Team Numbers

Just further on the draft pool: my scribbled notes taken throughout the season indicate that there are, perhaps, 40 players that are worth considering in the mid-season draft. When I say 'worth considering' they range from guys who are playing very well every week and attract the remark of 'why isn't he drafted?' to players who might've played 1-2 games this year, not scored a lot, but look likely for the future (later this season, or next year). These forty players won't all have an impact on clubs that draft them. And that's barely 2 extra players each. Beyond that 40, we are really speculating, which is why I am saying the draft pool will not support an extra 2 picks for 18 rookie lists (ie - 36 extra players). All we'd be doing is choosing speculative players who aren't getting games to put on the rookie list - absolutely useless when the purpose of said list is to have players ready to fill in if players on the main list get injured. I believe having a 2 player rookie list is great in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. 1 player lists might work. On a wider note - we are probably almost reaching a critical point with ORFFA list sizes compared to teams and players in the AFL where ORFFA lists can't expand very much further. I'm all for doing everything to ensure people get full teams on the park each week, but I don't believe that 2 players on a rookie list who aren't playing anyway addresses the issue.

 

Chris makes a valid point, at the same time raising one of my initial fears on this issue, i.e., we would only end up adding more junk. Of course Chris' 40 does not include forced delistments, but I would not expect too many diamonds in that lot either. One alternative to consider (apart from all-year trading), is the approach taken by both Ultimate Footy and SC Draft. That is, you can delist and recruit from the pool at any time provided (in the case of UF) there are no outstanding waivers. No change in total squad size. For example, I read that Andrew Moore at Port was close to senior selection, so I (speculatively) picked him up. This week he was named. As such he is more of a 'tide-you-over' sort of player and would likely be delisted before the next major draft, but for the moment he beats a donut. Would take a bit of manual man management, but is this idea an alternative to what we have been discussing?

 

I can see the attraction in the floating pool concept Terry, but I am concerned it is anti-keeper in scope and affect.
I can also see where you are coming from re how deep the pool runs Chris, but for at least half the players I would expect to be drafted the fact that they have not played yet isn't an issue, I for one would have drafted two new draft picks and 2 playing options.
The reason I suggested two pools is they servedifferentpurposes, 1 is purely injury cover and the other future investment.
Is it morepalatableto increase the squad size to 28 via 2 'std' list additions, and then draw from the available pool per Terry's suggestion for injuries, but without an obligation to delist, ie they would only be temporary players in your team to cover an injury, and would still be available at the MSD and PSD?
I have always had two goals with this, one was to increase the scope for investment in the future, and the other was to reduce the number of times a team is listed incomplete, anything that works towards those is something I would like us to discuss and pick over

 

sorry about the lack of explanation in this comment. Maybe I'll write more if i get more time sometime.
I just wanted to comment that I dont think we should have free agent trading available all year round. I think the two drafts is sufficient. Im also not a fan of the rookie list idea. Just seems like it will involve unnecessary administration, but if someone is actually willing to police it properly, then maybe it could work. I am not predicting people trying to bend the rules, just that it may be hard to keep track of it all.
I am ok with an expanded squad size - I think that this discussion is heading that way for sure. As explained above, thet should probably mean an extra forced delisted player each year too. And someone above mentioned a staggered introduction, which I am in favour of. Maybe add 1 to squad at 2013 midseason draft, then add 1 at the 2014 preseason draft. And then we could reassess next year, whether we need any more.

 

anthak wrote:
sorry about the lack of explanation in this comment. Maybe I'll write more if i get more time sometime.
I just wanted to comment that I dont think we should have free agent trading available all year round. I think the two drafts is sufficient. Im also not a fan of the rookie list idea. Just seems like it will involve unnecessary administration, but if someone is actually willing to police it properly, then maybe it could work. I am not predicting people trying to bend the rules, just that it may be hard to keep track of it all.
I am ok with an expanded squad size - I think that this discussion is heading that way for sure. As explained above, thet should probably mean an extra forced delisted player each year too. And someone above mentioned a staggered introduction, which I am in favour of. Maybe add 1 to squad at 2013 midseason draft, then add 1 at the 2014 preseason draft. And then we could reassess next year, whether we need any more. Re the rookie list being difficult, I guess it depends on how it is agreed it should work, but in my mind I can oversee it very simply as it would effectively be a single thread with a main post, and managed via spreadsheet.
Were we to run the rookie list per the latest outline thanI am comfortable with us adding one player to thelistat the MSD and another at the PSD next year, but with no increase in delists, per above I think the minimum squad number should be lifted to 24 so that we are actually making those 2 extra spots keepers. For mine if we don't do this then there is no good self interest reason for the top half of the ladder to want to increase the squads, and, I am very keen on making those spots youth ones in my squad, as stated earlier my injury ridden guys, leet or otherwise should have new homes post the MSD.

Edited to add: My thought was that the rookie list would be accessed via a waiver system, very much like SC draft, and therefore again simple via spreadsheet to manage, provided I don't have to C&P I guess...

 

Thinking on it, should the rookie list not enough enough support to fly I would still be in favour of staggering the two extra members, I can see a lot of validity in theargumentthat doing it that way strengthens the selection pool, even if it provides less immediate relief tothosewith injured players they would prefer to hold onto.. [span style='text-decoration: line-through;]To be added prior to delists, and in some form of random order,[span style='text-decoration: line-through;] then followed by the MSD. Following the MSD

 

Let's have a show of hands please people (after reading all the issues in here). Increase squad size: a) 28 b) 30 c) none Increase delistments: a) No b) 8 (i.e. final squad = 22) Edit: this would be introduced at the mid-season draft.

 

Increase to 30 would get my vote but I don't expect it to carry, so I vote increase to 28 and we can review the other spots another time. I vote no increase to the delistments, meaning the extra 2 spots are keepers and we cut to 24.

 

Same as Len, I vote a & a. The 2nd part is reliant on the first result though, imo. If we increase to 30, i would vote for an increase in forced delistments as well.

 

Same as ant for me.

 

<p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 16px; outline: 0px; color: #000000;]Increase squad size: <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 16px; outline: 0px; color: #000000;]<strong style='font-size: 12px; outline: 0px; background-color: transparent;]c) none... if it is decreed by a majority that we increase, then I would choose 28[/b] <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 16px; outline: 0px; color: #000000;]Increase delistments: <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 16px; outline: 0px; color: #000000;]<strong style='font-size: 12px; outline: 0px; background-color: transparent;]a) No[/b] <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, San-Serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; line-height: 16px; outline: 0px; color: #000000;]b) 8 (i.e. final squad = 22)

 

OK, so current list numbers are 26. First question - I agree 100% with Fitzy's sentiment that no changes be made until end of year. BUT, I can't vote for it because of my stated support for increasing list size to alleviate injury concerns rather than opting for priority picks (as discussed in the other thread). So my answer is (A) - that we expand to 28 players as of this draft. Second question - (A) - I don't think we should increase delistings. I think that mandates unnecessary player churn rather than encouraging medium-long term loyalty to players we have selected, which should be the aim of a keeper league like ours. 6 players to delist is fine .... most of us do this pretty easily and/or exceed that number anyway through delistings and trades with other teams.

 

chels wrote:
29 and no change to the minimum of six delistings per year. On bended knee I squat chels. You can have 28, or you can have 30. Much as it is a nice compromise between the two, 29 was not an option on the table and, in its current form, would have to be regarded as an invalid ballot. One could equally propose 27 or even 31, but consensus is what we seek.