2015/16 Trade Discussion Thread

[JBs-Hawks]

Ahhh hindsight, and how about all the picks in the teens that have missed.

[Rids]

Ahhh hindsight, and how about all the picks in the teens that have missed.

Why is that hindsight? No one is suggesting that people should have selected these guys. They are just some examples from BXV drafts gone by who were available at nat 14/15.

The below is the first round of last years draft. I rate the first round this year as being just as strong. Not sure many of the below would swap their selections even with hindsight.

Round 1
1. Staines Steins - Christian Petracca.
2. Grope Lane Giants - Angus Brayshaw 
3. Swansea Breakers - Isaac Heeney
4. Grope Lane Giants - .Jordan DeGoey
5  Blackpool Bunnies -  Patrick McCartin
6. Liverpool Rams -  Jayden Laverde
7. Blackpool Bunnies - Jake Lever
8. Grope Lane Giants - Corey Ellis
9. Crosby Cruisers - Hugh Goddard
10. Manchester Magic - Paul Ahern
11. Hastings Hurricanes - Nakia Cockatoo
12. Huddersfield Hawks - Jarrod Pickett
13. Leeds Leeches - Liam Duggan
14. Leeds Leeches - Lachlan Weller
15. Winchester Werewolves - Jack Steele
16. Hebden Bridge Hedgehogs - Connor Blakely

[Ringo]

and compare that list to the actual drat and you can see why there are gems available after Top 10.  Like Rids I rate this years Top 25 equal to or better than last years.

Here is the AFL Draft top 18 from last year:
1   Patrick McCartin   
2   Christian Petracca   
3   Angus Brayshaw   
4   Jarrod Pickett   
5   Jordan De Goey   
6   Caleb Marchbank   
7   Paul Ahern   
8   Peter Wright   
9   Darcy Moore   
10   Nakia Cockatoo   
11   Liam Duggan   
12   Corey Ellis   
13   Lachlan Weller   
14   Jake Lever   
15   Jarrod Garlett   
16   Sam Durdin   North
17   Kyle Langford   
18   Isaac Heeney

Just to show how xv's draft differently. Draft Pick 6 not in Top 18

[Ricochet]

If Eric Mckenzie is worth about a late first round then 2 for Rioli is ok. May be slightly overs but not that much of an issue imo

[Rids]

If Eric Mckenzie is worth about a late first round then 2 for Rioli is ok. May be slightly overs but not that much of an issue imo

That is not what is in question. The question is how the trades committee thought it wasn't enough for Rioli.

[Ricochet]

If Eric Mckenzie is worth about a late first round then 2 for Rioli is ok. May be slightly overs but not that much of an issue imo

That is not what is in question. The question is how the trades committee thought it wasn't enough for Rioli.

Oh my bad sorry mate, misread it

[iZander]

If Eric Mckenzie is worth about a late first round then 2 for Rioli is ok. May be slightly overs but not that much of an issue imo

That is not what is in question. The question is how the trades committee thought it wasn't enough for Rioli.

^

[Ricochet]

If Eric Mckenzie is worth about a late first round then 2 for Rioli is ok. May be slightly overs but not that much of an issue imo

That is not what is in question. The question is how the trades committee thought it wasn't enough for Rioli.

^

Yep got it...

[Rids]

At the end of the day the trade does not need to be even. But it needs to be in the ball park so it doesn't affect either team or the integrity of the league.

I personally think that nat 14 + nat 15 is overs for Rioli but that is only my opinion. The real decision then becomes whether the gap between the picks and Rioli are worth negging the trade. I would prob pass the trade if there was a later pick added on Ringo's side to level it up a little more and close that gap. But that is just my opinion.

The discussion definitely needs to be had as everyone can see over the last 24 hours, that people see things differently.

I only wanted to highlight that there is no such thing as a mediorce first round pick. And if 2 'mediorce' first round picks = Rioli then I am opposed to that thought process. By opening up the voting to the whole league means that there will be more opinions shared for each trade that requires the vote. This then opens up a can of worms as everyone has differing opinions of what constitutes a passable trade. Some will neg it due to smaller reasons than others.

I would much rather a group of 3 coaches who are obviously fully across the BXV scoring system which is significantly different to the norm.

[Nige]

The picks are overs for Cyril.

It's just that together they aren't that much better than Cyril combined and/or Cyril's not really good enough to warrant two first round picks.

Getting a half decent forward in this comp is tough, you normally have to pay a decent price and that's probably what's happened here.

Trade should just be passed.

[Ringo]

The picks are overs for Cyril.

It's just that together they aren't that much better than Cyril combined and/or Cyril's not really good enough to warrant two first round picks.

Getting a half decent forward in this comp is tough, you normally have to pay a decent price and that's probably what's happened here.

Trade should just be passed.

That is the opinion of most coaches Nige that trade was fair with overs having to be paid to get a forward. However we have the rule that trades committee rule on trades involving Swansea for transparency  and they have ruled that not enough is being paid for Rioli which from discussion is not the view of the coaches in the competition.

I highlighted this as one of the reasons we need to discuss trades going forward with an independent trade committee in place. There are other instances this year where coaches were of the opinion that trades committee made the wrong decision.

Hence I am really welcoming the discussion.

[Nige]

Fair enough.

With all due respect to the trades committee, it probably doesn't need to be a thing.

The idea of 3 independent coaches from this comp ruling on a trade that doesn't involve the teams of the admin(s) is probably best.

[kilbluff1985]

anybody want some ruck depth with Cameron Wood?

will take a slight pick upgrade to N37 FOR HIM

[GoLions]

I'll give you N58

[kilbluff1985]

I'll give you N58

wouldn't even use that so would be giving him for free