WXV Trade Talk

[RaisyDaisy]

I'll just chime in because this is just a hypothetical discussion about the past anyway

Neade and Impey will never be SC relevant, where as the 3 older guys are

Lonie could one day be a 75-80 avg player, and Cocky could be more, but I'd take the 3 older guys over them any day of the week haha

if the deal didn't involve Impey/Neade but someone who could actually start and was of similar age to the other oldies then it would make the deal more appealing

When was this trade done out of curiosity?

[Holz]

I'll just chime in because this is just a hypothetical discussion about the past anyway

Neade and Impey will never be SC relevant, where as the 3 older guys are

Lonie could one day be a 75-80 avg player, and Cocky could be more, but I'd take the 3 older guys over them any day of the week haha

if the deal didn't involve Impey/Neade but someone who could actually start and was of similar age to the other oldies then it would make the deal more appealing

When was this trade done out of curiosity?

this year in the Euro (DT).

Spinking had a few older players and wanted to go younger. Thoughts where Nroo and Walker are basically gone. Nroo was a premo but walker wasn't. Swallow is still valuable but not as much as in SC he only averaged 87 this year.

[RaisyDaisy]

Ah OK yeah fair enough then :)

[JBs-Hawks]

And still that trade is ridiculous.

Still see the upside in the guys given.

Neade 21 year old forward cracking into the team played the last 8 games of the season
Lonie 19 year old forward, played 17 games and sub vest dragged his average down but thats gone scores of 69 73 74 79 81 93 has good potential.
Cockatoo: 19 year old forward, 11 games in his first year. crippled with vests (gone) but has great talent

decent value given there but needed more.

Impey: 20 year old defender in the 22, should keep increasing his scoring, had a vest and a concussion.
Pick 25: still should get someone ok to add to the 3 forwards and 1 defender picked up. (which they need)

Neade and Impey will never be of DT relevance.
Lonie possibly could one day be an F4 but in a 14 team comp that is skeptical.
And Cockatoo has postential but hasnt shown much yet especially in regards to DT scoring, probably be a better SC player.

[Ringo]

Come on guys tiime to move on - we can not undo the past trades regarding the arguments for or against which we can argue forever and not resolve,

So lets agree to just move on to the draft and 2nd Trading period, and remember to list your team.

[Ricochet]

Based on last weeks discussion we know that 13 trades were negged, and of that 13 we could really bring it down to 9 when we remove the 2 that were just resubs, the 6 way and one of the Rio/Christchurch 2 attempts

This is the bit i don't think is right when looking at the negging and this discussion.

Can't just say 13 trades from 106 attracted negs.  Have to take out the autopasses imo

Ones like...
Trade 26
Toronto trade: Pick 85
New York trade: Michael Firrito


169 total negs were given. By my count these are the trades that attracted Negs (55 trades), 5 of which were re-dos


Trade 3
Trade 6
Trade 10
Trade 11
Trade 15
Trade 16
Trade 18
Trade 24
Trade 25
Trade 28
Trade 30
Trade 31
Trade 32
Trade 33
Trade 35
Trade 36
Trade 37
Trade 39
Trade 41
Trade 42
Trade 43
Trade 44
Trade 45
Trade 46
Trade 47
Trade 51 Was a re-do of trade 43
Trade 52
Trade 53
Trade 54
Trade 56
Trade 57
Trade 58 Was re-done in trade 72
Trade 59
Trade 60
Trade 62
Trade 63
Trade 65
Trade 70 -
Trade 72 -
Trade 74 - Was a re-do of trade 72
Trade 75 - Was a re-do of trade 72
Trade 76 -
Trade 78 - Was a re-do of trade 70
Trade 79 -
Trade 80 -
Trade 81 -
Trade 82 -
Trade 84 -
Trade 91 -
Trade 92 -
Trade 93
Trade 96 -
Trade 98 -
Trade 100
Trade 103


So 55 of 106 trades attracted negs = 52%
13 of these 55 were blocked = 24%

Those stats can be used for both sides of the argument but for what its worth i don't mind whether we keep it as is (with the coaches voting), but IMO we need to fasten up the process.

I think its been mentioned before but how about trades auto pass unless 3-4 voice their opinion. Then it can go to the coaches?

[RaisyDaisy]

Yeah but with 18 different coaches/opinions it's no surprise that nearly half of the trades will get at least 1 neg but they don't really mean much. It's just the negged trades that cause uproar and that actually matter

The current system is fine - just needs to be quicker

[Ringo]

Think my suggestion got consumed with the earier debate so re posting here for a bot of debate.

To me there are couple of things that will improve trading in Worlds and been thinking on this in the current Worlds context.
1) Still have the weekly coaches voting but have an end time of Wednesday midnight.
2) If 25% of coaches vote to neg a trade (5 against required) then a trades committee look at at and rule.
3) If more than 50% (10 votes) trade automatically rejected.

Purple to nominate a trade committee who look at the trades with 5 - 10 negative votes and by majority rule on them. Purple will be one of the committee.

If we agree on a Wednesday night trade deadline then coaches will know that and will make sure they come on in the 72hrs to rule on trades.  Note the majority of coaches had voted by Wednesday anyway and with 5 votes required to neg a trade there are probably only a few occasions when we would get down to the last 2 coaches to vote.

Also think this would make Purples job a little easier as there may be fewer trades to have rules committee rule on. Currently he assesses all trades with 3 or more votes against.

[Holz]

how about all trades pass.

if you keep doing bad trades then you get kicked out.

shows faith in the coaches involved and trusts that they know what they are doing. If you go back and look at negged trades from years passed. there are lots that actually the "losing team" ended up winning.

Taylor Adams
Cal Sinclair

etc..

[RaisyDaisy]

how about all trades pass.

if you keep doing bad trades then you get kicked out.

shows faith in the coaches involved and trusts that they know what they are doing. If you go back and look at negged trades from years passed. there are lots that actually the "losing team" ended up winning.

Taylor Adams
Cal Sinclair

etc..

I've never understood why we vote in the first place. It's crazy that other teams have a say over how coaches want to run their side.

It's not as if AFL clubs weigh in on other clubs trades and influence them. 2 teams (or more) come to an agreement and that's it.

That being said though, friendships and alliances around here could come into play from time to time and we could see the odd trade where one team is losing to another to help them out etc

[RaisyDaisy]

Think my suggestion got consumed with the earier debate so re posting here for a bot of debate.

To me there are couple of things that will improve trading in Worlds and been thinking on this in the current Worlds context.
1) Still have the weekly coaches voting but have an end time of Wednesday midnight.
2) If 25% of coaches vote to neg a trade (5 against required) then a trades committee look at at and rule.
3) If more than 50% (10 votes) trade automatically rejected.

Purple to nominate a trade committee who look at the trades with 5 - 10 negative votes and by majority rule on them. Purple will be one of the committee.

If we agree on a Wednesday night trade deadline then coaches will know that and will make sure they come on in the 72hrs to rule on trades.  Note the majority of coaches had voted by Wednesday anyway and with 5 votes required to neg a trade there are probably only a few occasions when we would get down to the last 2 coaches to vote.

Also think this would make Purples job a little easier as there may be fewer trades to have rules committee rule on. Currently he assesses all trades with 3 or more votes against.

Might as well just keep it as is and let Purps do his Admin vote like he does now anyway, but just introduce the Wednesday deadline with a penalty of pick losses for multiple failures to vote

5-10 is too wide - you don't need to get a committee to review a trade that has 7-9 votes - they should be negged instantly too

Memph mentioned it a while back that 3-5 is too low for Admin to step in - should be 4-6 and Admin step in and 7+ auto neg

So basically, just keep everything the way it is and bring in the Wednesday timeline and change 3-5 to 4-6

[Ricochet]

A Wed deadline doesn't really speed it up much. It can still be a 9 day waiting period.

[Ringo]

Fair comments RD I was just working on % if 25% of coaches neg a trade then review that is where 5 comes in and if more than 50% neg auto fail so that is where 10 came in as 9 is a tied vote.

Do not think a trade should be auto negged if less than 50% oppose it but that is my view.

[RaisyDaisy]

A Wed deadline doesn't really speed it up much. It can still be a 9 day waiting period.

Isnt a Wed deadline what you have been asking for all this time?

Trades are gathered Sunday night and voting done by Wed, so results out Thur and teams still have to that next Sun to resub them. Yes it will take more than a week in that case, but that's only for negged trades

[Ricochet]

A Wed deadline doesn't really speed it up much. It can still be a 9 day waiting period.

Isnt a Wed deadline what you have been asking for all this time?

Trades are gathered Sunday night and voting done by Wed, so results out Thur and teams still have to that next Sun to resub them. Yes it will take more than a week in that case, but that's only for negged trades

lol no.

We've been over this already. I've suggested a vote/decision every 3-4 days (so twice a week).

If your just adding a Wed deadline it can still be a 7-9 day wait, which is too long imo. Especially in the last 2-3 weeks of the trade period and even more so when its a big player involved