Discussion in 'ORFFU' started by JPK, Jul 27, 2018.
I see the point but I'm not convinced on this proposal.
I think this idea on it's own will push us back to where we were pre mandatory draft picks. I may remember incorrectly but I thought that the minimum draft pick idea got brought in to improve the pool of players available to everyone, and discourage teams just trading picks they had no intention to use for better players.
In saying that, I'd support this idea if there was a slight change to it. In my view, taking 4 picks to the draft over both PSD and MSD is reasonable. Pre mandatory drafting we saw at least 2 rounds of picks taken across both drafts. So if there was still a requirement for 4 of those 6 changes to be draft picks over the calendar year then I'd vote for it.
One more thing, a "player change" needs to be a bit clearer imo.
Right now I delist a player, take one pick and that's 1/4 mandatory picks I've taken.
In the new scenario, if I delist a player and take one pick to the draft is that one or two player changes?
If I trade out the same player and take one pick to the draft is that one or two player changes?
I'd say these two scenarios need to be of equal value to avoid giving too much incentive one way or the other.
Making it worth 2 changes and to me it looks like it's too easy to meet the 6 player changes requirement.
To me a player change is a new name on the list, so one out and one in is a total of ONE player change, not two.
Thus, for example, in round 1 in 2019 each team will have 28 players on their list. To satisfy the minimum 6 player changes across a year (MS and PS), each team must have 6 new faces in their squad come round 1 in 2020. Is this clearer, and does it satisfy your concerns?
In terms of player pool, yeah, mandatory picks were brought in to improve the player pool - making everyone drop "fringe" players and giving coaches a chance to look at these guys and the new draftees. But as I said earlier, I think we're going to see a decline in traded players, as we all now need 4 free spots, so if you trade in 2 fresh faces (for example) you still need to take 4 picks in the draft, so will have 6 new faces by the end of the PSD anyway.
Plus some coaches don't necessarily like the lottery of the draft, and would much rather trade for established and proven players. This strategy shouldn't be diminished, as it currently is, with the only mandated list turnover being PSD picks.
I figured player changes was based on 'players in' but wanted to check. Thanks, that does make it clear...especially for those like me that tend to have to pick holes in what's written because everything they do has to go through legal and compliance who will annoyingly pick up the smallest of things that no one else would even bother or think about (no offence to any lawyers or risk/compliance ppl here intended, I only intend on offending those that I have to work with)
I still think it needs a component of minimum number of changes through the two drafts to avoid going back to something too similar to what we started with, that's what would have me vote for it.
I won't comment on the first, due to fear of self incrimination!
How about something like: a minimum of 6 list changes in a year, and atleast three of those must be draft picks (in the PSD, MSD, or both)
Haha, I suspected there was at least one in the legal profession here!
I'd vote for minimum 4 draft picks across the calendar year across both PSD and MSD, assuming of course that this version of the original idea is even one that is favoured by the FU coaching community.
Nah mate, I'm an engineer... which is why any comment made by me about legal / compliance will be covered in absolute disdain. This also extends to procurement, project management, operations, and pretty-much anyone else who takes a fantastic idea, and then with no technical understanding what-so-ever, whittles it down to something that doesn't even resemble the original design.
Fuckin fresh is onto something here. Extrapolate to 12 months, make it 6 changes with 4 being picks. That sounds like a great compromise!
Jpk you love a good poll (pole too ), make it happen
Agree. Make it a minimum of 6 changes to each list over the 12 months (PSD/T, MSD/T) with a minimum of 4 picks taken, in that 12 month period......if that's the way we're heading
I’d be reluctant to change, as it seems to be simply for change’s sake.
The new rules have been in for one season and that season was the closest we’ve had.
Also, there were a similar number of trades pre-season last year compared to previous years.
So I can’t see why we would change anything?
(Written as both a trade junkie and unfortunate member of the legal profession).
The legal man makes a good point
Don't support the legal man...
Now I'm confused. Over 12 months would that include the 2019 and 2020 PSD ? If you don't delist or trade does that mean you have to take 6 picks over 12 months or are we still enforcing mandatory delistments ? Guess I need it spelt out to me
I was just trying to add to idea posted above. Sorry if I confused you. that wasn't my intention.
The 12 month period, as I see it, includes 2019 PSD and trade period as well as 2019 MSD and trade period ...
With a minimum of 6 changes to each list including a minimum of 4 picks taken in that period..
I work in Operations... pretty much sums up my life.
I think you blokes with all the good players should have to send em out into the wilderness for us bottom dwellers to snaffle up
I like the idea of 6 changes, 4 picks. Might leave some more talent in the pool for us rebuilding.
Should we also be looking at this little gem as well from a rule point of view @JPK
Put together a discussion point and / or proposal, YAD, and we can all discuss.
Yeah I’m all for that idea
Separate names with a comma.