Rookie Signings

[Goughy]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

You're forgetting that the entire contract system is based on performances over past seasons. That's how we've rated players, and thats the foundation of the entire system.

With each team facing the same salary cap and dealing with players ranked on past success, it's only fair for teams to draft players based on team success. It's the way it's done in most professional sports, where the finish of a team one season determines the draft pick the next season. That way the lesser teams tend to end up getting the better players in the draft.

Teams and individuals are very different. If each team is given a points limit then all teams are supposedly pretty equal and the identity of the teams have changed far more over the course of the off-season than any individual ever could.

The career of an individual is a year on year progression. It is only right they are judged on last years performances. It is a step by step evolution. If the system hadnt changed I would say the same for teams. However, the introduction of the new system means that there is no continuation from last season and certainly no evolution. There has been a pretty radical change brought about that completely changes the way teams are built and their composition.

Individuals are part of a continuous process, however the introduction of the new system means that there has been a huge change to teams. As such the last couple of years carry no relevance.

I completely agree that the weakest teams should get first pick in a traditional system. However, this contract system aims at team parity (ie Black having to go through the difficult task of releasing a long standing player) and it is a fresh start.

Its is like judging individuals on last seasons stats if their numbers and averages had been changed.

I thought the idea of a contract system and the points limit was to ensure that there were no 'lesser' teams going into the season.

There is now such a difference in how the players are distributed throughout the league and how a team builds its squad that the previous 2 years surely has no relevance.

Remember the contract system was brought about for a reason. That reason was obviously to change certain aspects of the league. Knowing there will be huge changes to the previous years means that it must be a fresh start. The contract system didnt make changes to players, but to how teams are built. Comparing teams and individuals in the same way misses the whole point.

The introduction of a salary cap and contracts is obviously designed to redress imbalances between teams. Now with this in place, going even further and using previous years performances under a completley different system to allocate Rokies to further redress imbalances (that may no longer exist due to the system change) is excessive.

Anyway, Ill be quiet now.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by Goughy

If each team is given a points limit then all teams are supposedly pretty equal and the identity of the teams have changed far more over the course of the off-season than any individual ever could.

The salary cap is not so simply as to keep all the teams on an even playing field, as it's impossible to do so. The salary cap is to prevent teams from getting too distant from each other in terms of capabilities. There's a difference.

Originally Posted by Goughy

The career of an individual is a year on year progression. It is only right they are judged on last years performances. It is a step by step evolution. If the system hadnt changed I would say the same for teams. However, the introduction of the new system means that there is no continuation from last season and certainly no evolution. There has been a pretty radical change brought about that completely changes the way teams are built and their composition.

The teams are practically the same as they would have been without the salary cap. That's because the salary cap was loose enough to allow teams to sign (almost unerringly) the players that had made a commitment to the club before the contract system was introduced.

If a team struggles for a season, it seems logical that that team should be given first pick of the young talent available in the offseason, if only to pose an improved performance the next season. As such, I still don't see why it's unfair to base the drafting on a team's finishing position. The cream tends to rise to the top, and that cream should not be allowed an early draft pick.

Originally Posted by Goughy

Individuals are part of a continuous process, however the introduction of the new system means that there has been a huge change to teams. As such the last couple of years carry no relevance.

I completely agree that the weakest teams should get first pick in a traditional system. However, this contract system aims at team parity (ie Black having to go through the difficult task of releasing a long standing player) and it is a fresh start.

As said above, the huge changes to teams were to occur with or without the contract system. Take a look at the players who have signed contracts. Barring Callum Thompson, Smith was able to sign the entire Black squad he had assembled before the contract system.

The salary cap acts as a barrier to control the power of individual teams. It is not meant to ensure that all teams start the season on even terms. If that were the case, a certain number of particular rank players would be allowed per team. As it is, the CWBCC does not pose such restrictions, meaning that recruitment and man management is crucial in the sorting of squads in the offseason. The teams that do it best will enter the season best equipped. Should such well-prepared teams succeed with that squad over the course of the season, the current drafting system ensures that they can't rob lesser teams of the top draft picks.

I thought the idea of a contract system and the points limit was to ensure that there were no 'lesser' teams going into the season.

That's impossible to do and is not done in any sport. Every pro team sport has a contract system and some have a salary cap of sorts. And yet the drafting process is the same in practically all.

Remember the contract system was brought about for a reason. That reason was obviously to change certain aspects of the league. Knowing there will be huge changes to the previous years means that it must be a fresh start. The contract system didnt make changes to players, but to how teams are built. Comparing teams and individuals in the same way misses the whole point.

The contract system was brought about mainly to ensure that there is not a mass exodus of players at the end of each season, as well as to add more depth to CW cricket. Those are the aspects of the league that were to be changed. It has had no influence on squad composition, other than Thompson.

[Goughy]

^ Fair enough. Thank you for the reply

[age_master]

Smith did have a choice - he didn't have to release a long standing player, he signed up too many contracted players and paid the price - time will tell if his gamble has paid off.

[age_master]

If CW Green happen to have less players sign in i assume we have the option to pick up a couple of extra rookies?

[Hoggy31]

Originally Posted by chaminda_00

He asked when he confirmed his sign up if he could change to be back up keeper. The Under 19s need a new keeper/batsmen and system probably needs a couple more as Black don't have a back up and the other clubs outside Green only have two. But i guess its up to him to push for it anyway.

Stedman's a back-up keeper, btw.

[dontcloseyoureyes]

Yeah, he asked Camps if he could change to it at the end of last season. Not sure if Campsy has done it yet though.

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by dontcloseyoureyes

Yeah, he asked Camps if he could change to it at the end of last season. Not sure if Campsy has done it yet though.

He will only be set to wicketkeeper status in ITC when he is meant to wicketkeep. That's standard protocol, for obvious reasons.

Oh, and he likely won't be very good at it.

[James90]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

Oh, and he likely won't be very good at it.

Why is that?

[Mr Mxyzptlk]

Originally Posted by James90

Why is that?

That's the way things are. You can't just suddenly take up wicketkeeping and expect to be better than a proper wicketkeeper.

[ash chaulk]

its ok. i dont intend on being injured or having a lack of form.

[Josh]

The suspense is killing me...

[Jamee999]

Originally Posted by ash chaulk

its ok. i dont intend on being injured or having a lack of form.

Or playing international cricket?

[ash chaulk]

its obvious that crampton is more gun than i ever was so i have doubts of playing internationals again.

[James90]

Originally Posted by Mr Mxyzptlk

That's the way things are. You can't just suddenly take up wicketkeeping and expect to be better than a proper wicketkeeper.

Tbf, when I signed up I'm pretty sure I said I was a keeper. Or maybe it was part-time.