2015/16 Drafts

[loopy_cam]

In the unlikely event that the players appeal and get off before the end of the season I would like my original players (Watson, Myers and Melksham) to be able to play.

 

[Danoz]

Russian's reasoning would be the same as Marklar's. You get one player and lose one player.

I would have loved to have picked Schoenmakers but as he seems to be ineligible I'll go...

Pick 1. James Kelly

I would also like to keep all three of my players (Watson, Myers and Melksham) for next year.

Gee Dub

Cool. But I don't get one player. Simpkin is already on my list. So essentially I lose a player like others but am not able to replace him as everyone else is able to.

 

[loopy_cam]

Cool. But I don't get one player. Simpkin is already on my list. So essentially I lose a player like others but am not able to replace him as everyone else is able to.

If players were not suspended you would have 39 players.

Players are suspended and you will have 39 players.

 

[Danoz]

If players were not suspended you would have 39 players.

Players are suspended and you will have 39 players.

Players were not suspended I had 40 players. 3 of those are not on an AFL list and won't play.

Players are suspended, I have 39 players. 2 of them won't play.

I don't see how this is not understandable.

Edited.

 

[Russian]

Russian's reasoning would be the same as Marklar's. You get one player and lose one player.

I would have loved to have picked Schoenmakers but as he seems to be ineligible I'll go...

1) Correct
2) He is eligible. The crossing-out only applies to rookie drafts

 

[loopy_cam]

1) Correct
2) He is eligible. The crossing-out only applies to rookie drafts

My decision is made now anyway. I'll stick with Kelly.

 

[loopy_cam]

Players were not suspended I had 40 players. 3 of those are not on an AFL list and won't play.

Players are suspended, I have 39 players. 2 of them won't play.

I don't see how this is not understandable.

Edited.

I understand. You want to be able to have more players than you had before the suspensions were given out.

 

[sausageroll]

1) Correct
2) He is eligible. The crossing-out only applies to rookie drafts

This reduces my pain considerably

 

[Danoz]

I understand. You want to be able to have more players than you had before the suspensions were given out.

Lol. I want the same amount of players as everyone else. I had 40 before, I now have 39. Everyone has the opportunity to replace lost players. Apparently now I don't.

 

[Marklar_33]

Lol. I want the same amount of players as everyone else. I had 40 before, I now have 39. Everyone has the opportunity to replace lost players. Apparently now I don't.

How can you possibly not be getting this?

 

[Marklar_33]

Players were not suspended I had 40 players. 3 of those are not on an AFL list and won't play.

Players are suspended, I have 39 players. 2 of them won't play.

I don't see how this is not understandable.

Edited.

These are your own equations I'm quoting. When you signed off on your list lodgement, you were happy to go with 40 - 3 = 37. For some unknown reason, now the equation is 39 - 2 = 37, you've been wronged. 37 available, both ways.

You are trying to GAIN a player, there's no 2 ways about it. You want to take the 37 you had at lodgement and turn it into 38!

 

[Danoz]

How can you possibly not be getting this?

I understand what you are both saying. I'm saying what you're saying is unfair. Forget the names. We all have 40 players. Some players have been suspended. Other people have the opportunity to replace those players. I don't. In my opinion it shouldn't matter that Simpkin wasn't on a list but now is. Why shouldn't Brodie Martin count as your replacement?

 

[Marklar_33]

I understand what you are both saying. I'm saying what you're saying is unfair. Forget the names. We all have 40 players. Some players have been suspended. Other people have the opportunity to replace those players. I don't. In my opinion it shouldn't matter that Simpkin wasn't on a list but now is. Why shouldn't Brodie Martin count as your replacement?

Oh my god!

 

[Marklar_33]

Why is Simpkin now on a list?

 

[Danoz]

These are your own equations I'm quoting. When you signed off on your list lodgement, you were happy to go with 40 - 3 = 37. For some unknown reason, now the equation is 39 - 2 = 37, you've been wronged. 37 available, both ways.

You are trying to GAIN a player, there's no 2 ways about it. You want to take the 37 you had at lodgement and turn it into 38!

But I'm not gaining a player. I'm going from 40 to 39, regardless of the names and their contract status. I'm losing a player. What don't you understand about this? Oh my god!

 

[Danoz]

Why is Simpkin now on a list?

He was already on my list! Why does it matter how he got a gig?

 

[Marklar_33]

But I'm not gaining a player. I'm going from 40 to 39, regardless of the names and their contract status. I'm losing a player. What don't you understand about this? Oh my god!

Have a player, but you can't play Simpkin. You can't gain two active players

 

[Marklar_33]

He was already on my list! Why does it matter how he got a gig?

Because it's the only thing that matters...

 

[Danoz]

Because it's the only thing that matters...

Well, you're wrong. I don't know why I'm bothering since Russian ignored my question and answered another.

 

[Marklar_33]

Russian's reasoning would be the same as Marklar's. You get one player and lose one player.
Gee Dub

1) Correct

There you go. I know you're not following along with what I'm saying, so I don't know how having a 3rd party attempt to explain the same thing will help.

 

[Gee Dub]

Keep Hepp

Draft Ryan Crowley

sante

 

[Marklar_33]

Well, you're wrong. I don't know why I'm bothering since Russian ignored my question and answered another.

And you may think I'm wrong, but prove me wrong and get a seat at the draft table

 

[sante]

I'll take Schoenmakers.

Delist Stanton.

Roylion

 

[Danoz]

And you may think I'm wrong, but prove me wrong and get a seat at the draft table

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.

 

[Danoz]

Another thing I'd be interested to know. If I didn't have Hocking, would I have to delist Simpkin? Let's say I delisted Hocking instead of Dwyer. So by your reasoning I only have 36 (a fundamentally wrong thought process, but whatever). Simpkin available means I now have 37. So I cheated right? So I have to deist him?

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.