2015 RULE DISCUSSION THREAD

[PowerBug]

Not a fan of rewarding tanking at all!

Yep, I am with this. At most one pick.


If the top guys have huge depth (ie UAE) that haven't even played a match for them during the season, why should they be able to just sit in their squad as they depth? In real life the players will want to leave the club and go somewhere they will actually play. That will equalise the comp, the worst teams already get higher draft picks, how much equalisation do we need?

[Ricochet]

OK, fair enough. Just a suggestion to help out the lower clubs.

[Memphistopheles]

Fairly certain Worlds is
<4 wins for 1 year is priority pick at start of 2nd Round
<4 wins for 2 years in a row is priority pick at start of 1st Round

Looking at this again.

Would people be against being even more lenient than worlds with priority picks?

Like <4 wins for the year and teams get one at the start of the first round AND one at the start of the second?

No. Only one priority pick should be handed out to teams. Either at the start of the first round (after any other clubs who've also scored less than 4 wins have picked) or at the end of the first round.

Giving out two makes in harder for middle-tier teams to rebuild through the draft and encourages people to god for a complete rebuild if they're not challenging rather than try improve their fortunes from mid-table.

Those top picks (1-10) can be the super guns, especially the key forwards, and while they might not impact straight away long term they will guns and the best fantasy scorers.

How much harder does it make it for middle teams though? You'd only move down 1 or 2 spots in the 2nd round. Does that really affect the middle teams that much?

I think the first part of my suggestion is... To change the minimum games from 2 to 4. Which i think is more than fair.

The second part is adding a second priority pick at the start of the second round.

So it'd look like this

Priority Pick
1.   Manila Folders
2.   Vietnam Vipers

Round 1
3.   Manila Folders
4.   Vietnam Vipers
5.   Taiwan Dolphins
6.   Honk Kong Dongs
7.   PNG Head Hunters
8.   Turkish Gazelles
9.   Tibetan Llamas
10.   Bangkok Crabs
11.   KL Crocodiles
12.   Bangladesh Bears
13.   Kathmandu Eskimos
14.   Australian Ales
15.   Sri Lanka Strikers
16.   UAE Tigers
17.   Mongolian Lambs/Laos Elephants
18.   Mongolian Lambs/Laos Elephants

Priority Pick
19.   Manila Folders
20.   Vietnam Vipers

Round 2
21.   Manila Folders
22.   Vietnam Vipers
23.   Taiwan Dolphins
24.   Honk Kong Dongs
25.   PNG Head Hunters
26.   Turkish Gazelles
27.   Tibetan Llamas
28.   Bangkok Crabs
29.   KL Crocodiles
30.   Bangladesh Bears
etc


So the middle teams only really move down two spots at pick 25ish. Will that make such a big difference??

Yeah not a huge fan of this.

The Dolphins and Dongs only won 4 games each compared with the 3 from the Vipers and Folders.

Giving the Vipers and the Folders two priority picks each is a massive, massive disadvantage for the other two rebuilding teams in the Dongs and Dolphins in this regard.

[Rids]

That makes no sense what so ever sorry. I wasn't going to comment but couldn't help myself after seeing the tanking comment.

Isn't that why all trades have to be approved? How is this tanking? This is a keeper league not a one season league so there will always be different strategies when it comes to squads. Just because a coach chooses to be strong and competitive for a decade rather than next year, that is not tanking.

If all trades are approved and verified as fair then it cannot be considered tanking.

Trading an older guy for a young guy or early draft pick is a strategy for a keeper league to replenish the list. I would never expect someone to trade a very promising youngster for an older better scoring guy with one year left. This is closer to tanking than the reverse.

[Rids]

Tanking is not playing your best players on field in the hope for a better draft pick.

It is definitely not trading for a draft pick or young player.

[nrich102]

Not a fan of rewarding tanking at all!

Who's been tanking?

[tbagrocks]

Change all the rules you want! (Though not really)

Nothing can stop the Llamas! 8)

Get       ...........     amongst the Llamas

[PowerBug]

Every team should be aspiring to be premiers, not make the average age of their squad as young as possible. Teams go way too extreme in one direction and it doesn't do anything good for the competition.

The Drafts are in reverse finishing order and repeat to compensate for the poorer clubs, and give them first shot at the next lot of youth. No club in my opinion was poor enough to deserve getting extra compensation by way of extra draft picks.

However some teams carry players in their lists that do absolutely nothing except sit as squad depth. I don't know entirely about other clubs, but when I look at my club, a player like Lachie Henderson played 16 AFL games this season, and I reckon I named him in my XV about twice, probably both over the byes. Now why should a player like that be allowed to stay on my list for free, I have no intentions of giving him games. Sam Gray played 9 AFL games (4 of which was when he was on my rookies list), I didn't name him once. Riley Knight 7 AFL games, 0 times in my XV, Bailey Dale 10 AFL games, 0 times in my best XV. David Ellard 8 AFL games, 0 times in my best XV.

Now these are the sorts of players that should have the potential to go to other clubs through some kind of free agency. Obviously it has to be restricted, you don't want the top sides losing all of their young depth as all it will do is hurt them once their top players retire, but somehow the players that are clearly unwanted by the AXV side in terms of actually starting (Like Lachie Henderson and Bailey Dale) should have a way of getting to the bottom clubs that could use more options without requiring them to trade for it.

JRoo stated he wants to get rid of his depth to the bottomg clubs which is a nice move on his behalf, but he has no obligation to do so, he could just sit on his team, maybe trade in one younger player for some older ones, keep his depth and draft picks, and remain a top side for years to come. He has probably got more guys that have played numerous AFL matches and haven't featured in his AXV side at all (excluding byes). Why should he have the option to sit on his team?


Finding a way to introduce this will see teams take player management into accordance more, they will play their fringe players so they don't lose them, strategically of course. That also gives a way in for the middle tier clubs which will be the beneficiaries by coming up against a team who doesn't play their best XV, because they believe they can win without doing so.



It's all just a thought, but if you want to make measures into equalising the competition, you give teams players that we know get AFL matches, not MORE draft picks that might not play for the first season and a half (Sam Durdin, Blaine Boekhorst as examples). The bottom sides get their draft pick priority already, they get to pick before the reigning premiers every round!

[Memphistopheles]

You raise some good points there Powerbug especially about players getting to weaker sides.

The problem with the weaker sides is they don't really have any bargaining chips to get players in aside from their really good youngsters or the few stars they have. But, if they trade one of them then that weakens their team long term and if they keep doing it it's a cycle where they can improve but, perhaps not ever enough to challenge for the flag.

So we are forced to play the long game where we trade off only the older players, don't look at picking up older guys ourselves, get lots of great picks and young kids and develop them to the point where we are competitive.

Don't get me wrong - that is going to work long term. I have complete faith that the Dolphins will be a whole lot more competitive given another couple of seasons. But, it takes time and a few season of 2, 3,  4 or 5 wins before we start the climb upwards. I've had two already and I expect at least one more before I'm back challenging for a positioning the 8 and if I'm very lucky the season after I could push Top 4.

So the rebuild is a 5-6 year process.

But, why don't we trade in established talent to improve faster? Well I've outline some reasons above but, without naming names I'll use a real-life situation from this off-season to illustrate why. Please don't take offence if you are this clubs involved.

A top club had a premium midfielder available for trade. Not too young but in a nice age range (26-29). Someone who, although on the fringes of the team they were at due to that side have excess midfield talent, I thought would work perfectly for my team.

They would have competed hard to be my captain every week and would have lifted our average score every week by about 100 points in my books as I'd be playing them over a first or second year mid.

So I put in an offer with what little bargaining chips I had and the club were relatively keen on it. It was looking like it could go through and would be a win-win for both sides (they'd improve another area they were short on).

But, then that coach decided to advertise the player to other clubs. Which is completely fair and I would do the same in their position. And, another big club, who were a finalist this year, came in with a bid that not only surpassed my offer but I had no way to match without sacrificing my team's future. They were able to offer players better than mine to improve that team's Best XV that I couldn't.

I completely get where both other coaches are coming from and they have to look out for their own interests but, at the end of the day my team is going to be less competitive next season because of this. I'll still be playing that second year kid (albeit with a bright future ahead of them) and will probably end up with 5 instead of 3 wins.

So what do I take out of this? That I'm back to the long rebuild. I'd back myself to perhaps get it done quicker thanks to an awesome draft last year but, it's still going to be a while.

Also that the teams who have the good players don't want to trade them for lesser players if they can. There's certain teams in the comp who have 5 of the best 20 or so midfielders in the competition, or 6 of the best. 20 forwards. As a coach of those clubs you want to keep those guns for depth not trade them unless it's for a premium on another line.

[Jay]

Poaching penalises the coaches who have managed their list well. That's not right.

I'm with Rico, if we want to speed up the rebuild of a bottom side, just give 'em an extra pick and we can all slide down 1 - no big deal.

Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.

[PowerBug]

Poaching penalises the coaches who have managed their list well. That's not right.

I'm with Rico, if we want to speed up the rebuild of a bottom side, just give 'em an extra pick and we can all slide down 1 - no big deal.

Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.

It's players that are clearly not needed at your club though, if they were you'd be playing them.


I agree with the final statement though as well

[Ricochet]

The problem with the weaker sides is they don't really have any bargaining chips to get players in aside from their really good youngsters or the few stars they have.

If a bottom team was looking to improve quickly they wouldn't be taking those extra picks to the draft though. It gives them someone else that's valuable to trade for proven players

^

[Nige]

There's a few things about extra picks though:
1. Sometimes the quality of the draft pool isn't great (e.g. this year, plenty of KPP prospect - admittedly not too bad in this comp though)
2. We say that people can trade them for players, usually some coaches don't want to, and the ones that do can't because nobody else seems to want them.
3. Most people have no idea about drafting youth. You can research in 5-10 mins, but they don't even want to put in the effort.

Ultimately though:

Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.

[Memphistopheles]

There's a few things about extra picks though:
1. Sometimes the quality of the draft pool isn't great (e.g. this year, plenty of KPP prospect - admittedly not too bad in this comp though)
2. We say that people can trade them for players, usually some coaches don't want to, and the ones that do can't because nobody else seems to want them.
3. Most people have no idea about drafting youth. You can research in 5-10 mins, but they don't even want to put in the effort.

Ultimately though:

Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.

I agree with everyone that it seems like we have good enough coaches in this league to turn the teams around. Like, I said before I'm confident Taiwan is on the upward trend now and I think the Vipers will start to improve from next year. The Dongs and Folders probably might sink lower next year (or still be at the bottom) but, can rebound with a good couple of off-seasons.

With regards to your points Bigey:
1. Every year at least the first round of the draft (up to about Pick 25) contains some decent players. Sometimes it extends further but, there is usually at least some good talent for clubs to pick up. Even if some of them take longer (kpp).
2. I agree here. I haven't really found that clubs in contention who have the players weaker clubs need to improve want draft picks. For example if I offered Pick 3 to the Tigers, Crocodiles, Elephants, Lambs or the other good sides I very much doubt they'd give me a premium in return. Maybe a younger player with some potential but, not an out-and-out premium like we see in the AFL. Take Dayne Beams as an example. Lets say I had offered Pick 5 and 25 and Crisp to the Crocodiles last year for Beams (remember this is before we knew how good Crisp was) would they have taken it? I highly doubt so. Same if I offer Pick 3 and 19 this year. Who's going to give me a genuine gun premium in return? No-one.
3. This is the area where if teams are going the rebuild need to be hot on. If you are doing this you need to have, or have someone on the coaching staff, a good knowledge of the draftees and the youngsters developing already on lists who aren't playing yet. If you don't have this then you can end up with teams like New Delhi (I'm not saying this is your fault Ric/Ele - it  was the guy before you who screwed that team), or Staines when I inherited them.

And finally - it will be interesting to see what happens at Bangladesh this off-season. They are surely going to need to do a bit of a rebuild with all their retirees/aging stars. But, will their guns be traded to the weaker clubs or will they be snapped up by the clubs who are already strong? I'm tipping the latter...

[Ricochet]

There's a few things about extra picks though:
1. Sometimes the quality of the draft pool isn't great (e.g. this year, plenty of KPP prospect - admittedly not too bad in this comp though)
2. We say that people can trade them for players, usually some coaches don't want to, and the ones that do can't because nobody else seems to want them.
3. Most people have no idea about drafting youth. You can research in 5-10 mins, but they don't even want to put in the effort.

Ultimately though:

Personally though, I don't think any equalisation measures are needed as yet. There are always going to be bottom sides, but we have good coaches at the helm here so I'm sure they'll be able to turn it around.

I agree with everyone that it seems like we have good enough coaches in this league to turn the teams around. Like, I said before I'm confident Taiwan is on the upward trend now and I think the Vipers will start to improve from next year. The Dongs and Folders probably might sink lower next year (or still be at the bottom) but, can rebound with a good couple of off-seasons.

With regards to your points Bigey:
1. Every year at least the first round of the draft (up to about Pick 25) contains some decent players. Sometimes it extends further but, there is usually at least some good talent for clubs to pick up. Even if some of them take longer (kpp).
2. I agree here. I haven't really found that clubs in contention who have the players weaker clubs need to improve want draft picks. For example if I offered Pick 3 to the Tigers, Crocodiles, Elephants, Lambs or the other good sides I very much doubt they'd give me a premium in return. Maybe a younger player with some potential but, not an out-and-out premium like we see in the AFL. Take Dayne Beams as an example. Lets say I had offered Pick 5 and 25 and Crisp to the Crocodiles last year for Beams (remember this is before we knew how good Crisp was) would they have taken it? I highly doubt so. Same if I offer Pick 3 and 19 this year. Who's going to give me a genuine gun premium in return? No-one.
3. This is the area where if teams are going the rebuild need to be hot on. If you are doing this you need to have, or have someone on the coaching staff, a good knowledge of the draftees and the youngsters developing already on lists who aren't playing yet. If you don't have this then you can end up with teams like New Delhi (I'm not saying this is your fault Ric/Ele - it  was the guy before you who screwed that team), or Staines when I inherited them.

And finally - it will be interesting to see what happens at Bangladesh this off-season. They are surely going to need to do a bit of a rebuild with all their retirees/aging stars. But, will their guns be traded to the weaker clubs or will they be snapped up by the clubs who are already strong? I'm tipping the latter...

I wouldn't rule that out so easily.

I know its a different comp but from 2 years ago

New Delhi trade: Pick 4, Pick 5 and Pick 63
New York trade: Andrew Gaff, Toby Greene and Pick 29

You may not get a "Dayne Beams type" but you'll be able to advance by 2 years. Or even get 2 players just under premo level for the one high pick.