ORFFF Mandatory Delistments/Player Movements

Discussion in 'ORFFF' started by insider, Jan 8, 2016.

?

How many player movements should there be prior to a new preseason draft

  1. 4 = 4 live picks, leaving 26 players on your list pre-draft

  2. 6 = 6 live picks, leaving 24 players on your list pre-draft

  3. 8 = 8 live picks, leaving 22 players on your list pre-draft

  4. 10 = live picks, leaving 20 players on your list pre-draft

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    867
    As suggested in the Conversation, please vote on how many Player Movements should occur between each season. Essentially it could also be classified as how many draft picks you have for a preseason draft. Movements can be forced (i.e. retirements), a result of uneven trading or via mandatory delists.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Bearfly

    Bearfly Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,296
    Likes Received:
    705
    Done :cool:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,094
    Likes Received:
    4,236
    Done
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,527
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Voted!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    3,773
    it looks like cutting to 24 is way in front - if this gets to 8 votes (which can't be beaten) before the 7 day close of the poll can someone let us all know

    btw I voted for 22 (the more drafting each year the better) but think 24 should suit us well if that is the winner
     
  6. port_leschenault

    port_leschenault Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    1,406
    I disagree with the way this is headed in keeping the delistments static at only 6 when squad sizes have been increased by 4. Especially when match days squads are still at 15 so essentially the 30 man squad means another 4 players not playing each round.

    I guess the first thing to attempt to address is why we have 30 players in the squad to being with. Is it so we can have more players on our lists, so we can pick deep initially or is it so that we have a better chance of having a full playing squad every round? The latter would suggest that keeping more players at delistment time isn't actually a priority.

    The next question is what sort of league is this, or what sort of league do we want? Is this a league where teams are encouraged to hoard and stash players for years, or an actual keeper league where the focus is on squad management and list refreshment at every draft.

    To me, the bigger the draft pool, the more fun/interesting the drafts continue to be as well as the better chance bottom clubs have of regenerating their lists with the best delisted free agents.

    The ORFF leagues are already quasi-Dynasty leagues as it is, which is fine, but I would prefer not to head in the direction of making it more so which could lead to a more unbalance league.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  7. jamabadar

    jamabadar Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    94
    Interesting being new to a keeper league i am not sure whats what.

    I voted for 8 players delisted but in reading Ports thoughts i am inclined to change my vote to 10 players i would have to agree hoarding talent would not be a good look.

    I do like a challenge so having to decide between which players to delist should be hard not easy.
     
  8. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,094
    Likes Received:
    4,236
    It's a democratic approach taken at all points, thus the voting bit ;)
     
  9. That KI Guy

    That KI Guy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2,641

    Worth reiterating in all this that we only have a 16 team comp thus there will be an additional 60 players up for grabs as opposed to the pool size of the ORFFL.
     
  10. port_leschenault

    port_leschenault Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    1,406
    Yes, this is true.

    60 divided by 16 rounded up is 4.

    As for what's typical, from my experience on UF, most keeper leagues range from 8-12/28 keepers whereas most dynasty leagues usually have only 3-6 mandatory delistments each season and large squad sizes.
     
  11. tyze1

    tyze1 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    1,306
    vote cast
     
  12. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    8,232
    Likes Received:
    3,084
    Ive voted
     
  13. That KI Guy

    That KI Guy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,814
    Likes Received:
    2,641
    Sorry P_L, realised that I didn't actually respond to your questions.
    Vaild points/questions you raise and probably something we should have been asking a few months ago.
    My view is that 30 got the nod to ensure everyone can field a full squad every week.
    As to what sort of league people want, I reckon that will vary greatly as everyone has a different idea/definition of what "keeper" means. Definitions aside, I wholly agree with your philosophy of avoiding dynasty creation, just not sure of the best mix of squad size and delist size to make this work (and appeal to everyone's tastes).

    I really rate the mid-season drafts to be honest and enjoy the added complexity of trading MSD picks (provided they are valued) and snaring an early season bolter mid year.

    Perhaps an option could be to introduce a mandatory mid-season delist of an additional 2 players to get everyone engaging in the MSD and reduce the dynasty factor?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Bearfly

    Bearfly Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,296
    Likes Received:
    705
    Yeah, I like the idea of a mandatory mid-season delistment and MSD participation, further ensures that everyone is engaged throughout the season
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    3,773
    (apologies to all this ended up being War and Peace like)

    FWIW with respect to PL's post above my take is that it is hard to get balance in any comp and unless we are all willing to look at novel, extreme or complicated equalisation methods as in the AFL teams will rise up to the top 4 and may stay there for a few seasons and those who draft badly (or with too much emphasis on youth for youths sake) in the upcoming draft could be cellar dwellars for some time. The challenge is to obviously keep all coaches engaged, which is in part assisted by the carrot of contention next year or the year after for struggling teams. I must admit I am not sure how this has played out in the ORFFL and ORFFA ignoring the ORFFU for now due to it only having played 2 seasons

    The few suggestions I have put forward previously (unfortunately we cant view the previous messages at the moment) - ie (1) restricting the draft pool to players drafted prior to 2015 (and thus drafting them on exposed form when they are a season closer to being in your starting side) and (2) granting Unrestricted Free Agency to players who switch AFL teams via trade or free agency at the end of the 2017/subsequent AFL season/s (and therefore pushing them to the draft) were fairly badly received. I believe this was due to others being comfortable in the main with existing ORFF regulations.

    Other possible equalisation mechanisms could be altering the maximum pre PSD numbers according to ladder positions - for example with top teams retaining 20 players and bottom teams retaining 23 and middle teams retaining 21 and 22, or similarly smaller and larger list sizes (some with 28 others with 30-35. Another could be reconfiguring the PSD so that each "pick" is actually worth 2 picks in the draft - ie Picks 1&2, 33&34, 65&66 are taken by the bottom team (assuming they take 6 picks) while the premiers take 31&32, 63&64, 95&96 with their 6 picks. Thirdly, priority picks can be considered, although IMO these would need to be end of 2nd round type picks (for example 5 if a team only wins one game, reducing to 3 if they win 2 games and 1 if they win 3 games) rather than earlier picks.

    Fourthly we could try something like the GWS Omeara/Crouch/Hogan/Martin minidraft concessions to help bottom teams bolster their lists via trades. IMO for reasons of simplicity we should avoid salary caps due to difficulty in assigning accurate values for player worth - and the fact we would need to play without one this season or delay the draft until we have figured it out. Please note that I have not posted these ideas for discussion but just to demonstrate there are many many ways to skin a cat (apologies to any Geelong fans) but of course any measures that are taken will possibly lead to unintended consequences such as tanking.

    That said if we proceed as we are the better teams will always need to perform when it counts - ie in finals - which often depends on the ORFF gods with respect to late season injuries and suspensions etc even if they dominate the regular season. We can always look to review things later on with perhaps a 2/3rds in favour requirement for any "major changes" while retaining majority votes for less extreme tweaks.
     
  16. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    5,139
    Likes Received:
    3,773
    I disagree, IMO the MSD should always be 100% optional.

    For starters if someone is sitting in top possie but goes AWOL for a few weeks they could quite likely end up with forced MSD delistments and then autopicks - yuck to both. In preseason there is more time to review the circumstances and if needed recruit for a new franchise owner. It might also discourage reasonable strategies such as someone trading out both their 2017 1st and 2nd round MSD picks in the February/March 2017 trade period in exchange for players only in order to plug a sudden hole in one of their lines due to players losing dpp next year.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  17. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,378
    Likes Received:
    867
    spot on
     

Share This Page