Americas SC banter/discussion thread

[powersuperkents]

The Cockerels have completed our final trade for an indefinite period. I have a sustainable list and will be withdrawing the club from the trade market indefinitely - until we receive the same privilege as every other club has thusfar received and made cognisant of;

1) the identity of the coach who submitted the complaint; &
2) the exact reason, as stipulated in the message to the moderator at the time of submission, for the complaint

Until then, the only clubs open to talks will be Colorado and Anaheim for this period - I will talk to Tdog about what his interests are (as I know he has suffered losses to his midfield due to the WADA ban and I would hold no hard feelings against him if he would consequently prefer to hold on to Whitfield due to these unfortunate circumstances) and Kb who is the one coach I am adamant had no involvement in these events whatsoever.

Firstly, I want to make it clear that I am only seeking the same sincerity and respect as other coaches have received (the fact the coach made the complaint anonymously and refused to reveal their reasons for the complaint or their identity to me when Jukes notified them of my request is what annoys me as I have not received the same entitlements as any other club that has had a trade impugned. Furthermore, by complaining anonymously they deprived me of any opportunity to defend the trade).

Secondly, I have no problem with how Jukes has implemented the process. As far as I'm concerned he would have conducted the process in good faith. Furthermore, I have no problem with any of the voters, whether it be that you voted by objective standards, considering the entire context of the two clubs trading history, or in a manner that suited your best interests, it is your right to do so and I have to stand by your decision.

Overall, I just feel like our side has been treated unfairly by cowardly red tape. The trade was confirmed 17 days ago and as far as I'm concerned, and until I'm shown otherwise, I cannot ascertain whether or not the complainant had any ulterior motives, rather than solely being motivating to protect the integrity of the competition.

Unlike the AmericaXVIII's DT, coaches in this league have developed a convention (and I say convention, not rule) of complaining about trades publicly (therefore, expressing their views to the other 11 coaches and giving the affected coach the entitlement to defend the trade) that I would of assumed all coaches would be amenable to (i.e. being open and honest with one another)

If the coach who made the complaint is not willing to explain his reasons to me privately or even publicly defend his reasons, I am left feeling like the process has been either irresponsibly handled or very suspicious as I have been denied any explanation for the initial complaint. For all I know Jukes as the moderator made the whole thing up to weaken my team at this juncture - that is how little info. I have received in regards to this matter...

What I can promise is that if the coach does notify me of his identity and his reasons he can be assured that I will not publicly disclose his identity or his reasons and they will do nothing more than providing me with an explanation which I think I am logically entitled to - e.g. why they thought the trade was so lopsided it needed to be blocked (I have seen far more lopsided trades this off-season...). If the explanation is reasonable and the complaint was made out of good faith, you should have no reason to conceal your identity from me... This is absolute bs (i.e. the way our team has been treated - imagine suddenly having a trade for a starting player,  that you thought to be locked, revoked and being offered no explanation for the accusations, I don't know whether it was a genuine complaint or merely sabotage at this point), and for the votes it looks like 5 other coaches didn't think it warranted intervention.

In conclusion, the inability for the complainant to contact me or defend their reasons publicly makes me feel cheated through this whole ordeal. Coaches have made a convention of publicly challenging trades they thought were lopsided so why should I suddenly be treated different because a coach is not willing to publicly challenge the trade (there's a real problem when someone won't public challenge or defend views - in any aspect of life). Therefore, Santiago will do what is necessary until we receive the identity of the complainant and their exact reason for the challenge (why should we be the only team to not know this - what makes matters worse is this is the only situation in which a trade has been blocked - and we don't know who complained and what their reasons were...).

We demand equal treatment and natural justice. We stand by the decision of the voters, but we should at least be entitled to know who our accuser was and the reason behind their accusation. They cannot just hide from me, because that just exacerbates the suspicions I have regarding their motives.

Again, if their reasons were reasonable, there will be nothing to worry about because I make all my decisions in running the club logically, prudently, and conscientiously.

I wish to express a genuine and heartfelt "Thank You" to any, and all the, coaches who took the time to read this post. I am not acting out of spite or rage. I genuinely feel cheated and until I know the reasons behind the complaint, those feelings will persist and I must do what is necessary, as the head coach, to ensure that the club is not cheated further.

[kilbluff1985]

i also don't think it's right to fail the trade  5 passing it and 5 negging it means that it's not unfair enough to fail

yes the Cockrels win but the trade isnt unfair enough to block and it comes down to how you rate Whitfield and 80 averaging def/fwd is worth a 90 averaging mid and it's only opinion that Whitfield will be more then that

throw in that the trade suits both teams needs and it's fine

[Nige]

i also don't think it's right to fail the trade  5 passing it and 5 negging it means that it's not unfair enough to fail

yes the Cockrels win but the trade isnt unfair enough to block and it comes down to how you rate Whitfield and 80 averaging def/fwd is worth a 90 averaging mid and it's only opinion that Whitfield will be more then that

throw in that the trade suits both teams needs and it's fine

[Jukes]

On the trade being blocked - that's 5 vs 5 including the coaches involved, who will obviously be inclined to pass it. 5 of the 8 non-involved coaches voted against the trade - 63%. If I was an ordinary coach I sure as hell would have complained about this trade, so it's lucky a coach did complain to put it to a vote. Varcoe is an aging, mediocre player who I'd have doubts about being best 22 for 2016 let alone the years after that, seeing at the pies are a very young side boasting considerable talent; while Whitfield was a number one pick just a couple years ago and is certainly a blue-chip youngster. I believe that with my own personal view, and the fact that 5 of 10 - 5 of 8 not involved - voted to fail the trade, it should be failed - and remember I'm very against failing trades, other comps like WXV fail far fairer trades than this. This isn't personal I'm sure by myself, the coach who complained, or the coaches who voted to block the trade, it's right there on the table.

On revealing the coach who complained - as I've said to psk on pm, I'm not going to reveal their identity until they give me permission to (they haven't replied to my pm about it yet). They have the right to complain about a trade anonymously and I would like to think that coaches can come to me of all people confidentially to talk about this competition. The coach said the trade "looks woeful", thinking Whitfield >>> Varcoe and Santiago were winning the trade by too much. I still await his message, it is the AFL off-season so people don't come on as much, remember - I sure don't.

Also, you/psk says that "have not received the same entitlements as any other club that has had a trade impugned." Note that this is the first trade in this competition that has been put to a vote/blocked.

[powersuperkents]

I cannot be sure that it is not personal until I receive the reasoning of the coach involved (as I said the official message would suffice) and know which coach complained.

My reasoning for this trade was (all the reasoning above are subjective);
1) Whitfield is an outside mid, good for DT, but SC-wise he will average a maximum in the 90's;
2) He was the number 1 pick in a draft where O'Meara and Crouch were already taken (rightfully he would have been pick 4 in a draft with no good KPP players available - besides Daniher who would have been pick 1 if not a F/S selection); &
3) He was a pure mid - Tdog was the one who said the trade "worked for him" - while Varcoe has dpp status and a high ceiling while Whitfield has only broke the 100 barrier 7 times in over 50 games

A lot of time and effort goes into these trade negotiations, and when there has been an unfair trade coaches have always gone to the discussion board to dispute it and usually have their opinions changed once they read the trade in the context of the trading relations and team needs. That did not happen this time because the coach went straight to what is the 'appeals process' in other comps. Furthermore, this complaint involved myself and TDog directly, so therefore we should be entitled to the facts rather than receiving the same attention as the club involved the least.

I assume it was a personal complaint or for an ulterior motive because if it was made for another reason the coach would have publicly voiced this. I am not concerned about the outcome, but I should at least be entitled to know who complained and what their official reasoning was. Their blatant prevarication is what is annoying me... If they were afraid of complaining about the trade publicly, one naturally draws the inference that they felt as though they could not justify their reasons - and you are frankly not taking an impartial approach by stating their reasons for them (I don't want Juke's opinion - I acknowledge the majority's vote - but I want to know the relevant coach's reasoning).

I'll repeat, that as long as these imperative details remain unknown to me, the entire process seems dubious (I don't even know if it was you who submitted the complaint and are attempting to cover it up - that is the extent of my discombobulation regarding this affair).

I honestly cannot comprehend how the coach who complained is unwilling to step forward and voice the initial reasoning (even notifying me through a private message or permitting Jukes to do so on their behalf - I have already stated I will keep it confidential). Because the trade is, prima facie, not lopsided enough to be challenged without good reason and I think I am entitled to hear that reason - if you thought so at the time Jukes, why didn't you complain?   

Again, I'm not challenging the outcome, I just want clarity and closure because until I hear the official details (and not the details vicariously expressed through someone who alleges that they were not involved) this whole process seems dubious to me. Now that the vote has been completed, the reason at least, as per the pm should at least be made available to me without any complications arising (I still want the coach's name - like I previously said, if their reasoning was coherent and logical I will hold no ill-will towards them, however the fact they choose to remain anonymous makes me think it was submitted for an ulterior motive).

Everything else in the message was addressed in my initial post.

I just want to make this clear. I am only asking Jukes to disclose the requested information if the relevant coach has not after a reasonable time-frame (as the trade period is basically over, I would consider a 'reasonable time-frame' as anytime over the next 6 months). The coach should not need to hide from me if their reasons were valid (again, I am a very reasonable man and I appreciate openness, honesty, and respect, and that is all I'm asking for), I will be understanding. Finally, irrespective of whether their reasons were justified, I will not contest the outcome as I stand by the majority vote - no matter how absurd I subjectively think it was.

Objectively, I am not asking for much from the relevant coach (or any coaches who may have any information). If I made a complaint about a trade, I would have enough respect to make the affected coaches aware of my identity - I like the anonymity in AmericasDT, however the public complaints and discussion has become a convention in this league. 

Appendix:

If all they posted was that it "looks woeful", I will back them but I at least want to know who the individual was. If you are interpreting their submitted reason for them, I feel as though I'm still being deprived of information. The verdict has been held so there should be know reason why I cannot receive a copy of the complaint for nothing more than elaboration (basically, the facts of the case against the trade).

[powersuperkents]

On the trade being blocked - that's 5 vs 5 including the coaches involved, who will obviously be inclined to pass it. 5 of the 8 non-involved coaches voted against the trade - 63%. If I was an ordinary coach I sure as hell would have complained about this trade, so it's lucky a coach did complain to put it to a vote. Varcoe is an aging, mediocre player who I'd have doubts about being best 22 for 2016 let alone the years after that, seeing at the pies are a very young side boasting considerable talent; while Whitfield was a number one pick just a couple years ago and is certainly a blue-chip youngster. I believe that with my own personal view, and the fact that 5 of 10 - 5 of 8 not involved - voted to fail the trade, it should be failed - and remember I'm very against failing trades, other comps like WXV fail far fairer trades than this. This isn't personal I'm sure by myself, the coach who complained, or the coaches who voted to block the trade, it's right there on the table.

On revealing the coach who complained - as I've said to psk on pm, I'm not going to reveal their identity until they give me permission to (they haven't replied to my pm about it yet). They have the right to complain about a trade anonymously and I would like to think that coaches can come to me of all people confidentially to talk about this competition. The coach said the trade "looks woeful", thinking Whitfield >>> Varcoe and Santiago were winning the trade by too much. I still await his message, it is the AFL off-season so people don't come on as much, remember - I sure don't.

Also, you/psk says that "have not received the same entitlements as any other club that has had a trade impugned." Note that this is the first trade in this competition that has been put to a vote/blocked.

I'm also just going to note that this is fallacious as we have not followed any listed rules in implementing the challenge process

"There's no real voting-for-approval thing going to happen, but if I think a trade is extremely lopsided or I get sufficient complaints about a trade from other coaches I'll consider rejecting it." - Jukes

You need to have rejected it yourself - which I concede you have now. But there are no rules concerning submission of complaints and no rules regarding confidentiality (the last challenge was by Kb publicly against Ele and Syd's picks for young players trades - suddenly the process changes just because a coach complained anonymously and the rules were not adhered to).

I still stand by the majority vote, I am merely providing a rebuttal concerning formalities in this league.

http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,99152.0.html - the initial rules state nothing about the complaints process or confidentiality

Again, I'm not appealing the process, I just want the requested information and to provide a rebuttal to the last remark by Jukes. All I want is the name and reason, I do not see how this request (directed at the relevant coach) is unreasonable. I think remaining anonymous and secretive is, on the facts, both unreasonable and insincere - I have the 'what', 'where', & 'when', but not the 'who' and 'why'. Until those details are revealed any human being remains discombobulated - literally, the basics to establish functional of cognitive thought has not been revealed.

[T Dog]

Hey Dudes, the trade is getting a life of its own sadly.

The trade was made with a simple premise from Colorados view.
Getting in a playing DPP D/F option for a non playing depth mid.
As you are probably aware I trade from a team view, not really concerned on the one to one player comparison.

As with PSK happy to go with comp rules.
If failed,  will revisit the trade or kill it.
That's what the rules are for.

[popedelio]

I believe I have aged about 10 years after reading this :P

My 50c for PSK, to make it clear I didn't submit the complaint, but I did vote against the trade. My reasons are more on the potential output on Whitfield, and the inconsistency of Varcoe's career thus far. You say he is an outside mid only, but what does that have to do with anything? Players like Gaff (104), Macrae (100), Stanton (101), Montagna (111) and Ellis (100) are some players of the top of my head who are all outside mids imo and all went 100+ in 2015, I believe Whitfield is fully capable to reach those levels.

Varcoe only started playing defence last season to gain dpp. Who is to say he plays on the wing or up forward this season and he loses it? He also arguably had his most consistent season last year out of 9 years in the AFL, telling me he is nowhere near premium status, and imo won't be.

I can understand your making this trade for a team balance, though I think your losing out on too much. I guess your rating of Whitfield isn't as high as mine.

Hope that makes some things clear for you PSK if nobody comes forward for you  :)

[kilbluff1985]

still not one word from jukes on the idea of trading picks if affected by the banned players is driving me nuts

[Jukes]

still not one word from jukes on the idea of trading picks if affected by the banned players is driving me nuts

No trading picks for picks, you get a pick allocated to you if you have a b& player and they go onto your list as an extra player in an extra list spot.

So it'll be a draft with the order:
1. Anaheim (Heppell)
2. SF (Stanton)
3. Hurley (Anaheim)
4. Watson (Colorado)
etc.

[kilbluff1985]

no well i mean possibly trading a 2016 NAT draft pick for a player to cover for a banned player

like i trade my 1st round NAT pick for Matt Boyd

[powersuperkents]

still not one word from jukes on the idea of trading picks if affected by the banned players is driving me nuts

No trading picks for picks, you get a pick allocated to you if you have a b& player and they go onto your list as an extra player in an extra list spot.

So it'll be a draft with the order:
1. Anaheim (Heppell)
2. SF (Stanton)
3. Hurley (Anaheim)
4. Watson (Colorado)
etc.

Surely Hurley is more valuable than Stanton...

A 25 year old 95 averaging defender (that is top tier for a defender) is better than a 30 year old 101 averaging midfielder (who had one good season after two consecutive seasons of decline - both of which were below Hurley's 2015 average).

I think a good case could be made for Patrick Ryder as well. He was the sole ruck at Chicago at the time of the ban and he averaged 85 in a poor season and never dropped below a 90 average over the last 4 seasons (two of which he exceeded averages of 100). I think the fact that Pope was proactive and went out of his way to find a replacement for Ryder should certainly not be held to his disadvantage while preparing the draft order (i.e. it should not be taken into consideration in drawing up the draft order). I think Ryder is still in the top 5 of the players banned so Pope should receive a top 5 pick (I just see his loss being potentially disregarded based on the fact that he went out of his way to fix it)

[kilbluff1985]

yep i would go

Heppell
Ryder
Hurley
Watson
Stanton

[T Dog]

Just a thought on Watson. He only played 12 games for Colorado last year, finishing up RD 14.
Stanton played full season.
Stanton may be more important team wise in the draft.

[Pkbaldy]

Surely Hooker can't be too far behind Hurley??

only 4 PPG difference, and he would of been a Fwd/Def.... Probably being DPP he probably holds just as much, if not more value...