Maybe JPK can post his summary, I think this a very important issue that should not be glossed over for convenience. No offence insider
Tomster's MY WAY: I'm back, so To trade a pick, you must first own the pick To own the pick, you must first delist To delist, you must first post in the delistments thread of your delistment To own the pick you must first delist - I'll explain this briefly. Say Gisborne is planning on trading 2 draft picks to Ararat. Gisborne is saying that it is in ownership of the two picks, and to be in ownership of the picks requires them to be live. A live pick is a pick that is going to be used by, in this case, Gisborne, meaning that Gisborne has space on their list to use the pick, had it not traded the pick. The live pick goes to Ararat, who must first delist before it can use it in any way, whether it be for drafting or trading. The advantage is too great to Gisborne, if we go with the other method. Say Gisborne does not delist. It is basically giving away something that it was never going to use, so it is not at a disadvantage if it gives the pick away. This could mean that clubs not delisting could give away all their picks, making the draft uneven as it is no loss for a club who is not delisting, but an advantage for any club that hypothetically gets the higher draft picks. Make sense? I'm happy if their are any disputes or questions to answer them, and if any clubs would like to reverse the trades they have made due to not understanding the rules fully.
The RIGHT WAY, oops HIGHWAY: The way I see it all is that all draft picks are 'automatically' live, up to a maximum of 26 each, based on the ladder positions of the team that originally owns the draft pick. During the trade period, any coach can trade any player, pick, or combination of the two, that they chose to any other coach - all subject to the veto rules. Prior to the draft commencing, all teams must have a maximum of 26 players (so all delistments must be made known prior to the draft). Any team with more than 26 players to their names (only players, not picks) will be forced to delist - if they chose not to then I guess the collective 'FU will have to delist for them. Any coach wishing to participate in the draft must have less than 26 players to their name. They will then be able to draft in their allocated order, based on all selections that they own following the trade period. This will include all the way through to (an imaginary) round 26. Once a team has 26 players they must stop drafting, and pass on all subsequent draft allocations - irrespective of if this occurs in round 1, round 10, or round 26 of the draft. I realise that this doesn't completely address the hoarding issue we had at the start of the season, but forcing delistments to maintain a maximum of 26 players during a trade period when coaches may be on-trading players anyway, does seem a little unfair to me. Thats my take, and thats the way I'm running my team (although yes, I haven't traded anyone yet)... Now that the weekend is here I might actually have some time to properly assess my list, and wallow in my sorrows of all the trade opportunities I've missed.
YADS post: Hey Coaches, Great discussion. From what I can see the main issue is the right to a MSD draft pick. Because the MSD is optional there is no right to the draft pick unless you delist, that's how you get a draft pick. If you don't delist you don't participate in the MSD at all (i.e. you don't get to pass cause you are not in it). The order of the MSD is theoretical only when it's optional (i.e. we are using reverse order of the league ladder). Now if it was mandatory (i.e. like real footy) then there is a right to the draft pick and can be traded. Also if you pass, it's passing on activating it, it is not a lost draft pick, in fact you could move up the draft order chain depending on the allocation of the next set of draft picks is done at the next draft (i.e. the Commissioner). The other leagues trade draft picks because it's mandatory to delist at the end of the year just like the real teams do and therefore they have a right to the allocated draft pick. Catch ya
in light of enlightenment id like to recant and go for the highway. picks are a great way to even out trades and i dont think they need to 'go live' and be subject to all that other business
So currently it is a 50/50 split, considering insiders change of heart. We should make a ruling on this quickly, so I say that by Wednesday we have an answer. Good to see 10 people have already voted, shows some activity around the place
hmm well its got me stuffed! initially I thought picks must be live, but now not so sure. The value of those 'picks' is in the eye of the holder or new holder as it may be. can I sit on the fence?
This'll be my last post on this then I'll shut up. For teams that don't have the 'wanted players' necessary to make trades all they have is draft selections. To make those teams delist players in order to trade their only currency, to me prevents them from rebuilding with mature players (traded in) rather than possibly waiting 5 years for a rookie to mature. For every 2nd year gun there's probably 10+ average players, there's no guarantee the young gun you've drafted will deliver. If someone chooses to invest in youth (as I have) then they will be forced to delist the guys they've invested in because they are not performing at their peak in yr 2, 3 etc just so they can complete a trade. This then throws these guys back into the pool for someone else to grab, sfavouring the teams that drafted older players as they will retire etc creating list space through attrition. There was no way I could have traded in Kreuzer if I didn't use draft picks, I would have had to trade out an A grade player to pick up someone that may not even play this season, now if on top of that I have to delist 2 of my project players how is that fair, as it was he cost me a young ruck man (Lycett) and 2 picks. If I have to delist you can add 2 more players to that, just doesn't seem reasonable to me that it can end up costing me 3 players and 2 picks, without the delistments it becomes a win win trade, with the delistments I'm way behind and these equalising trades will probably stop happening. You give up access to the 'possible' guns to try and get back in the game sooner, no one can force people to trade, everyone will evaluate their own situation and either trade or not, I just think there shouldn't be a penalty for using what you have in order to become more competitive and as such make the league more interesting. Rant over.
Logically, you must have something in order to trade it. So I agree with whatever option says that. And if trades are uneven, teams can pass or draft extra as with the PSD.
<ul> <li>To summarise, (correct me if wrong):</li> </ul> 1. You must delist to own a pick 2. When receiving a pick, it is better to have room to use it but uneven trades allowed 3. If you have 27+ players before the draft, you must delist to 26 4. In the draft, you may use what picks you have until you have 26 players. 5. If teams have used all picks and still do not have 26 players, an extra round(s) is(are) added on in reverse ladder order.
HOLKY wrote: <ul> <li>To summarise, (correct me if wrong):</li> </ul> 1. You must delist to own a pick 2. When receiving a pick, it is better to have room to use it but uneven trades allowed 3. If you have 27+ players before the draft, you must delist to 26 4. In the draft, you may use what picks you have until you have 26 players. 5. If teams have used all picks and still do not have 26 players, an extra round(s) is(are) added on in reverse ladder order. Thats the 'my way' option as I understand it. The 'highway' option is more like: <ol> <li>All picks are automatically active.</li> <li>Trade who or whatever you want, subject to veto.</li> <li>All lists must be 26 players or less prior to draft commencement.</li> <li>Drafting continues until each team has 26 players - no more!</li> </ol>
I've voted so we should be closer to 18 votes. I just want to say one thing about both options. If we're talking about not disadvantaging currently weak teams whereby strong teams can offer picks that they're not going to use, then we need to think about the flip side of My Way which IMO is more likely to disadvantage a weaker and younger team such as Cow Bay. For me to get stronger through more than just drafting I'll need to delist young players with potential and offer up a couple of rounds of picks for a better player to improve the team. Those players will probably get picked up by other teams. Under The Highway I can simply trade 2 picks for a good player and then figure out who to delist or trade a player (to bring me back down to 26 players) for another pick which I can decide whether or not I'll use. I also won't be able to offer up just my 2nd round pick or 3rd round pick for a player in a stronger team if that's all that they're worth without having to delist 2 or 3 players. A stronger team may see the player as surplus whereas it's a player that could make a difference to the team. Anyway, I don't want to seem like I'm arguing about it so I'll end my post there.
That's the same point as my rant Fresh. My project players would have to go to satisfy delisting requirements, they then get picked up by other teams so I can get someone who is deemed surplus at their current club (Kreuzer). Just want this decided now, I've finished my trading but no doubt it's affecting other deals.
How are we tracking vote wise out of interest? I'm not sure if it's just me but lately for some reason I can vote in polls but am not able to see the current vote tally.
How long will this stay open, I'm sure there will be trades dependant on the result. Was'nt the cut off Wednesday? Surely the ruling would be whichever option has the more votes at the close of voting. Otherwise can we PM those that haven't voted so we can get a resolution?
I was going to close it this morning, but after a recent vote it is now tied at 8 each way. Not sure who hasn't voted, what should we do? Do I just make a ruling?