Rules discussion: PLAYING SQUAD DELISTMENTS

Discussion in 'ORFFF' started by anthak, Feb 21, 2016.

  1. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    5. PLAYING SQUAD DELISTMENTS
    5(a) Pre-Season Draft delistments must be completed by the designated time and date to be advised by the ORFFF Commissioner and/or Board.
    5(b) To delist players, simply post the players delisted on the designated “delisted players” thread.
    5(c) Prior to the Preseason draft ORFFF lists can be no greater than 24 players. If an ORFFF list exceeds 24 players by the deadline mentioned above, players will be delisted from that team for them (previous season averages from lowest to highest) to take the list down to 24 players and the coach will be in serious risk of losing their place in the ORFFF.
    5(d) ORFFF lists may be cut to fewer than 24 players prior to the Preseason draft.
    5(e.) The ORFFF midseason draft is non mandatory, provided that teams retain exactly 30 players following any trading and/or delisting of players.
    5(f) To participate in the Mid-Season Draft teams must have reduced their playing list through trading and/or delistment to 29 or fewer players by the designated time and date (again, to be advised by the ORFFF Commissioner and/or Board) in the relevant MSD trade and delistment threads. Teams who have reduced player numbers to 29 or fewer solely through trading uneven numbers of players will also participate in the MSD.
    5(g) The Mid-Season draft delistment deadline also applies to ORFFF teams who have gained players through trading uneven numbers of players, as they must reduce their squad to 30 players.

    Read more at http://tooserious.net/forum/threads...-discussion.88813/page-12#uHvyVSkxvM2wYgh3.99
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    5,441
    Good with this
     
  3. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    my only suggestion here is that we introduce a system that allows us to claim players who were previously on our squads that we delisted because they were delisted or retired from the AFL, but then re-enter the AFL.

    I reckon it would be easy to facilitate, be heaps of fun, add interest, and add a bit of romance :)
    It also benefits the ORFFF coach who saw something in a player, but was jibbed because they got dropped from the AFL. In real life the ORFFF coach may not have dropped the player, so this gives them a chance to get them back if they become eligible again.

    To keep track of the players, we could have a thread set up for us to list any players that we delist due to them either retiring from the AFL, or because they were delisted by their AFL team.

    Then if a player on that list re-enters the AFL at a later stage, the ORFFF team who most recently owned them (and delisted them) could nominate to select them in the next draft.

    If a team nominates a player through this method, then all other teams would have an opportunity to bid on them by stating which round of the draft they would draft them. the ORFFF team with the rights to that player would then have the option to choose to match the best bid with a pick in the same round that was bid.

    The draft pick bid, must be used to select the player.


    I have suggested this before but I don't think it got much love :(

    Does anyone else think this is a good idea?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. James84

    James84 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    I am all on board with the idea of someone being able to reclaim a former player, and the bidding system keeps it fair for all.
     
  5. insider

    insider Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    still don't like this but I think I'm in the minority. 6 movements or changes - no dramas. 6 forced delists when you are hypothetically happy with every player on your team - I hate it. very much dislike the idea of being punished for good research or having foresight or just getting some dumb luck.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. walesy

    walesy Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,851
    Likes Received:
    2,496
    Don't forget, if the players you would be cutting have value, you can always trade them!

    2 into 1 better option, or into higher picks. Thus reducing the number of players you need to cut.
     
  7. insider

    insider Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,597
    Likes Received:
    1,179
    but that still passes the buck/makes it someone elses problem! I just don't like it. I'm probably standing on my own here and that's fine, but a good democratic process should include all views; regardless of the eventual outcome
     
  8. DamoH

    DamoH Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    955
    Happy with the rules as drafted. I'm the opposite of @insider (in many ways ;)) as I think mandatory delists add to the interest in the League.

    Happy to support Ant's idea also, although I'm not sure it will used particularly often, but adds a extra element to the drafting process.
     
  9. James84

    James84 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,136
    I'm happy with the mandatory delists, I drafted assuming they were in place.

    Makes things a little more interesting during trade periods and drafts imo.
     
  10. jamabadar

    jamabadar Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    94
    insider you have won me over i too see no reason to be punished by mandatory delistments. My thinking is this game is based around your skill to draft the right players and shit with my ego i believe i have already out smarted you lot and all 30 Virgins will be on top by the season end.

    It was a inaugural draft so there was players available such as all the top rookies from the last few seasons that will not be so in future drafts we will have only one new lot of players to choose from.

    It will take a couple of seasons for teams to become more balanced (much like a new afl team) at the moment we have some teams heavy with older players and some with a lot of younger players

    So i suggest a "no mandatory delistments" for the first two years and review it every year.
     
  11. choppers

    choppers Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    3,328
    Likes Received:
    2,169
    Looks like I'm in the minority too, if I read the rule regarding de-listments correctly.
    If I have 30 players in my squad and trade 6 out prior to the PSD, and get 6 players in return, I then have to de-list another 6 to reduce my squad to 24......obviously I won't be de-listing any of the 6 I traded in, so I have to de-list 6 from the remaining 24 or 25% of the remaining players.....

    I don't agree with that at all.....I believe it should be......NO mandatory delistments but mandatory delistment/movements...

    If we go that way, then the scenario would now become (a) 30 players in the squad, I trade 6 out and get 6 in and I don't take part in the PSD unless I de-list someone, or (b) trade 3 out, get 3 in and de-list 3 players or (c) no trading and de-list 6 players.
     
  12. Len

    Len Cockburn Knightrider Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    10,116
    Likes Received:
    5,441
    • Like Like x 4
  13. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    Yeah this is one thing weve already voted on. If i remember correctly, we intentionally pushed that decision forward to ensure we all knew the rule before our draft.
    I drafted with this rule in mind.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    Did anyone not know what we were voting on last time? Please let us know if thats the case.
     
  15. jamabadar

    jamabadar Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    78
    Likes Received:
    94
    Yes you are correct it was voted on but these rules have been put here to be discussed and i have changed my mind since the vote, being a new coach i did not give it a lot of thought just wanted to get the draft going, hindsight is a prick, i am happy to go with the original vote as we all had our vote and majority rules.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  16. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    6,869
    Likes Received:
    5,628
    I think it's fine to be discussing changes to what was agreed to before the inaugural draft but to me we would need to apply any significant list size/delisting number changes from the 2018 PSD (rather than in 12 months time)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. TheTassieHawk

    TheTassieHawk SC fanatic Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    6,869
    Likes Received:
    5,628
    @Ant - before I comment on this the way I read the above is that a team bid pick 15 for an "unretired" player then it has to be matched in the "Same round" which would mean only pick 16 if taken literally, or does it mean "within the next 15 picks" which would include all picks up to pick 30.

    And given some draft picks are worth more than others (ie matching pick 65 with 80, is less of a bargain than matching pick 1 with pick 16) had you given any thought to matching on a sliding scale ala the AFL academy/father-son table (but with single picks used having to match or exceed 75%-95% of the bid value) or limiting this to the 3rd round onwards (assuming it is likely to apply to the PSD)

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...rk-in-2015-full-draft-value-index/news-story/
     
  18. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    I have thought about different options too, but i reckon we keep it simple.

    What i had thought we should do, and i didnt explain it well enough in my proposal, is that the team with rights to the player just needs to use the next pick they own after whichever pick was the highest bid.

    Does that make sense.

    Heres an example.

    Jamabadar delists Jaensch mid 2016 because he retired.

    Jamabadar posts this in the designated thread so we can keep track of it.

    Jaensch gets picked up by an AFL club for the 2017 season.
    Jamabadar then has an option to elect to draft him in the 2017 preseason draft.

    If he doesnt want to, or doesnt elect to by a certain cutoff date, then anyone can draft Jaensch in the draft.

    If Jamabadar does elect to draft him, then everyone else gets an opportunity to place a bid of a certain draft pick (or perhaps a round of the draft), within a specific time frame.

    If nobody bids, jamabadar must nominate which draft pick he will use to select Jaensch, and nobody else is allowed to draft him. And jamabadar must draft him with the nominated pick.

    If there is one or more bidders, like this example:

    anthak bids pick 91
    len bids pick 55
    P_L bids pick 23
    Insider bids pick 21
    TTH bids pick 3

    TheTassieHawk has bid the highest pick.
    Lets just say jamabadar has picks 2 and 18 for his first 2 picks in the draft.
    Jamabadar could choose to take Jaensch with pick 18 (because its his next pick after the winning bid). If he chooses this, then he must use pick 18 for Jaensch.
    If he decides not to use pick 18, then TTH must use pick 3 on Jaensch.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. anthak

    anthak Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    9,563
    Likes Received:
    4,325
    in my first post, with the proposal, I remember what i meant now, and i was thinking to make it even simpler by just bidding rounds instead of picks, but i reckon picks is fairer.
     
  20. port_leschenault

    port_leschenault Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2,709
    Likes Received:
    1,696
    I don't want any system where you retain a player that retired and made a comeback, since they count as a delistment at end of season they shouldn't be auto-attached just because they were on your fantasy side last. It's such a small amount of players that it would apply to as well, is it really needed?

    You're not being punished by having mandatory delistments. It's one of the fundamental pillars of a fantasy keeper drafting game like this. You need a minimum amount in order to help improve the player pool in which to draft from. It's to stop the only new players being selected each year just a bunch of 19 year old rookies.

    It's my opinion, but I like drafting. So the more picks, and the more players to choose from in the main yearly draft the better. Which is why when we started I was wanting more than 6, which is really a small number compared to our list sizes.

    If team balance is what you're trying to achieve then the draft being specifically the main leveller there is to balance teams in a keeper league, the more players back in the draft pool then the better this would be.

    Why? In your hypothetical the scenario only works if you end up trading out 6 delisted calibre players for 6 keeper calibre players which I'm not sure how realistic that scenario is because I've never heard of it occurring before because it would mean finding several coaches that have a very different opinion of what you deem your lowest players than yourself.
     
    • Like Like x 2

Share This Page