<blockquote>Quote from stkildathunda on June 21, 2012, 22:32 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. </blockquote> Where is it stated in the rules that's there's a trade period before the draft? All it says is we must delist players before the real-life Rookie draft. I would imagine the new draft could only be started after CD reveal their position changes, otherwise we have no idea which positions players are going to be listed in. So are making wild assumptions before you even know what is happening? And on Terry's subject of diamonds, I feel I'm quite qualified here, being my club is known to get highly valued rocks out of the ground. Each team will have 20 players left after this culling. We play as sides 15, 4-4-1-4 in each position plus 2 extras. Presuming then that out of those extra 5 you fill each position once then you'd have 17 players plus 3 extra. Going conservative and ignoring rucks that would mean (5*18=)90 players from each position locked into sides already and the rest cast out. For simpletons sake in this argument I'll round it up to 100 (which adding the 36 ruckmen, is still under 20 players for each side). Are you trying to say out of all the players, in each position, that those players outside the top 100 (however arbitrarily you rate them), are diamonds and are worth more than those inside that top 100?
How is it not the same result? Why would I want to fill my team with 18-19'year olds that wilharness no impact on my side for 3-4 years? Trading for 6 players is more beneficial IMO and it has same result as I've made 6 changes to my squad. Don't understand how u can't get that. As for trades before draft. Well clearly there must be if we have already started trading draft picks before season and during mid year.
Your proposal doesn't act as an equalisation method. Teams with a strong 20th-26th player range won't trade with a team who has a weak 20-26th player range. Teams with poor depth will only be able to improve it by drafting 2012 Draftees and a FA that has had the eyes picked out of it. As to why you drafted 18-19 year old's because you assumed everyone would agree with you, I dunno, man.
I didn't draft 18-19 year olds in hope people would agree with me. I'm saying Now we've had half year of this comp I've realized why would I want to when it's no benefit to my side. With only 26 players on a list & being forced to delist 6 players you can't build for future as u can't afford to keep crap scorers or kids til they mature. I might aswell just get all old blokes into my side. Why do u think I traded for Goodes, Kerr & Johncock.
Your saying teams wont trade with each other. Dont understsnd that. if you don't make 6 trades then you have to delist the other players. So there will be players into the pool.
Forgive me for posting in an ORFFL thread please. You are more than a pretty face Hornsy - but is the (implied?) description of the leagues as keeper leagues the problem? What's more valuable to a participant? Winning in 2012, 2013, 2014 or 2015? It's probably different for each participant. Hence everyone wins?
<blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on June 21, 2012, 20:41 <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. </blockquote> It seems that H acknowledges the rule may be flawed (especially if people drafted with it not in mind) and is open to having it up for debate, to be altered after this seasons delistings. Even though it is really none of my business, to me it is totally fair enough that the ORFFL would take this approach as the current rule was already discussed and implemented in consultation; so it would not be fair to change it on the fly. The ORFFA is different, somewhat. Due to the rushed nature and time (midseason) of setting up our league, some of the rules were missed by a lot of us, let alone created in a consultative fashion. Yes, we all had a chance to view this rule, as we primarily went with the same rules as you mob, but at the same time, it was said numerous times that "we do not have to take on all the same rules as ORFFL" - and some have already been changed on the run... Admittedly, some of those changes have not been to the satisfaction of all. Maybe it was because of this "opt-out" clause that some of us read some of the rules (the one in question is a good example) with a grain of salt and some seem to have not read the rules at all. I am not sure if Any ORFFA coaches drafted with this rule in mind, so the situations are very different. I want to use a system that Favours forward thinking, not one that fosters a culture of planning for the immediate first and foremost. I agree that there needs to be a mandatory number of delistings each post-season, but 6 is excessive in my personal opinion. I have given reasons and hypothetical examples elsewhere, so I will not repeat here. And I will leave it at that, as I gotta catch a bus in 15min, and I have not begun to get ready to leave haha
Trades are not an equalisation method. Hypothetically I could go through my list and trade out two fringe players for one starting 15 bloke and one spud, do that three times and then trade three starting 15's for an elite and two spuds, or similar, and have only strengthened my team through the process. Yes that would require some smart trading and good planning on my part but it would still screw over the people needing to draft some decent players as I wouldn't be adding anything to the talent pool
<blockquote>Quote from anthak on June 22, 2012, 09:01 And I will leave it at that, as I gotta catch a bus in 15min, and I have not begun to get ready to leave haha</blockquote> Made it
The way i see it is its not really a "keeper" league as it doesnt reward coaches in selecting quality kids or "diamonds" in rough. We may aswell just have big arse draft at end of each year and draft brand new team for next season. Afterall half the fun was the initial draft!
A per above, am starting to see it that way too SKT. Sad that some of us, in ORFFA anyway, bought into the keeper aspect. :?
Personally I'd disagree with that thunda, I think it just makes it more difficult in selecting those diamonds. My back-line I think is a good example of trying to get the diamonds. Chris Yarran, Jack Grimes, Michael Hibberd, Jackson Trengove, Dylan Grimes, Ben Jacobs and Karmichael Hunt. None of these guys are premium defenders at the moment, but I have faith that they will be, and if I lose faith I can still cash in on some of them by trading a couple for a premium defender. As it stands I would only have to de-list 1-2 of these guys at end of year, or I could trade them for a gun and a spud and de-list the spud. The equalisation part doesn't punish you for selecting younger players, it just gives you a larger incentive to get the right ones
Also as an aside to that I can't see how this is any different to the AFL salary cap. The more high-end players you have the harder the choices of who to keep and who to cull, and the more low end players you have the more flexibility you have with trading/drafting. First year players will rarely ever be good enough to get regular games, so the majority of diamonds will probably come from the 20-25 age range. This means coaches will need to make choices on whether to continue on with them in the hope they improve quickly or get rid of them and try and get someone better in the short-term. Points on the board vs future success. It doesn't punish you for selecting good young players as I mentioned above, as you can still trade them to others for betters players and spuds for de-listing.
Yo, ORFFA guys. Don't you have your own forum, and/or league? You should go to there. Unless you want us to come and play over there (you don't want that). Anthak, firstly I've never said the rule is flawed. Show me the roof, or GTFO. What I actually explained is the hinge the rule sits on between the desires of coaches to keep their players, and equalisation methods to help poor teams. Both important. Players want personal sovereignty (expressed by keeping their players over the years), but also don't want to play in an inert, unequal league. How did we decide where to stick this hinge on the continuum? We discussed and voted preseason (an act of personal sovereignty). I strongly doubt many here care what you guys are doing in the ORFFA. You don't have a vote here, and as such ( a vote being a measurement of a man's opinion), don't have an opinion here. I don't get a say on the ORFFA, you don't get a say in the ORFFL. Fair-Minsoning-Play, y'all. Chels, no apology necessary, because by your questions, as I understand it you're largely on a fact finding mission. It's as I expressed above (and in the past if you want to research back to the ORFFL preseason). The delistment rule is a hinge balancing coaches desires to "own" their team/players and the desire not to play in a inequal competition that stays that way (entrenched inequality). Both are important. If peeps are playing in a keeper league but don't get to keep their players, peeps won't like it and won't want to play. If peeps are playing in a keeper league but face the prospect of years of being on the bottom with very little chance of upward advancement, they won't want to play. The rule is the democratically decided middle ground. The over-arching aim of the rule (and all rules) is to keep everyone playing and enjoying the game. This is my definition of a "keeper" league, keeping the majority of coaches, not just the majority of players each coach has (which they do anyway).
Oh Hornsy, I had a feeling my comment may lead to such a response, but I did not have time to fix it, or add to it - but still wanted to post it I understand that our opinions are arbitrary. not really relevant at all... I was just trying to point out the difference in our scenarios. i wanted to because a couple of people alluded to a suggestion that this was raised again for ORFFL because it had been raised by ORFFA recently. <blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on June 22, 2012, 10:02 Anthak, firstly I've never said the rule is flawed. Show me the roof, or GTFO. What I actually explained is the hinge the rule sits on between the desires of coaches to keep their players, and equalisation methods to help poor teams. Both important. Players want personal sovereignty (expressed by keeping their players over the years), but also don't want to play in an inert, unequal league.</blockquote> In relation to this, I suggested that "It seems that H acknowledges the rule may be flawed (especially if people drafted with it not in mind) and is open to having it up for debate, to be altered after this seasons delistings" I took this view from this quote (roof), where you say that it "maybe so" that teams that draft young across the board may be disadvantaged by such a large cut: <blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on June 21, 2012, 20:41 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. </blockquote> But I did assume that you were basically saying that if teams did that in ORFFL, that it was their own fault as the rules were discussed at length and agreed upon before the draft. . <blockquote>Quote from Hornsy on June 22, 2012, 10:02 How did we decide where to stick this hinge on the continuum? We discussed and voted preseason (an act of personal sovereignty).</blockquote> This is exactly the point i was trying to make - ie the main difference between us in relation to this rule (and others probably) see here: <blockquote>Quote from anthak on June 22, 2012, 09:01 ... to me it is totally fair enough that the ORFFL would take this approach as the current rule was already discussed and implemented in consultation; so it would not be fair to change it on the fly... </blockquote> I thought that I was backing you up Hornsy... I realised (late in the piece) that adding my opinion onto the end was not necessary in the ORFFL thread, but hey, I did it, and I apologise for that if it confused the issue. peace
I'm sick of this. If you buy into the hype of buying a red car because that's the trend and don't even care to look at all the details, why start complaining if its not a manual or you suddenly decide you like yellow cars. There is no argument that isn't based in stupidity or ignorance or selfish desire to horde that can properly explain why their shouldn't be 6 trades. In fact the reason their is so much bitching is probably proof its the right number, it forces people to think, and to strategies and decide what they want to do with their team and I doubt all 18 will think the same so you'd have a varied range of what people deem important. Here's some facts: 6 delistings is not anti-keeper. 6/26=23%. You get to keep 77% of your team. That's not even a glass half full/empty equation. 100 players will be kept from each position (working out previous page) on peoples teams. However they're rated, on their current ability or potential, please explain how someone outside that top 100 is anyway different to another? Will they all be pure spuds? No. Will they be "diamonds"? No. Please, explain how they could. One or two of those players might be a Michael Johnson. Might be. But that's 2 out of 84, a fraction of a number delisted and you're still taking a punt, and you know what happens when that player turns into a Michael Johnson, a "diamond"? He's suddenly becomes apart of your top 15, or your top 20....and you keep him.
@Ant I wrote that the rule may disadvantage some, not that it is flawed. There's a difference there, and it's not just semantics (rules by their nature advantage some, disadvantage others). If you want to debate this further, feel free to PM me, as this isn't the forum for it.