2015/16 Drafts

[Roylion]

Here's another. Sydney have had Alex Johnson who hasn't played for 4 years. Dockers have Morabito who hasn't played for 4 years. Cats have Menzel who isn't played for 4 years. Cats don't get penalized for him playing. They already pay for him. I'm already paying for Simpkin. I shouldn't get penalized for him being able to play.

Yep.

Simkin is already on the list and is counted under Dragon Island's salary cap. He should get a player to replace Hocking.

Are any of these Essendon top ups classed as GST players? The list says no, but I find it hard to believe that players like Jamar (with 155 games as a ruckman) wouldn't be.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Yep.
Are any of these Essendon top ups classed as GST players? The list says no, but I find it hard to believe that players like Jamar (with 155 games as a ruckman) wouldn't be.

GST doesn't seem to come into account for this top up draft:

There are no GST requirements and 2016 salary does not matter.

 

[Roylion]

Matt Dea

Keep Hibberd and Monfries.

 

[fightingfury_88]

Marklar_33

 

[Marklar_33]

Mark Jamar

Option 3

 

[Marklar_33]

I'm following you mate. And I wasn't wrong with what I said re: Russian. He answered loopy, not me .

I wasn't happy to go in 40-3. But I couldn't afford to cut players. Tapscott was the result of making a deal for someone else. I also had Dwyer, and I had the choice of delisting him or Darley to get another pick in the draft. I saw Darley and Simpkin as being good chances to get a gig with Essendon.

This doesn't mean I start the season with 37. I start with 40. As is everyone else, even those others who are carrying unlisted players. Your main point is that I'm apparently trying to gain a player. I'm not. I'm at 39 and everyone else can fill back up to 40 but me.

So this is where we get stuck. You say I'm starting at 37. I say I'm starting at 40. My argument is this.

Everyone has 40 players on their list. Some have one or more players who are not on an AFL list. This is part of the rules. It is in fact enforced. If your team management means you have players who won't play, then you have to deal with it. But you still have 40 players on your list. You're a case in point. You're carrying about 500k of salary for the next 3 years that you can't use. If circumstances then make that salary available for a listed player, then all the good for you. Doesn't mean you should be disadvantaged elsewhere for that luck.

Now I get it. You had the foresight to predict this scenario, and now you're being punished for being brilliant

 

[sausageroll]

Matthew Stokes

 

[Roylion]

Now I get it. You had the foresight to predict this scenario, and now you're being punished for being brilliant

I don't get this statement.

Simkin was on the 2016 Dragon Island list and his 2016 salary counted on their TPP list before the Essendon players were suspended and before top ups were announced. As was Hocking. Both were taking up a space on his 40 man strong list before any suspensions were meted out.

Now Hocking is out due to the suspension and Dragon Island's list is reduced to 39. Mine is reduced to 38 with two players out. I get two replacements to bring my list up to 40. Why doesn't Danoz, given that he had Simkin on his list before any suspensions?

 

[sausageroll]

I see both sides of the argument here and could very easily make a good argument for either side.
In the current situation it's very difficult to find an ideal system so for one reason or another some are going to suffer more than others.

Since these drafting rules seem to be set in stone I'll say why I think the decision was made not to give Danoz the pick, although I totally get why he'd feel ripped off:

Using your example Roylion, before the suspensions you had 40 players on AFL lists. As a result of the suspensions you lose two and gain two bringing you back up to 40 players on AFL lists, the same as before the suspensions.
Before the suspensions Danoz had 37 players on AFL lists. He loses one and gains one bringing him back up to 37 players on AFL lists, the same as before the suspensions. The players he's gained is purely a result of the AFL top up players. Without the suspensions he Simpkin wouldn't be available.
If Danoz is then allowed to draft another player he then ends up with two extra AFL listed players for the price of one, which Russian is obviously trying to prevent.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it and if it was my decision to make I honestly don't know which I'd go for. But the thing about Russian's decision is that he is making it from an entirely unbiased position as he's not participating in the drafts, and therefore has made the decision he thinks is fairest.

I will say though, that I'd be much happier regaining Simpkin for Hocking than I am gaining pick 6 and the last two picks of the draft for Hurley (DPP G/S), Bellchambers (T) and Pears.

What I don't get is those who say they don't get the other side of the argument, because both sides have merit.

 

[Roylion]

Using your example Roylion, before the suspensions you had 40 players on AFL lists. As a result of the suspensions you lose two and gain two bringing you back up to 40 players on AFL lists, the same as before the suspensions.

I don't see it like that obviously. I'm looking at the total AFLTM list. Given that the AFLTM rules appear to say the senior list must be "Exactly 40", and other players are being given the opportunity to have as close to 40 playing players on their list, because of the suspensions, in my view a player suspended should be replaced by another player via the top up draft. Danoz isn't being given the opportunity to do that, because he was 'lucky' or 'unlucky' enough to already have Simpkin on his list before any suspension.

Before the suspensions Danoz had 37 players on AFL lists. He loses one and gains one bringing him back up to 37 players on AFL lists, the same as before the suspensions. The players he's gained is purely a result of the AFL top up players. Without the suspensions he Simpkin wouldn't be available.

That's right. But without the suspensions and top-ups Simpkin would still be on Danoz's list, taking up a list space and TPP payments. In the same way that Danny Stanley is on my senior list but is unlikely to play because he was made a rookie by Gold Coast. My point is is that if teams are allowed to replace suspended players with new players for one year, then like a few others, Danoz has had a player suspended.

If Danoz is then allowed to draft another player he then ends up with two extra AFL listed players for the price of one, which Russian is obviously trying to prevent.

I don't see it that way. Simpkin was on his list irrespective of suspensions / top-ups. All that has happened is that Simpkin (already on Danoz's list), is now a chance to actually score some points. Not that different to Danny Stanley being upgraded from the GC rookie list because of an LTI to a senior listed GC player. In that case because (like Simpkin) he is on my senior list, I would be lucky to gain an 'extra' player also. Yet I also get two replacement players on top of that to replace Hibberd and Monfries.

I'm not necessarily saying I agree with it and if it was my decision to make I honestly don't know which I'd go for. But the thing about Russian's decision is that he is making it from an entirely unbiased position as he's not participating in the drafts, and therefore has made the decision he thinks is fairest.

It's not in my interests either for Danoz to get a replacement player for Hocking. But given the rules for other teams, including my own, it is in my view the fairest.

 

[Presti_is_god]

Danoz should most definitely have a pick imo. Makes no sense to me why he shouldn't.

 

[fightingfury_88]

gym4life is up next I think.

 

[gym4life]

Jermain Miller-Lewis.

 

[fightingfury_88]

FWIW both sides to the argument have very valid points but think it's time to move on. We won't always agree but nobody could ever accuse Russian of making a biased decision so I think it's time to stop going in circles and instead move forward.

 

[fightingfury_88]

loopy_cam

 

[Marklar_33]

FWIW both sides to the argument have very valid points but think it's time to move on. We won't always agree but nobody could ever accuse Russian of making a biased decision so I think it's time to stop going in circles and instead move forward.

Where's the fun in that?

 

[loopy_cam]

Pick 8. James Polkinghorne

GeeCat

 

[loopy_cam]

It's a unique situation. Comparing Simpkin and his new situation with a listed rookie player is absurd.

There is no way anyone kept an unlisted AFL player on their list because they thought that they would get picked up by Essendon. Simpkin would probably have been one of the top 3 or 4 picks in this top-up draft anyway.

 

[Danoz]

ShaunDuggan was up two hours ago

 

[Danoz]

It's a unique situation. Comparing Simpkin and his new situation with a listed rookie player is absurd.

Rubbish. He was comparing Hocking's suspension to a LTI giving a rookie a chance on the senior list. A rookie listed player is still more likely to play than a player not even on an AFL list.

There is no way anyone kept an unlisted AFL player on their list because they thought that they would get picked up by Essendon. Simpkin would probably have been one of the top 3 or 4 picks in this top-up draft anyway.

What I meant was I expected them to be more likely to be picked up as rookies. Dwyer is 29 and has hardly played for a couple of years despite being on a senior list, Simpkin played in a grand final a few years ago, and all the talk about Darley was that he was shocked to be delisted, and fully expected to be picked up in one or another draft. The Essendon top-ups are almost like a pre-season draft that only Essendon is allowed to participate in. I would've thought those two would've been up the top of any list of possible players to get picked up, and I'm surprised that Darley hasn't been.

So tell me, if Darley is the 10th top up player for Essendon, do I have to delist someone else for him to be included? Cause that's how this appears to be going.

Right now, everyone in this game will be going into 2016 with 40 players and I'll have 39. Keep up the good work buddy.

 

[Marklar_33]

I'm going in with 38 players, not 40. Two of my players are not on an AFL list

 

[GeeCat]

Sam Grimley.

Keep Hooker.

 

[loopy_cam]

Rubbish. He was comparing Hocking's suspension to a LTI giving a rookie a chance on the senior list. A rookie listed player is still more likely to play than a player not even on an AFL list.

...Exactly. You seem to be agreeing with me here? A player on a rookie list is infinitely more likely to play an AFL game than a player not on a list at all.

What I meant was I expected them to be more likely to be picked up as rookies. Dwyer is 29 and has hardly played for a couple of years despite being on a senior list, Simpkin played in a grand final a few years ago, and all the talk about Darley was that he was shocked to be delisted, and fully expected to be picked up in one or another draft. The Essendon top-ups are almost like a pre-season draft that only Essendon is allowed to participate in. I would've thought those two would've been up the top of any list of possible players to get picked up, and I'm surprised that Darley hasn't been.

So tell me, if Darley is the 10th top up player for Essendon, do I have to delist someone else for him to be included? Cause that's how this appears to be going.

Right now, everyone in this game will be going into 2016 with 40 players and I'll have 39. Keep up the good work buddy.

Look, I think you're looking at this with too broad of a view. This is not a regular thing. If this was an every year thing where you were being prevented from drafting a player in a normal draft then I would agree with your position. However, this is a once off. You need to look at this suspension and top-up situation in isolation from any rookie draft scenarios. The facts are, our 2016 lists were set after our rookie draft was finished. We all had a differing amount of AFL listed players on our AFLTM lists. Then, the unprecented situation of suspensions and top-ups occured. This draft we're having now is not about improving our lists at all. It is about limiting damage to our lists. That's why we all should end up with the same amount of AFL listed players on our AFLTM lists. There is absolutely no way in which you are disadvantaged in this scenario more than all of the other coaches who have had to draft unlisted players. If you were allowed to draft a player for Hocking, then it would mean that from this situation: 'all clubs without players suspended' = neutral, 'all clubs with players suspended except you' = disadvantaged and 'you' = advantaged. That is unfair on everyone except you for something that is an unprecedented situation.

If Darley was to become a top-up, you would keep him and you would be very lucky. In that situation, do you still think you should get an extra player for Hocking? That would mean you get a huge advantage on every single other coach based on what our lists looked like after our rookie draft was completed.

 

[Danoz]

We'll have to agree to disagree loopy. Russian has already made his stance clear and there's no point arguing anymore.

 

[Danoz]

Russian, does ShaunDuggan have 24 hours from GeeCat's pick, or from when GeeCat's pick time was up yesterday morning?