Vote: Draft options for Foul Bay and Whitsunday players

I have assumed we’d only delist 6 still.
I was also thinking coaches should be allowed to pass their picks in the dispersal draft if they wish. But I don’t think any would. I imagine players picked 17-32 in a dispersal draft would be better quality than players available in the later rounds of the PSD.

 

Let’s get to the end of the vote first… shout out to those who haven’t voted but my current thought is we are not increasing delists…. Why would we?

At the end of the day the idea is that you delist a player to draft a better one… this principle doesn’t change regardless of the type of draft it is

 

Reading the question posed for vote.
There is no dilution of trades in the first scenario as round one of the draft is the only dedicated dispersal round and is in reverse ladder order, limited to dispersal players.
Therefore the traded picks 1st/2nd etc become 2nd/3rd etc, and only lightly impacted by trades.

Should there be a dispersal round those picks should not be tradeable, otherwise it's just another way for the sharks to feed on the minnows, so to speak..

 

There are two sides to every story regarding the potential dispersal... so let's take one of the 'lower teams' who 'should' benefit from this

I'll throw up an example... let's take my mate @JC

If we go two round dispersal, his trade at this years PSD for @snoz's first round PSD isn't 17-18, it is now 49-50, and the 'benefit' he gets from that is he has 11 and 26. One could argue the player he HAS to pick from the Warriors/CHooks at second round dispersal isn't as good as one of the new year rookies that he could pick if it was a one round dispersal (the next Harry Cheezels anyone?)

So currently JC's first 4 picks are 11 and 17-18, 27, and 45 (3404 points)
if we go one round dispersal he has 11, 22 and 28-29 and 47 (3167 points)
two round dispersal he has 11, 26, 43 and 49-50 (2723 points, which is equivalent of pick 28)

For this reason I am not a fan of a 2 round reverse snake dispersal if we get there, as the original PSD first round and second round picks become third and fourth, and become overly diluted in my opinion.

 

@bama, @Fitzy @Lenny120 we need your votes please

 

FWIW my presumption on a dispersal is that it’s completely separate draft. Based purely off ladder order (not linked to any draft pick trades already made).
Then the psd kicks off as per normal.

 

I think you’re complicating it too much. I’m struggling to understand your point; sorry it might be me!

Just keep our PSD how it would usually be, separate to the dispersal draft.
The only difference being that we’ll each have less picks in the PSD than usual because we will have already used a pick (or 2) in the dispersal draft.

PSD round 1 can commence after the dispersal draft, as it ordinarily would (including the remaining Chooks & Warriors not already drafted).

If we go with a dispersal draft, we could consider options for the order of picks, ie reverse ladder order or lottery; 1 or 2 rounds; snake or not.

I think given the quality of players available from the two clubs, 2 rounds is fairest on the same premise as needing the dispersal draft at all.

I also totally agree with Len that dispersal draft picks should not be traded.

 

Sorry I hadn’t seen this before posting my last comment - I was typing for too long. This is what I was thinking too KI Guy.

 

My point is this:

If we have a two round dispersal draft, and force someone to take a player from the two folding franchises, the player they get in round 2 may not be as good as the player out of the total player pool…. Therefore diluting their second round pick.

If it is one round only, the coach can then choose either a warriors/chooks player in round 2, or one of the other players…

it doesn’t matter if it is a separate draft or not, they are taking their second pick from a list that has only (at best) 40 players, and most of those don’t have the same potential as some in the main player pool in my opinion

 

Thank you.
In my view that is the whole reason why a dispersal draft is fairer. We need to keep the PSD as close to how it would have been without adding the extra players. Otherwise, we should be looking at Choppers' suggestion of just holding out all the players from both squads until 2025 so that future trades are made with the knowledge of the improved player pool.
Having 2 rounds is fairer for the same reasons why we would have 1 round. Plus, 2 rounds balances out the talent "dispersal" - ie it could be argued that having picks 15 and 18 is similar to (possibly better than) 2 and 31.

Also, I dont think we should be "forcing" anyone to make their picks in the dispersal draft. They can be voluntary, if people prefer to hold over their pick/s to the PSD. This covers the issue you raise about the potential for players in actual draft pool being better than the dispersal draft pool... but you shouldnt be comparing PSD round 2 to dispersal draft round 2... Dispersal draft round 2 is actually instead of PSD round 5/6. We'll all still get our first 4 or 5 picks in the PSD just like usual.

 

So

what you are saying is dispersal draft should be AFTER the main draft, not before?

 

This is a good point, the dispersal could be before or after the psd.
If held after then perhaps it’s fairer to the integrity of the psd.

 

I was thinking the dispersal draft would be before the PSD, because the remaining Chooks and Warriors' players can then go into the pool for the PSD.

I dont think its ok to have it after the PSD because that would take away the optionality of it. For example, if its before the PSD, you could get to your pick and think you didnt want any of the Chooks/Warriors players still available at that time, and decide to pass and save your pick for the PSD. That cant be done if the dispersal draft is after the PSD.

What i meant about dispersal draft round-2 pick being compared to PSD rounds 5/6 is because our first 4/5 PSD picks will be unaffected.
For example, if we have one round dispersal draft, a team will have 1 pick in the dispersal draft and picks in rounds 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 of the PSD, whereas if we have two rounds of dispersal draft, a team will have 2 picks in the dispersal draft, and picks in rounds 1, 2, 3, & 4 of the PSD. So they lose their 5th rounder of the PSD and gain an arguably better quality player from Chooks/Warriors pool.

Having two rounds of the dispersal draft makes it fairer for a number of reasons - ultimately regarding the issues discussed above around future trades involving 2024 PSD picks being less affected; but also if a snake draft it will importantly allow the teams higher on the ladder to get another crack at the Warriors/Chooks players before the lower teams - I think that's fairer given there will still be a lot of high quality Chooks/Warriors around the 17-25 range (obviously the real quality is in the first few picks, but that is somewhat balanced by having picks 30-32 in the 2nd round of dispersal draft, where the talent is thinner).

My actual opinion is that the dispersal draft should be 4 rounds as a snake draft, with all picks being optional (can be passed to be used in the PSD draft instead). But realistically most teams would only use picks in the first two rounds anyway, so we may as well just have two rounds.

 

I gotta say, I fully believe the dispersal draft is best for the competition, and I hope thats the way the vote goes because its just not fair for all the players to just go into the PSD pool... But Im not as phased about how we conduct the dispersal draft. Im putting forward my views, because its something very interesting to me and its a good discussion, but Im not gonna die in a ditch over how we do it - ie lottery?/how many rounds/when etc.

 

This bit happens anyway mate, if the lockout of non-dispersed players is limited to one round, the option is still there to take a dispersed player or an elite kid, either way you are still spending the same number of picks.
One round and nix on the snake, imo this isn't an equalisation measure, we've done a lot in that space in the last couple of seasons, it's just a way to fairly distribute players. We've just seen a team go from last straight up based on smart trading, so the league structure isn't limiting anyone.

 

That would definitely not work

 

Fair enough. I was just pointing out how the extra dispersal draft pick means you lose your last PSD pick.

 

Another idea to throw into the mix for a potential order of a dispersal draft could be lowest total points scored, instead of reverse ladder order or a lottery. Seems a fairer way to do it?

That would be (reverse ladder order rank in brackets):

1. Lefties 16786 (5)
2. Codpieces 17288 (2)
3. Dungbeetles 17405 (1)
4. Cockatoos 18253 (4)
5. Packers 18797 (3)
6. Wombats 19863 (8)
7. Battlers 20220 (6)
8. Misfits 20225 (12)
9. Lilacs 20347 (7)
10. Nuffers 20666 (13)
11. Incorrigibles 20823 (9)
    
12. Devils 21236 (10)
13. Vultures 21286 (11)
14. Uglies 21676 (14)
15. Spelunkers 22445 (15)
    
16. Grasshoppers 23803 (16)

Most teams are similarly placed on both lists, but total points scored is a better indication of where teams are at for this type of purpose IMO.

 

I think once you take out players retiring I don’t think there is much high quality talent at 17… guess that depends on what you view as high quality

What will happen if the dispersal draft gets up will be to vote on how we want it to work … but at the risk of repeating myself IT WOULD BE GREAT IF PEOPLE COULD HAVE THEIR VOTE!