This conversation has started on the ORFFL pages, and I want to support what Terry has said there, for it's impact on this league and us the participants... I believe that the end of season de-listing should hurt and can see how six would hurt. But looking at my list I have only one player I don't want next year, and I was forced to grab him in the midseason draft to fill in for injuries. Were I to de-list 6, 5 would be players I do not want to lose, and these are the players I researched hardest to find, the easiest players to pick by far are the top 20, the lower ranked diamonds are those that I have the most attachment to. I stated in the draft thread that the cut should hurt, and that the higher the number the more inclusive it is. But 6 seems an arbitrary number, I would like to see the unfolding of logic that arrived at 6 as the definitive number over 4 (or 5 for that matter). The immense difference between drafting this year and next year is the fact that this year we had some 30 odd rookies that were guaranteed to play, that wont happen next year and not by a long shot. The end of season draft will be a matter of fossicking through the 60 odd draft picks from last year trying to find who may make it, the top 10 or 20 drafts from this year hoping against hop they might play next year and the delistings. I suggest that the most picked up players will be the delisted ones, by a huge factor, and wonder why the diamonds I mined so hard to find should be put up on the auction block, just because. The reality for me is that the performance of the top teams wont change an iota unless we play through the doubled byes, at which point a whole new draft strategy develops, regardless of whether the number is 4 or 6. What does seem obvious is if I only have to cull 4, I stand a better chance of keeping one of my soon to be less rough diamonds. I like that idea.
I agree with you LenH and this is the reason why I kicked up a big fuss at the time of the intial draft as I saw the final six or so picks in the draft to be the most important picks in the draft, as for me, this was where the really important research kicked in. If I have to delist six then so be it, it was in the rules at the beginning, but I too am attached to my players and would find it difficult. Four would be 150% easier. Heck, I found it difficult to delist even one for the mid-season draft as much as I wanted to be involved in it.
Im with you both as well. I think a good number is 3 or 4 tbh, with the option of delisting up to 6 or 7 if one so chooses. Im similar to you CR, in that I really wanted to participate in the draft, but didnt. I had traded my 2nd round pick to TiB, and then couldnt find two players on my list that I was willing to part with, so TiB ended up with my 1st round pick - in exchange for Vardy. I gave a pretty good rant over in the draft blog thread, but to sum it up, I dont think that delisting 6 will necessarily help the lower ranked teams to improve. I actually think it would most probably do the opposite - and disadvantage them in the current season and the future. 6 out of 26 players is almost a quarter of the squad. Delisting that many really fosters a culture of planning for the immediate over the future, which - to me - is not what a keeper league should be about. I do also acknowledge that the rules were there at the start and will abide by them if need be; however if we can come to some sort of an agreement for a change to said rules, then I think we should do it.
First, it is healthy to have this discussion early so we can reach a decision - woops I almost used the adjective "rational." Second, I have no interest in being part of a league where the same team(s) win every year. But, at the same time I do not want mediocrity to be rewarded. If some interpreted the rules better - good luck to them; they should not be penalised for that. I misinterpreted the emergency rules and have accepted that as my own stupid fault. Third, at some stage some of us will want exit the league because of work commitments, excess drinking or death. The team for sale needs to be attractive to a new entrant. If for reasons two and three I am no longer in the league and my team is last by a long way who will buy it? What concessions will have to be offered by the rest of you to induce someone to participate? Perhaps we can be a point of difference from the other league in this way. Fourth, I am still thinking this through. I have deliberately not suggested a number of delistings. I hope we can air ideas and debate them before we reach a conclusion. Disclosure: I planned for a keeper league.
Ant - in previous threads I've already stated I agree with many of your thoughts in regards to this - but I particularly agree with this statement of yours: "I dont think that delisting 6 will necessarily help the lower ranked teams to improve. I actually think it would most probably do the opposite - and disadvantage them in the current season and the future. 6 out of 26 players is almost a quarter of the squad. Delisting that many really fosters a culture of planning for the immediate over the future, which - to me - is not what a keeper league should be about." I agree wholeheartedly with this, as I don't believe delisting 6 players does anything towards helping the lower ranked teams rise up the ladder. I delisted 4 players for the midseason draft, and should've delisted another, so I'm not coming from a place where I believe all 26 of my players are precious and can't be delisted. In fact, I could've delisted 6 without a blink and it would not have hurt at all. So if a delisting figure was chosen because it needed to "hurt", then sign me up for 10-12. What I do believe though is that delisting 6/26 players does indeed foster a culture of drafting for the now rather than for the future. The need for time and patience to ensure that the young guys you pick do have the opportunity to grow and mature into reliable point scorers is stifled by the fact that they may be on the block because they are only scoring 40-60 a game now and each of us needs to get rid of 6 players minimum. As Len mentioned - mining for those diamonds in the rough, only to have to get rid of them to abide by a 6 delist rule, is counterproductive because many of those diamonds in the rough will be the kids. Personally, I don't want to lose guys like Matt Dea, Cunnington, even Maric (who is a young ruckman I took a chance on), Grimes, Patrick, Thompson, etc etc. But delisting one of these guys makes more sense than, say, delisting NDS. My thoughts were 3-4 players minimum, but with no maximum. Personally I would again be looking to delist 5 or so players at the end of the year. You have to delist like this if your team is going to move forward, or going to regenerate when successful point scorers depart into retirement or stop scoring reliably. Personally, I've chosen a number of guys in their early to mid 20s in order to allow for that regeneraton. But I'll have to keep hunting around for more players as older guys get older - targeted drafting to replace someone like Harvey for example. I'll stop rambling.
Though I do have to say, if the decision is made to have a minimum figure of 2 or 3 delistments, I would support that and would look carefully at my own team to see if I do really want to delist more than that, or if it is worth taking a chance and sticking with the young guys I drafted late.
Agree with all the thoughts of the above, and like Chels (a far more astute and intelligent man than myself), I am reluctant to put forward a number, only to say I too planned on being a keeper league, and therefore took some educated risks on some players with LTIs (LeCras and Menzel) and drafted for a future team, not for a present one. I don't want to then have to wear the pain of carrying those risks/future potential for this year, to be forced to delist them at the year end for someone else to pick up. I think a minimum number to delist with the ability to delist as many over and above that as you would wish has definite merit.
A very well-presented argument Len. Having lived in academia for a while now I have become conditioned to people saying, <blockquote>I want to support what Terry has said there</blockquote>, then putting forward a totally contrary statement. So refreshing it is. And you may be assured that X. will give it his full support, due to the very clever insertion of the word "fossicking". My thoughts are; like the real world, those that did their homework realised there were a couple of diamonds in the mid-season draft and delisted accordingly. There will be drafts where the pickings are good, just as there will be drafts where pickings are thin. You would be silly to tank for a thin draft. Two; that mid-season draft was a lot of fun, for me at least. Three; hazey on the detail, but are we not running with reduced on-field squads this year as we came in late and this might be up for review at the end of the season? If this is the case, it would impact greatly on delistings and number thereof. Oh, and should anyone from the ORFFL, such as BB, wish to drop in here and offer us the benefit of their experience, let's please make them welcome. Except Hornsy of course.
Bumping this for any further discussion, would like to see it finalised at least 2 weeks before I have to make calls so I can start research. Also how it is to be applied, ie 1 End of season draft with x number of mandatory drops? 2nd mini draft in last week or two of NAB cup to give people a chance to counter for injury and hopefully pluck a likely rookie or two? If so, does this affect the mandatory, ie can it be 3 in draft 1 and 1 in draft 2, or 4 optional across the lot? For mine the mandatory x number should be the end of season draft and the pre season one should be optional for both participation and number, but this is probably the one where we can get the best idea of who may or may not play so I am open to either idea. Some clarity ahead of time will help with research targets. Given my research was hit and miss last time I would like to do a lot better this time around
All very interesting. My observation is that the other mob trade a lot more than we do. If delistings, whatever number, were posted beforehand, some may prefer to trade for them rather than let them slip to the draft pool. We operate in a very fair system, with the possible exception of the initial draft (I take the point about research on late draft picks) where the first 18 picks were random and the choices (GAJ, Pendles, etc.) fairly obvious. The first 6 were luckier than the last 6. Perhaps the purpose of a draft should be to redress this luck a little, but cannot see it happening under the current set up. Currently, teams have a smattering of prems, followed by middle of the road players who are there to belt out 60s and 70s, with the occasional surprise, but most importantly to provide cover. The remainder are mostly punts on kids who might, or might not, get up. So your success is mostly determined by how good your prems are and how solid is your cover. So my question is, how can the draft help you get more prems and better cover? Because the way the game is currently structured, that is what you should be going for. Why take a risk on relatively untried kids? Even Jaeger? I picked up the #1 in Patton, but he has done nothing and it will be several years before he does. So I need (a) a way to retain him and (b) someone who will return me reasonable scores in the forward line while Patton is still developing. So in real life, coaches look forward to the cream of the kids who they will develop for the future, mostly in the magoos. We do not currently have that luxury. So our draft will most likely be recycling middle of the road players amongst the 18 teams, and the overall effect on success or change of ladder position will be minimal. What if? What if our squads were (say) 30 and 18 (or 22) onfield. Delisting a minimum of 6 would be a lot less painful, no? And what if you were required to pick up a minimum of 4 who would go on to your rookie (development) list and could only be played by upgrade or LTI? Would that not parallel the real world a bit more and allow you to develop players. Under this scenario would you not all be climbing over me to get at Jaeger? Len has put something forward which I had given thought to, but had in mind 4 in end of season but 2 more in mid season. Whatever the decided numbers for delisting at this point in time, I cannot see this method as effectively redressing any imbalances, nor encouraging the development of kids (diamonds). 3 cents.
Many thanks for articulating what I had been considering TiB. In particular I think an increase in squad size is a necessity. I am not so sure about an increase in on field teams. If we all had the option (who would refuse it?) to add 3 or 4 rookie listed or unplayed players as well as some mid-priced hopefuls before the end of season and then had a post-AFL draft draft this might be achieved. Those of us with rookies (Mitchell, Docherty, Ah Chee) do not have to give up. This would be consistent with the "keeper list" basis of ORFFA. Others thoughts are not just welcome but positively encouraged.
Currently the squads are 25 with 15 playing from 18 selectable. I actually like the playing number we have, and the way they are selectable. I think 30 is possibly too big an extension, remembering next year there are no rookie teams playing. 18 x 5 = 90 it seems unlikely that there are 90 desirable players about to be offered up. 18 x 3 = 54 Still unlikely but reasonable? I propose the following for discussion; End of year of draft (4 week duration) - 4 compulsory discards, unlimited optional - Must have a squad of 26 at completion of draft - Full player trade season open, includes draft pick trades (Stipulated squad numbers still have to be met) - Player trades are not subject to veto, we are all adults and this reflects the real world. Pre-season draft (to be held during last week of the NAB cup, should allow for 2 week duration) - 1 compulsory discard, unlimited optional - Must have squad of 28 at end of draft and prior to season starting. - No team trading period in this draft, next opportunity to be mid season 2013. Teams to be made up of 15 players 3 emergencies and a squad of 28 players in total.
I don't really have a lot to add to the discussion other than I am happy with whatever the amount of delistings and squad sizes are as long as once decisions are made we stick with them and don't chop and change as that's where we have run into problems. I definitely agree with Terry's sentiments in that whatever the number I don't see that drafting is actually going to improve teams that much. Like SC, essentially the game comes down to how your premiums perform and your run with injuries. With that being said, I feel that trading well is going to be the key from here in improving ladder position. Having an extended trading period before the big draft (whenever that is held) might help. Don't know that we need to be overly officious in regards to vetos as I genuinely believe that all deals will need to be win-win to get done. In order to improve everyone (even those at the top of the ladder) will have to give up a fair bit to get a fair bit back. I've probably said not a lot despite using a lot of words. It's late. I'm tired.
I agree with a few of the comments here. I have carried a few guys this year because I bought them for potential, and took a risk on a couple (Menzel, LeCras to name some). I knowingly took the risk with those two as I thought they could both be game changers for me next year... Menzel I have since been burnt on and I will only find out about the Frenchman in the coming weeks. However, looking at Tomlinson, Haynes, Sheridan and particularly Jenkins, these are project players... 2-3 years before they start to yield benefit (if at all). Now do I want to toss them back into the draft after carrying them this year, no way, so it will be bottom feeding, man bag carrying, filth like Brent Moloney I will be offloading. Will other teams want to pick Moloney in the trade period... I doubt it. That's why the Cyril trade was done, as Chief says, you have to give something to get something. Bama has hit a purple streak with him and he would be out in front of me at the moment with scoring (them's the breaks), but I believe the deal I got with Reid and Hill will at least let me break even longer term... but it has to be a win win. In summary (as now I am on a red bull inspired roll!), I think we: marginally increase squad sizes maybe by 2 declare delistings a week prior to the end of season draft Open trade period before the pre-season draft (to try and lock in a delisted player if you are really keen), then locked down for rest of preseason. Trades can include draft picks for both end of season and preseason drafts have an end of season draft for four weeks with 3-4 players cut minimum, no limit on maximum, must have full squad at completion Optional participation pre-season draft to fix any omissions, pre-season LTI's etc, must have full squad at completion mid season trading period for 1 week and draft for 2 weeks during the bye rounds next year
One thing to be aware of regarding the thoughts about drafting not changing things much, is that not much change may be required. The top two teams are going to be hard to catch next year without injury or retirement playing a large part, but for me, currently ranked 14th, I am only averaging 60 points a week less than the third team, given the amount of 0s I have had a good trade or two could easily propel me up the ladder.
Hi guys - results etc are up. Myself - I reckon we delist 4 at the end of the year. Only a minimum number and you can delist as many as you like. Things change very quickly in footy. A couple of injuries to key players makes a big difference. Re squad sizes I tend to agree with the chief. If we are drafting more players they really will be fringe players. It's what you do with what you've got, as the actress said to the bishop.
If what Len says in his penultimate message is correct, perhaps we should examine the points difference between bottom and top (excluding failing to enter a team) and this will give us a much clearer picture of how realistically trading and delisting and drafting can help (bearing in mind Len, those top teams will be active as well).
<blockquote>Quote from TerryinBangkok on August 5, 2012, 20:47 If what Len says in his penultimate message is correct, perhaps we should examine the points difference between bottom and top (excluding failing to enter a team) and this will give us a much clearer picture of how realistically trading and delisting and drafting can help (bearing in mind Len, those top teams will be active as well). </blockquote> I think that anyone with a significantly lower total than mine probably missed a week or two, or got killed by byes, as I said at the start of draft I was never planning for this year, always next. 4 seems to be something of a consensus number so far for the end of season cull, but that draft has the look of taking care of the edges. The pre season draft, ideally running for the first 3 weeks of March, ending a week before R1 is where I feel serious ground can be won or lost. I don't feel it can start much before then, as promoted rookies will be the target, along with NAB cup stars, along with all kinds of other fools gold of course & we need time to see who is lining up.. I don't see trades having as big an affect on overall team strengths as theoretically the players are of equal value, but even here a trade that gives you a key 5th mid at the cost of an unneeded ruckman could be big. I hope the top teams do get seriously involved, the more calls made the bigger the potential impacts. Hoping that X was just stating an opinion to keep the talk going, & sets down some rules, I hate democracy