have to cut six. I'm more than happy to have a democratic review of everything at the end of the season. I'd love it. But I'm dead against changing the rules halfway though through the season/game.
If you went into the season with a young side then you are presumably prepared to being belted by Savages and are lowly placed by the end of the year. So wouldn't you be the beneficiary of more fish in the sea? Better chance to get some of the hot youngsters from the draft and better chance to get the best of the pickings from the delisted scrap heap.
No suggestion of change. Totally agree. More, I thought it was a subject worthy of discussion and the arguments put forward here have, in general, been solid. Hopefully the ORFFA will take them on board. I suggest for some in ORFFA the implication of 'keeper' was not fully understood and some drafted young accordingly. They have now had the luxury of a mid-season draft to correct that. Some did, some didn't. Can I be "certain someone" for a week?
I was actually considering doing a long post for the ORFFL beforehand to stop the inevitable conjecture but didn't. Woe is me so I'll do it now. Why I think the 6 delistments is important: First off the important thing is that it allows teams to regenerate their lists, much like the mid-season draft expect to a larger extent. So unless you've recruited perfectly and none of your team are spudding up (lol yeah right), or you've managed to trade out those with broken hammies for KPFs (possible it now seems) then you're going to want more players in your side. More players delisted, more regeneration. The Draft. It may seem obvious but getting rid of players allows you to pick up the new guys on the block. Who wants the same team with only trading making it different? I don't. This is an obvious one but doesn't address the whole issue so lets move on. This may be a keeper league but its not "hoarde-all-your-good-players" league. It would get boring if all we did come end of season is change one or two spuds for one or two youngsters who may or may not spud themselves. What sort of league is that? Not to mention it'll mean the stronger teams will stay strong with little opportunity for the weaker teams to get better. Culling 6 players means there will be enough players available that those at the bottom of the table can have the ability to improve their side and have something to look forward to and wont be inclined to leave the game. Spitting chips. Are we really enamoured with all 26 of our players that we can't bare to part with them all? I'm certainly not. What's the most important to our teams is the top 15. So by culling six we are still no where near getting rid of the best in our teams and leaving it open for us to keep 5 other players we deem important. I may antagonise over the decisions on who to cut (I can name 4 of the bat) but we're not going to rid Abletts or Franklins and certainly not young guns like Congilio or Patton - I'm going to be losing players like Blake or Kosi, hardly the apex of squads. Looking at the lists, I doubt anyone over 80ppg is going to be axed unless its to keep a good youngster and if that that happens then good! They keep a young gun they think will improve and then there's going to be a highly sought after 80+ppg player that someone high in the draft will select to improve their squad. Both team coaches should be happy with that, surely. Fun. The main reason why the ORFFL was set up was because it gave something to do for bored SC-addicts from TS whilst we were all whistling dixie waiting for the pre-season comps to actually start. Other keeper-league drafts may have different motives for starting but I'd like to think fun is one of the more important reason here. Who wants to keep whistling dixie all pre-season when we could be drafting? So more drafting and better players to draft, the better. Would also like to say that even though I may have been on the wrong side of the rub because of it before, I appreciate the Commie's decision to leave everything as it is until the end of the season with no rule changing to be done once we've started.
<blockquote>Quote from TerryinBangkok on June 21, 2012, 22:05 Can I be "certain someone" for a week?</blockquote> Do you drink from the river Rhine?
I havent read any other thread so no idea whats going on in that "other" competition. Whole issue I have is if you trade 4-5 players and get 4-5 guys in you then HAVE to delist a further 6 players. Thats like 10 changes to your list. Not everyone wants to take part in draft, why cant people rejuvenate their list via trading? Id rather trade for those 70-90 players then take 18-19 year old kids that are 3-4 years away from scoring well. As ive said all along my issue is it should be 6 LIST changes, not delistments. Make it 8 list changes either by trade or delistment if that makes people happy. When it comes down to it you are getting the exact same result, everyones list is changing by 6 players. I didnt post this to get change right now, i posted it so we can make a decision before end of season and trade/draft period begins. No point discussing it 1 week before that.