2015 WXV Awards and 2015 Rules Discussion

[meow meow]

for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??

I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.

e.g.

Player A     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)

Player B     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                0 games in 2014


completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.

               

Under my proposal they'd both be worth 1530. Player A is basically the same output as Gibbs. Player B is basically Libba. Making them worth the same amount in the cap isn't unreasonable.

[Purple 77]

Yeah every player.

It has both good and bad attributes, up to you to decide which is greater  :)

[Holz]

for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??

I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.

e.g.

Player A     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)

Player B     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                0 games in 2014


completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.

               

Under my proposal they'd both be worth 1530. Player A is basically the same output as Gibbs. Player B is basically Libba. Making them worth the same amount in the cap isn't unreasonable.

I agree with you there is no way that Player B should cost more. i like the cap how it is (If we need a cap)

I'm slightly insulted that Libba and Gibbs were mentioned in the same sentence though.

[meow meow]

for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??

I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.

e.g.

Player A     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)

Player B     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                0 games in 2014


completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.

               

Under my proposal they'd both be worth 1530. Player A is basically the same output as Gibbs. Player B is basically Libba. Making them worth the same amount in the cap isn't unreasonable.

I agree with you there is no way that Player B should cost more. i like the cap how it is (If we need a cap)

I'm slightly insulted that Libba and Gibbs were mentioned in the same sentence though.

You like it because Dublin can go out and get Libba and it'll cost you zero points. How is that right? That's like Hawthorn trading in Libba on a $0 contract.

[Holz]

for the higher points across 2 seasons though
is that for every single player or for players who missed a certain amount (i.e like how SC discount for 10 or less)??

I was confused by this but it has to be everyone surely. If you miss 5 games and are cheap this year its completely unfair for you to be worth less points then a guy who missed the whole year.

e.g.

Player A     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                85 points per game from 10 games in 2014 (average dropped as a red vest killed their average)

Player B     100 points per game from 17 games in 2014
                0 games in 2014


completely unfair if player A is 850 points and player B is 1700.

               

Under my proposal they'd both be worth 1530. Player A is basically the same output as Gibbs. Player B is basically Libba. Making them worth the same amount in the cap isn't unreasonable.

I agree with you there is no way that Player B should cost more. i like the cap how it is (If we need a cap)

I'm slightly insulted that Libba and Gibbs were mentioned in the same sentence though.

You like it because Dublin can go out and get Libba and it'll cost you zero points. How is that right? That's like Hawthorn trading in Libba on a $0 contract.

first up I want to on trade libba if the deal comes. Secondly in your anology its like hawthorn trading in libba for $0 one year contract then paying him $1million a year afterwards.

the reason i dont like the cap is it hurts decling older players far more then young improving players (who already have more value)

How is the below fair (note Im using the players average for the year divided by the number of world games as I dont have purps numbers)

Steve Johnson  2014: 1839.40 2015: 1438.20

even with the 10% discount its 1656.

Ollie Wines will be priced at the same cap as him which is completely unfair.


we can put holes in the cap from all angles.

1. Why is Hodge more expensive then Dustin Martin - we all know who has more value.
2. Why is Liam Shiels a mid worth more than Jack Gunston and Alex Rance

If you look at those factors and see who is most likely to get the injury discount its Old Players, Injury Prone Players or guys coming off major injuries.

Why shouldnt they get a discount for one year, if they return to form you pay for it next year. If they dont then your team suffers. If Shiels is worth more than Gunston every year, than surely libba being cheap for one year is less of a factor.

[meow meow]

Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.

Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.

[Holz]

Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.

Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.

yes but I can find a shiels type player easy on the market. Guys like Gunston you just cant get.

The game is about scoring the most over 15 players.

So the top mids are cheap with the cap as the captain bonus needs to be taken into account.

a 130 mid is only 255 points more then a 150 mid despite getting 510 more points a year.

In the same way Gunston generates 255 more points than your standard 80 forward. While Shiels generates 102 more points then your standard 90 mid, despite costing more points in the cap.

your example was its unfair for the hawks to sign Libba for $0 for a year than $1m there onwards.

using that example is it fair for Shiels to be on a bigger contract then jack Gunston.

Or Stevie J to be on the same contract as Ollie Wines.

[Holz]

on that note Scott Thompson is on the market.

probably looking at someone like Nic Natinui for him.

my guy is worth more cap so surely better.

[Toga]

Ollie Wines will be priced at the same cap as him which is completely unfair.

Because Ollie Wines is a gun.

2. Why is Liam Shiels a mid worth more than Jack Gunston and Alex Rance

And because Liam Shiels is a gun.

[DazBurg]

Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.

Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.

but as holz pointed out
hodge is worth more then most defenders
priddis is worth more then most mids

but most will be unwilling to pay for there true vaule as they are older

[meow meow]

WTF are you talking about Holz? Dusty vs Hodge is pretty similar under the points cap on a one year basis. I think you're confusing trading value with yearly points cap value.

[Nige]

Purps forgot a rule change.

Every team trades Holz their best 3 young players

or

Every team trades Holz their best 5 young players.

#theworldsrevolvesarounddublin

:P

[meow meow]

Maybe that would stop the top teams collecting all the old guys. They have to factor in the decline then decide if it is still worth it.

Umm, Shiels scores more than Gunston so that's why he costs more. Pretty simple stuff. Gunston may be ranked higher in his position but Shiels adds 10 WXV points while Gunston adds 9. That's what the game is about after all.

but as holz pointed out
hodge is worth more then most defenders
priddis is worth more then most mids

but most will be unwilling to pay for there true vaule as they are older

Isn't that already the case? Doesn't have a whole lot to do with the points cap change. Plus you know, you could keep them and not do a Buenos Aires. It might mean you have to let go of one of your depth players who plays every week in the AFL but never for PNL. That's the whole point of the cap.

[Boomz]

Popcorn is on me

[Nige]

Popcorn is on me

Don't mind if I do.