British XV's - 2015 Discussion Thread

[Memphistopheles]

It would be up to Rids as to whether he trades or not.  The real issue though is will any teams be willing to trade a reasonable player for the priority pick. Speaking of Breakers no way am I going to Trade Lewis, Selwood or Picken for example who are the type of players the Giants would want.

At the moment the draft order for first round would be and I agree with Spites Idea would be:

1. Giants
2. Steins
3. Giants
4. Dragons
5. Bunnies
6. Hedgehogs
7. Magic
8. Leeches
9. Cruisers
10. Owls
11. Breakers
12. Hurricanes
13. Badgers
14. Hoods
15. Rams
16. Hawks
17. Werewolves
18. Steins

We'd be happy with this.

I'm confident Staines are on the right track. It will just take time for us to get there.

You can't force someone to trade a priority pick either.

If my experience from the last couple of years has taught me anything it's that people don't want to trade any guns unless it's for another gun. Everyone who wanted to trade with us wanted Kieren Jack in any deal which would have robbed our team of even more competitiveness this season.

The only reason we were able to get Jack Redden was because the Cruisers were able to offer us a nice deal. If I was on the receiving end of this I wouldn't have taken it but, thanks to the Ossie (then Cruisers coach) for helping us out!

Staines Steins give: Kurt Tippett + Dean Terlich + Brandon Jack
Crosby Cruisers give: Jack Redden + Jake Barrett.

PS - It says this trade was only approved after a lot of deliberation? What did you need to think about? The deal clearly improved a weaker side - should be easily passed imo even if it is weighted a bit towards us. I'd hate to see the Giants get a good deal and it get knocked back because the trade was unfair.

[Pkbaldy]

It's the trade I hated most seeing when I joined the game... Shouldn't of been up to a mid tier team to give you a player for that, should be the premium stacked teams. Because if we stayed at Sportal, Tippett would avg about 50 and the rest don't even play.

[Ringo]

Just another item for discussion.  As we know AFL lists are 48 players so thinking that as we have a number of left over draft players and with 16 teams increasing our lists to 48 as well 42 Senior Player plus 6 rookies listed players. Means 1 extra on Senior List and 2 extra on rookie list. 

[Nige]

I suppose that could happen, but I feel like given the quality of the players left over, it wouldn't really add too much and just add more deadweight to lists.

[Memphistopheles]

Just another item for discussion.  As we know AFL lists are 48 players so thinking that as we have a number of left over draft players and with 16 teams increasing our lists to 48 as well 42 Senior Player plus 6 rookies listed players. Means 1 extra on Senior List and 2 extra on rookie list.

I'm definitely in favour of this.

Larger lists means more depth and hopefully a stronger competition. It might not make a difference to bigger clubs but, for the struggling clubs it would be useful.

[Memphistopheles]

It's the trade I hated most seeing when I joined the game... Shouldn't of been up to a mid tier team to give you a player for that, should be the premium stacked teams. Because if we stayed at Sportal, Tippett would avg about 50 and the rest don't even play.

Ossie didn't make that trade because he wanted to help us.

Well, as far as I know anyway. He made the trade because he really wanted a forward and thought Tippett might get ruck too. Terlich wasn't completely useless then either - he was coming off a semi-decent year.

I'd have given more up for Redden but Ossie was happy with the deal. I'm just glad it wasn't rejected.

[Pkbaldy]

It's the trade I hated most seeing when I joined the game... Shouldn't of been up to a mid tier team to give you a player for that, should be the premium stacked teams. Because if we stayed at Sportal, Tippett would avg about 50 and the rest don't even play.

Ossie didn't make that trade because he wanted to help us.

Well, as far as I know anyway. He made the trade because he really wanted a forward and thought Tippett might get ruck too. Terlich wasn't completely useless then either - he was coming off a semi-decent year.

I'd have given more up for Redden but Ossie was happy with the deal. I'm just glad it wasn't rejected.

Half my team are forwards (even after I traded away 3 of them in the preseason) haha  :o.

[Spite]

If my experience from the last couple of years has taught me anything it's that people don't want to trade any guns unless it's for another gun. Everyone who wanted to trade with us wanted Kieren Jack in any deal which would have robbed our team of even more competitiveness this season.

Greenwood is on the table but unfortunately by jut looking at your list, it would be hard to get a deal done for him since we would be trading in depth players really, unless a high draft pick or kjack is on the table too I guess

Alright well we might have to leave it there then as Jack is not on the table and neither is Nat Pick 1 as we know who we want.

Pick 17 possible but I'm not sure that interests you?

Or Pick 1 rookie perhaps.

From the sportal scoring system Greenwood was a top midfielder (140+) and we would have given him up for pick number 1. Of course he got injured which we couldn't have known, along with a change in scoring system but certainly trading pick 1 for him would have made you more competitive this year.

This is what JB was trying to say before I believe, that some teams chose youth on purpose and should suffer accordingly because of their choices.

Rids and Nos just took over the team this year so they're excluded from this point.

I'm still happy with the Steins getting a priority pick at the end of round 1, but I didn't want everyone to gloss over the point JB was trying to make before, because it is a very relevant point.

[Memphistopheles]

If my experience from the last couple of years has taught me anything it's that people don't want to trade any guns unless it's for another gun. Everyone who wanted to trade with us wanted Kieren Jack in any deal which would have robbed our team of even more competitiveness this season.

Greenwood is on the table but unfortunately by jut looking at your list, it would be hard to get a deal done for him since we would be trading in depth players really, unless a high draft pick or kjack is on the table too I guess

Alright well we might have to leave it there then as Jack is not on the table and neither is Nat Pick 1 as we know who we want.

Pick 17 possible but I'm not sure that interests you?

Or Pick 1 rookie perhaps.

From the sportal scoring system Greenwood was a top midfielder (140+) and we would have given him up for pick number 1. Of course he got injured which we couldn't have known, along with a change in scoring system but certainly trading pick 1 for him would have made you more competitive this year.

This is what JB was trying to say before I believe, that some teams chose youth on purpose and should suffer accordingly because of their choices.

Rids and Nos just took over the team this year so they're excluded from this point.

I'm still happy with the Steins getting a priority pick at the end of round 1, but I didn't want everyone to gloss over the point JB was trying to make before, because it is a very relevant point.

Greenwood has had one good season. I'd hardly call home a gun midfielder which is what you could get with Pick 1. Unfortunately Petracca did his knee but long term we think he'd be better than Greenwood.

There's no point picking up players to be slightly more competitive short term. The goal of the XVs is to win a flag and to do that you need the best players. Better off getting them in when you're down than getting in a few good to okay players and not ever challenging.

[JBs-Hawks]

Well said Spite!

[Pkbaldy]

Sooooooo any movement on the scoring system for next year yet?

[Ringo]

Just seeing if there are any more comments - may put out a vote then so we have a decision before trade.

[kilbluff1985]

as far as scoring goes i like as is i guess

i'm to biased to comment about the draft pick compensations

but if Giants get a priority pick in the top 3 they shouldn't get one at the end of round 1 like Steins and i think Dragons are

also about trading picks for players the trick is being willing to offer a pick higher then the player is worth sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't

[Rids]

as far as scoring goes i like as is i guess

i'm to biased to comment about the draft pick compensations

but if Giants get a priority pick in the top 3 they shouldn't get one at the end of round 1 like Steins and i think Dragons are

also about trading picks for players the trick is being willing to offer a pick higher then the player is worth sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't

Agree with this.

Let's look at attempting to try and trade #3 nat pick pick for a player. You are in essence attempting to sell a top 3 mid for the year's draft for a player that might not be a top 3 mid for their team. Would we trade pick 3 for a Harley Bennell or Tom Mitchell type? Definitely! But would the owner of a Harley Bennell or a Tom Mitchell be willing to trade the player for the pick? Very doubtful. I don't think either Tom Mitchell or Harley Bennell are in the top 3 mids for their respective teams yet getting that trade to occur would be very difficult.

Trying to gauge what value #3 nat draft pick has is almost impossible due that the kid is unproven. 

I think that it has already been stated that the priority pick would occur somewhere at the start of the round instead of the end of the first round. There wouldn't be 2 priority picks.

[kilbluff1985]

as far as scoring goes i like as is i guess

i'm to biased to comment about the draft pick compensations

but if Giants get a priority pick in the top 3 they shouldn't get one at the end of round 1 like Steins and i think Dragons are

also about trading picks for players the trick is being willing to offer a pick higher then the player is worth sometimes it pays off sometimes it doesn't

Agree with this.

Let's look at attempting to try and trade #3 nat pick pick for a player. You are in essence attempting to sell a top 3 mid for the year's draft for a player that might not be a top 3 mid for their team. Would we trade pick 3 for a Harley Bennell or Tom Mitchell type? Definitely! But would the owner of a Harley Bennell or a Tom Mitchell be willing to trade the player for the pick? Very doubtful. I don't think either Tom Mitchell or Harley Bennell are in the top 3 mids for their respective teams yet getting that trade to occur would be very difficult.

Trying to gauge what value #3 nat draft pick has is almost impossible due that the kid is unproven. 

I think that it has already been stated that the priority pick would occur somewhere at the start of the round instead of the end of the first round. There wouldn't be 2 priority picks.

yeah so if you can get any super premos you still try and get a potential best xv player like GHS OR M Crouch someone that could be decent one day but less riskier then a rookie