Poll - Update to List Changes

Discussion in 'ORFFU' started by JPK, Oct 10, 2018.

?

How many list changes should be mandatory draft picks.

  1. Don't make any changes - keep it at 4 PSD picks and be done with it.

  2. Minimum Six list changes across a year, however you want (no minimum picks).

  3. Minimum Six list changes across a year, with a minimum of 1 draft pick.

  4. Minimum Six list changes across a year, with a minimum of 2 draft picks.

  5. Minimum Six list changes across a year, with a minimum of 3 draft picks.

  6. Minimum Six list changes across a year, with a minimum of 4 draft picks.

  7. Minimum Six list changes across a year, with a minimum of 5 draft picks.

  8. Minimum Six list changes across a year, with a minimum of 6 draft picks.

  9. Other - add comment please

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    You may have seen that there is a proposal floating around the "Rules Discussion Thread" http://tooserious.net/forum/threads/rules-discussion-thread.90234/

    The proposal is for changing the mandatory four picks in a PSD, to be a minimum number of changes to a list (new faces), across a year (including both MS and PS), and have a certain portion of that to be draft picks.

    This poll will assume that each team will be required to make 6 list changes over a year. This number may be altered, its just a number for now. These list changes will mean that of the 28 players that a team starts the season with, come the start of the next season, 6 of the players must be new - through either trades or drafts. The question here is how many of these new faces should be drafted, as a minimum. The draft picks could be taken in either the MSD or PSD.
     
  2. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    658
    Some people changed their votes! Boooo :p
     
  3. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    626
    Each to there own, not sure I understand why coaches want teams to be forced to make a further two list changes on top off a mandatory 4 picks
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. ddsaints

    ddsaints Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    160
    Keep it as is for now. Let’s have another look end of next season
     
  5. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    658
    You haven’t read it correctly chief. The proposal is to turn the mandatory 4 picks in preseason (only) into 6 list changes across a calendar year; inclusive of trades. They’re chalk and cheese nutsy.
     
  6. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    626
    1. TBH i'd rather keep it business as usual. I'd like change but i don't agree with all the options being minimum 6 changes.
     
  7. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    What do you want it to read then?
     
  8. eagle_eyed

    eagle_eyed Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    558
    I’ve voted no minimum picks but 6 changes. Let coaches build whichever way they like. We’ll all take at least 4 picks across both drafts anyway.
     
  9. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    With that option, I'm tempted to add a caveat to it saying something like:
    If we get to the end of the trade period, and less than the minimum number of list changes has been made, then at the discretion of the Board and Commissioner, a team will have their lowest averaging player(s) delisted, and replaced with the highest averaging player(s) remaining in the free agency pool.
    Which is basically saying if we complete the PSD, PST, MSD, and MST and a team has only made 5 of 6 minimum list changes, then they'll lose their lowest averaging player and gain the highest averaging FA, without the opportunity to make a BS trade with another club to satisfy the minimum. Hopefully we never come to something like that, but the thought had crossed my mind a few times.

    I must say though, that as I was writing the poll questions I did become a fan of that option - it basically says that we have mandatory turnover to avoid hoarding players and to give lower ranked teams a chance to get some fringe talent, but it doesn't in any way oblige you to take picks, or make trades, if you don't want to do one of these options.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    626
  11. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    658
    this poll has gone a bit rogue commish. polite request to scrap and start again with more eloquent options that everyone understands?
     
  12. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    I didn't think it was that confusing... "This poll will assume that each team will be required to make 6 list changes over a year. This number may be altered, its just a number for now." ...but that's just me.

    What would you propose?
     
  13. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    On a slight side note, and without spending too much time calculating things, it looks as though every team would have satisfied the minimum 6 changes anyway, if we had them in 2018. The breakdown on average is in the table below.

    upload_2018-10-15_15-24-41.png

    So basically, each team averaged 4.2 PSD picks (we have a minimum of 4, so this is to be expected), and 2.3 MSD picks, totaling 6.4 new players on average just from the drafts.
    If we then add trades, an average team had 2.6 player changes during the PST and 0.5 player changes during the MST, totaling 3.1 new players on average across the two trade periods.
    Combining these, for the full calendar year, an average team made 9.6 list changes. The maths isn't perfect, but basically, this more than satisfies the minimum 6 that is proposed above, so we're not going to be forcing the average coach to do anything that he doesn't already do.

    Yes, this does all beg the question: why make a change? My only answer to that is to remove the restriction that we must have 4 PSD picks, and allow coaches who don't want to draft so much, but want to trade more, to do just that.
     
  14. ddsaints

    ddsaints Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    160
    I’m liking the however you want idea
     
  15. JPK

    JPK Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,277
    Likes Received:
    1,416
  16. insider

    insider Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,187
    Likes Received:
    658
    Not confusing now, but it all changed... anyway, do what you like mate, I was just trying to be helpful; especially when people have specifically said they don’t understand, then it gets changed after people have already voted.
    But hey, the wife doesn’t listen to me so why should you
     
  17. bryzza

    bryzza Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,250
    Likes Received:
    626
    Definitely.

    I know you said the minimum pick no does not matter now as it can change later, but I worry that if this gets up and no coaches vote for less than the suggested 6 there will be coaches stuck with a required mandatory 6 instead of the current 4 changes. Just like now there are many coaches who are against the mandatory 4 PSD picks as that poll suggested from memory it only got up by one vote. I could be wrong.
     

Share This Page