Preaching to the choir here mate. I keep peddling the idea! It shouldn't matter if a change is made through trade or draft, just that a change is made. As long as each team has four (or maybe more) new faces at the start of round 1 each year, does it really matter if they bought experience or took a punt on kids?
I don't agree with this one. I'm for having all picks available for trade, all the time. The majority disagree with me, but I don't see an issue with being able to trade in / out any player or pick during the draft, as long as no team exceeds 28 players once the delistment deadline passes. Freedom of player exchange.
I’m with you if we are talking about being able to trade dead picks. I feel we can either trade dead picks and resuscitate later picks for uneven trades or we can’t do either, having one foot in both camps is like being a freagle, just does not make sense (see the Chewbacca defence).
@eagle_eyed point 1: + 1 @eagle_eyed point 2: swing vote, not fussed either way My own point: no trade deadlines! Abolish this stain on our great competition and let the masses trade freely
I'm all for this, as a coach we SHOULD have the freedom to make list changes as we see fit. Currently we are constrained by many restrictive rules and by bringing this small change in I feel some " FUN " will be brought back
As I said in my previous post " Freedom Freedom Freedom " bring back the fun !!!! Its your list feel free to trade away
Agreed. Put it to a vote - again. The mandatory list changes should be available in any form - via trades or draft picks.
Have added Rule 1(k) to address the rolling lockout and loopholing, as a probationary rule pending review. http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/orffu-rules.89266/ Please hold debate / discussion in this thread.
I’m happy with the rule. I invariably stuff up loopholing in SC at some stage every season so stay away from it.
ORFFU family, I'd like to float the idea of a rule change that draft picks aren't dead. Basically every pick remains live and free to be traded (or used if required) throughout the draft, until it is used, or until the team who owns it has a full squad and the next subsequent pick is taken. I really think this'll help facilitate some extra trades, it removes doubt as to what picks a team will have after uneven trades (as per what happened in this 2024 PSD), and it could even give more value to some later picks. I guess the only downside is that it might slow things down a little if coaches are discussing a trade for an upcoming pick that might otherwise not be used. For example Team A is about to pick at 40 Team B has a full squad and is looking to offload 41 Team C is looking to move up to 41 from their current later pick Team D has 42 and is expecting to take the next pick Team A uses pick 40, and tags the coach of team D for pick 42 Teams B and C miss out after team D picks at 42 To solve this, team B would have to announce that there are discussions around pick 41, and would need to resolve them promptly. So yeah, is there any support for all picks being live and active throughout the draft, to promote more trading opportunities?
I don’t know. What if someone decides to auction/make it available mid draft? Or tries to trade for a future pick mid draft? These actions will just drag out the process. I might be in the minority, but I think it should be on the coach to ensure they’ve prepared for each draft correctly. Dead picks have currency pre-draft, I often check to see what may be there and enquire about them. It’s not often we take more than 60 picks in the PSD, so most dead picks are 4th rounders plus. Which few will be interested in. We only allow even trades during the draft, so a swap of picks works, equal numbers of picks/players works. I just don’t see the point of potentially adding another layer. If you’re desperate to take another player, trade one of your squad for a pick.
I don't see it dragging out the process too much. If the pick is not on the clock, then it won't change anything. I guess we can add a second rule that its the actual pick that is on the 12h clock, not the coach, so if its traded at the time then the clock keeps ticking (which shouldn't be much of an issue anyway, because if you're trading for a pick, you have a target player in mind, and you're online making the trade, so as soon as its complete the pick can be taken and we all move on). I do agree that picks have currency prior to a draft. The question is why do they have t lose that currency? Maybe another player gets injured mid-draft, so a team that was otherwise complete, can then desperately make changes during the draft, including being able to use picks that were theirs to trade before the draft started.
im +1 for keeping them live, but personally id get really hard on the time limit if trading. 4 hours if you’re trading (as an example). If someone flaunts that and pretends they’re going to pick, then trades it after 11 hours (again, for example) then they forfeit their next pick; thereby paying a dickhead tax. So in summary I reckon it’s great to add more trade currency, but we can’t let it elongate the draft. Think Score Review in footy - short and sharp no worries and everyone is happy. Muck around with it then get penalised and publicly shamed
I'm in agreement here. You have made a decision on your list and draft picks for the draft. Therefore the picks are dead at time of the draft starting, you can't trade something you no longer own or have access too. If I have delisted 2 players then I have 2 picks in the draft. If a player is injured during the draft you cannot delist them but you can trade them to another team for a player or a live pick. In the last draft after I used my first 2 picks, if I retained my remaining picks as 'live' picks I could potentially trade them during the draft but this delays the draft while I auction them over 4, 8 or 11 hours and they may just be forfeited. I think the current system works fairly as it requires coaches to be active pre-draft to maximise their draft position before the draft starts.
I'm not really a fan of the idea, I think it can make things a bit unfair. For example, say Team A has pick 1, Team B has picks 18 and 36. The way we do it now, they're the picks and we know from the start what the draft order is. In the proposed way, Team A could trade away pick 1 to Team B for future picks. Team B's pick 36 becomes a dead pick, pick 19 for Team A gets activated. If nothing else happens, the draft picks are now 1, 18 and 19. Everyone with a pick from 20-35 is now a little worse off and the currency of their picks drops a little if they wanted to trade them out. I think if you want more flexibility then let's make it so that we can trade out picks for the next 4 drafts instead of 3 so that you can trade all of next year's picks (talking from a pre-PSD perspective) instead of just half of the year's picks.
I'm probably along with fresh here. Not sure what the actual objective is for activating other picks. If it is increased flexibility, and that's something we thing we need, I reckon we could come up with better options for that goal.
It looks like this is a little divisive. I feel a vote coming on (because we haven't had one of those in a loooooong time!). In the meantime keep sharing thoughts and opinions here, about this and any other rules you'd like to discuss. For those that are worried about this slowing the draft down, it wouldn't be any different to trading live picks in the draft right now. If the trade is for the "currently active" pick, then its on the clock (only in this instance its actually the coach with the pick immediately after the pick in question that will actually be on the clock, so he could just take his pick anyway, and the whole trade becomes irrelevant). I see more upcoming picks being traded, than current picks (ie picks later on in the draft, rather than the one on the clock at that time). For those worried about coaches having their picks bumped down the order, thats not really going to happen, the worst they can fall is to the face value of that pick. In actuality they all move up the order as soon as a team has a "dead" pick. Pick 68 in the just-completed draft was not the 68th selection in the draft, it was the 55th. So moving from 55 to 56 isn't really an issue, when you're talking about pick number 68. Its not as though we're the AFL, allowing clubs to group together a set of late picks and pretend they're as good as pick 3, thus reducing the face value of every other clubs pick.