WXV Trade Talk

[DazBurg]

I for one think the current system is fine, and gets a lot of unjust criticism.

Agreed. Don't change anything. The wait isn't too long and all coaches are entitled to their opinions.

^^

[RaisyDaisy]

I for one think the current system is fine, and gets a lot of unjust criticism.

Agreed. Don't change anything. The wait isn't too long and all coaches are entitled to their opinions.

^^

I agree too (as per the long post I made this morning after reviewing this years negged trades) but I don't mind the alternative either, especially with the quicker turn around times which is what a smaller committee would allow

[upthemaidens]

But having the players involved locked for a time period would have to impact on trades getting sniped as easily.
      If it was rejected, then the trade was unbalanced.  Fix it and move on.
If you are winning, pay that bit more to even the trade. If you are losing, you're getting some protection.

I would figure most Coaches would rather just renegotiate rather than have their player sitting there. 

...Then just make it any missed votes are treated as pass.  If a trade is badly uneven, 3 Coaches will voice their concerns in a 3/4 day period.

This goes on top of what Holz has been saying though, You cant just say fix it and move on, because one of the teams might not want to give any more or perhaps they cannot come to a new agreement. If you are winning, then you might not want to give more and would prefer to pass and look at other offers

With that being said I agree that most coaches would just renegotiate, but Holz is giving examples of when that hasn't been the case for him so we cant just assume that.

Not sure we can have passed votes either, because that means some trades could attract the scrutiny and reviewing of 15 teams one time, and then only 7 teams the other time, and that isn't fair

The same amount of people need to vote on every trade for balance and equality, hence all 18 teams or just a committee

Most of the time trades are fair enough to pass, when they are not, it's generally obvious who is winning.
    Sure it's not a perfect system, but it works and allows the Coaches to impact the decision making.  Which is a good thing.

If out of 18 Coaches, 3 can't voice their complaints in a 3 or 4 day period, then the trade was fair enough to allow in my opinion.
   You know a bad trade gets talked about, a dodgy one isn't going under the radar.

The problem is Coaches choosing to make deals with others , before renegotiating current deals.  Putting a time restriction on players involved, I think will help to some degree.
   If your trade doesn't happen, then them the breaks sometimes.  If you stuff people around they will be less likely to deal with you in the future.
It's in the best interest for the Coaches involved to renegotiate, just for future talks down the track.

There shouldn't have to be a rule saying you can't sell to a higher bidder before renegotiations, it should be implied.  It's common courtesy.  :-X

[Holz]

the cold feet issue is of great importance. have had 3-4 deals not go ahead after they failed from trivial things or I was winning too much. This should never happen its completely unfair. When a deal is locked in it should be locked in.

Is it completely unfair though? The team has agreed to Deal A which got negged, so they are not obliged to have to agree to any other deal. Yes the opposing team should have first opportunity to renegotiate with them, but if they cant come to a deal then it should be open slather again I would have thought

it is completely unfair.

Team A trades with Team B.

the votes come in and Team B is not getting a fair deal and Team A needs to pay more.

On what grounds should Team B get to not accept a deal if Team A offers more stuff on top of the orginal deal. If Team A wants to change the deal then its fine but if they are merely adding more then if team B chooses not to trade then they are basically renegging on a deal.

Im very opposed to that.

a. someone has sniped
b. people have bad mouthed a trade soo much they get cold feet.

both are issues

[RaisyDaisy]

In that case it makes sense, but what if Team A doesn't want to add more? They should have the option to withdraw and shop their players elsewhere

I think it's fair to say that in most cases when a trade gets negged the two teams attempt to renegotiate first anyway so it's not like it happens all the time

There's nothing wrong with trying to improve the comp and get it as efficient as possible, but it is quite amazing how much talk we have around trades, negging, voting etc when only 9 of 106 fail lol

[AaronKirk]

I for one think the current system is fine, and gets a lot of unjust criticism.

Agreed. Don't change anything. The wait isn't too long and all coaches are entitled to their opinions.

^^

Cannot agree more.

The banter makes it more interesting.... and yes frustrating at times but it works fine overall.

[DazBurg]

In that case it makes sense, but what if Team A doesn't want to add more? They should have the option to withdraw and shop their players elsewhere

I think it's fair to say that in most cases when a trade gets negged the two teams attempt to renegotiate first anyway so it's not like it happens all the time

There's nothing wrong with trying to improve the comp and get it as efficient as possible, but it is quite amazing how much talk we have around trades, negging, voting etc when only 9 of 106 fail lol

exactly what RD said
if A is willing to add more seems silly for B to pull out

does this happen often though?
(as it has not happened to us at PNL is all)

[Holz]

In that case it makes sense, but what if Team A doesn't want to add more? They should have the option to withdraw and shop their players elsewhere

I think it's fair to say that in most cases when a trade gets negged the two teams attempt to renegotiate first anyway so it's not like it happens all the time

There's nothing wrong with trying to improve the comp and get it as efficient as possible, but it is quite amazing how much talk we have around trades, negging, voting etc when only 9 of 106 fail lol

exactly what RD said
if A is willing to add more seems silly for B to pull out

does this happen often though?
(as it has not happened to us at PNL is all)

The team that has to give more can pull out but not the team giving more.  Has happened 4-5 times to me.

[meow meow]

 :'(

[Purple 77]

meow crying gets everyone to a silence :P

Sorry I've been away recently; was moving across the state.

2 coaches to go; will send a reminder  8)

[RaisyDaisy]

2 coaches to go; will send a reminder  8)

Not exactly a strong case for trying to get all 18 teams vote twice a week haha

[Nige]

2 coaches to go; will send a reminder  8)

Not exactly a strong case for trying to get all 18 teams vote twice a week haha

Also doesn't sound good if the trade is hinging on two votes still.

[Purple 77]

Right, there is one team to go, but reckon I've made my decision anyhow.

Trade 105 - 4 votes
New Delhi trade: Isaac Heeney, Nathan Hrovat + Pick 12
New Delhi receive: Steele Sidebottom + Pick 18

Mexico City trade: Steele Sidebottom, Shannon Hurn, Shaun Grigg + Rookie Pick 18
Mexico City receive: Heath Shaw, Taylor Adams + Pick 64

New York trade: Heath Shaw, Taylor Adams, Pick 18 + Pick 64
New York receive: Isaac Heeney, Shannon Hurn, Shaun Grigg, Nathan Hrovat, Pick 12 + Rookie Pick 18
Coaches comments: 2 coaches say New York don't receive enough compensation for losing two players with decent value in Shaw & Adams. One coach still feels Mexico City win by too much, and the other coach says Mexico are big big losers and New York are big big winners.
Admin comments: Well. I do feel like there is an imbalance. But is it enough for me to overturn a decision? I will break each team down in the way I see it; New Delhi: Sidebum > Heeney, IMO the difference + Pick 18 is equal to Hrovat + Pick 12. So that's fine. Mexico City: R18 = Pick 64. Sidebum > Adams. Now, there is a 37 point difference between Hurn & Shaw. If Grigg was to continue the form he showed this year, then I think he would start for most teams. I think it wouldn't be crazy to suggest Shaw won't keep that scoring up to a 113 average, but it's still gonna be high. I'll say 109, and I'll also be generous and say Hurn might rebound (as his history shows he is capable) to an 83 average. Even when you look at this in a pessimistic way for Mexico City like I have, I wouldn't say the surplus of Sidebum over Adams & Grigg quite covers the difference, but to me, I don't think it would be enough for me to reject the trade, despite a potential small win here to Mexico City. New York: R18 = 64. Using same argument as I did with Mexico City, I'll say Shaw + Pick 18 = Hurn, Pick 12 + Grigg, but I still somewhat lean to a loss here for New York. Then, we have left is Adams FOR Heeney + Hrovat, and I think that is fine. Overall, I think there is a slight imbalance, but I don't think it is enough for me to overturn the decision. Maybe the three-way trade might have benefited from having the draft being so soon... but I do believe it is not unfair enough for me to overturn.
Verdict: PASS

Meaning...

Trade 106
Mexico City trade: Taylor Adams, Kamdyn McIntosh + Heath Hocking
Cairo trade: Trent Cotchin, Jeremy Laidler + Pick 78

Is passed.

[Holz]

Not suprised.

Shows why need comitee.

[Ricochet]

Sidey <3

but

Heeney :'(