EXV: 2015 / 2016 Offseason Central

[Holz]

I just posted this in America's DT as another idea

Ok so I've seen some comments in a couple of other comps about using last years avg which is no good imo.

So what I was thinking we can either use a players career average against that team for example Heppell v West Coast his avg is say 85 which will include vests etc or use say last 3 avg or whatever number of years we decide on and use that score instead of doing a mini draft for compo picks.
Due to these players having a predetermined score they cannot be used as C,VC or EVC tho

this is a huge hand out to the teams. As Ele has said it was known and really shouldn't be getting any compensation at all. The top ups is lenient as it is.

even though i have an essendon player in my starting squad and it hurts me, i think a top up is more then enough compo

[Spite]

My personal opinion is bad luck and move on, its just for this season. I know it sucks but the time difference of missing them of a year is no worse than an unexpected ACL. I mean I held Libba all last year who is probably in the same region as heppell and just played a worse midfielder because that's what happens.

If I had my way I'd say no compensation at all. If that wasn't an option, I'd say rank them in positional averages and get top up players for the season from the essendon top up player pool and whoever is left after we do a rookie draft. It won't replace a heppell but you'd get an 80 average mid minimum which is decent enough cover for a year IMO

[Spinking]

I've got Heppell as a starting mid, so pretty keen to get some form of compo. Take onboard Ele's point but I inherited Hepp, didn't trade for him and he has been with the Stallions for the majority of the EXV - Before this was all known.

My thought would be to mirror the AFL by allowing top up players. I think Holz suggestion on how to do this would be fair.

[nrich102]

Well we may as well put the top up players to use.

[Spite]

I've got Heppell as a starting mid, so pretty keen to get some form of compo. Take onboard Ele's point but I inherited Hepp, didn't trade for him and he has been with the Stallions for the majority of the EXV - Before this was all known.

My thought would be to mirror the AFL by allowing top up players. I think Holz suggestion on how to do this would be fair.

Did you mean my suggestion or what was Holz's?

[Holz]

I've got Heppell as a starting mid, so pretty keen to get some form of compo. Take onboard Ele's point but I inherited Hepp, didn't trade for him and he has been with the Stallions for the majority of the EXV - Before this was all known.

My thought would be to mirror the AFL by allowing top up players. I think Holz suggestion on how to do this would be fair.

Did you mean my suggestion or what was Holz's?

Im pretty usre he means mine.

my suggest was to do the order by value of player lost, which would be the value in their position. eg the 7th best ruck would be worth more then the 10th best forward which would be more then the 14th best mid

[Spite]

I've got Heppell as a starting mid, so pretty keen to get some form of compo. Take onboard Ele's point but I inherited Hepp, didn't trade for him and he has been with the Stallions for the majority of the EXV - Before this was all known.

My thought would be to mirror the AFL by allowing top up players. I think Holz suggestion on how to do this would be fair.

Did you mean my suggestion or what was Holz's?

Im pretty usre he means mine.

my suggest was to do the order by value of player lost, which would be the value in their position. eg the 7th best ruck would be worth more then the 10th best forward which would be more then the 14th best mid

Yeah that's fine, I basically said the same thing by chance a few posts up :P

Would you have to draft a mid if you lost a mid, a forward if you lost a forward etc for example?

Think this would be more fair?

[LF]

I have a question,Jamar is still technically on my team list since delistings aren't final here yet does that mean I can keep him if he is a top up player.

[Atto]

I've got Heppell as a starting mid, so pretty keen to get some form of compo. Take onboard Ele's point but I inherited Hepp, didn't trade for him and he has been with the Stallions for the majority of the EXV - Before this was all known.

My thought would be to mirror the AFL by allowing top up players. I think Holz suggestion on how to do this would be fair.

Did you mean my suggestion or what was Holz's?

Im pretty usre he means mine.

my suggest was to do the order by value of player lost, which would be the value in their position. eg the 7th best ruck would be worth more then the 10th best forward which would be more then the 14th best mid

Yeah that's fine, I basically said the same thing by chance a few posts up :P

Would you have to draft a mid if you lost a mid, a forward if you lost a forward etc for example?

Think this would be more fair?

I disagree. Every team is different so say a team lost a midfielder, but depth in midfield is still good, then having the option to draft another position should still be available.

[Ziplock]

Nup. I think top up players are fine- as le said, this has been an issue hanging around for years, and some teams would have taken advantage of that when trading. If we were going to do a system like that then we should have made it very clear from the start of this saga.

IMO, top up players. But, I'm also for giving those teams (maybe only those with premiums out? )priority access those drafted players in next rookie draft (similar to the old FS rules). Partially out of curiosity for how priorities would work in euros :p

[LF]

um no thanks we are trying to rebuild a list and have planned out our rookie picks already and traded for a couple more higher ones to try be more competitive so I do not agree with that at all

[Atto]

Continuing from LF's point, how about having the option to undelist a current AFL player. For example, I delisted Angus Litherland, David Myers won't be available this year so I just have Litherland instead and opt not to take part in the draft.

[Spite]

I've got Heppell as a starting mid, so pretty keen to get some form of compo. Take onboard Ele's point but I inherited Hepp, didn't trade for him and he has been with the Stallions for the majority of the EXV - Before this was all known.

My thought would be to mirror the AFL by allowing top up players. I think Holz suggestion on how to do this would be fair.

Did you mean my suggestion or what was Holz's?

Im pretty usre he means mine.

my suggest was to do the order by value of player lost, which would be the value in their position. eg the 7th best ruck would be worth more then the 10th best forward which would be more then the 14th best mid

Yeah that's fine, I basically said the same thing by chance a few posts up :P

Would you have to draft a mid if you lost a mid, a forward if you lost a forward etc for example?

Think this would be more fair?

I disagree. Every team is different so say a team lost a midfielder, but depth in midfield is still good, then having the option to draft another position should still be available.

I'm not fussed because I didn't lose anyone, but in your scenario, what if whoever had heppell chose the best defender available and then whoever had hurley couldn't pick a defender up because there weren't any good ones left? And what if they couldn't cover the defensive loss?

What if a 50 ppg averaging mid got banned and was ranked last but on their pick they pick up a 50 ppg forward? Now they've suddenly got an advantage?

[GoLions]

I've got Heppell as a starting mid, so pretty keen to get some form of compo. Take onboard Ele's point but I inherited Hepp, didn't trade for him and he has been with the Stallions for the majority of the EXV - Before this was all known.

My thought would be to mirror the AFL by allowing top up players. I think Holz suggestion on how to do this would be fair.

Did you mean my suggestion or what was Holz's?

Im pretty usre he means mine.

my suggest was to do the order by value of player lost, which would be the value in their position. eg the 7th best ruck would be worth more then the 10th best forward which would be more then the 14th best mid

Yeah that's fine, I basically said the same thing by chance a few posts up :P

Would you have to draft a mid if you lost a mid, a forward if you lost a forward etc for example?

Think this would be more fair?

I disagree. Every team is different so say a team lost a midfielder, but depth in midfield is still good, then having the option to draft another position should still be available.

I'm not fussed because I didn't lose anyone, but in your scenario, what if whoever had heppell chose the best defender available and then whoever had hurley couldn't pick a defender up because there weren't any good ones left? And what if they couldn't cover the defensive loss?

What if a 50 ppg averaging mid got banned and was ranked last but on their pick they pick up a 50 ppg forward? Now they've suddenly got an advantage?

If you lose a mid but aren't going to take a mid due to having good mid depth, then you obviously don't need a top up player imo

[Spite]

I've got Heppell as a starting mid, so pretty keen to get some form of compo. Take onboard Ele's point but I inherited Hepp, didn't trade for him and he has been with the Stallions for the majority of the EXV - Before this was all known.

My thought would be to mirror the AFL by allowing top up players. I think Holz suggestion on how to do this would be fair.

Did you mean my suggestion or what was Holz's?

Im pretty usre he means mine.

my suggest was to do the order by value of player lost, which would be the value in their position. eg the 7th best ruck would be worth more then the 10th best forward which would be more then the 14th best mid

Yeah that's fine, I basically said the same thing by chance a few posts up :P

Would you have to draft a mid if you lost a mid, a forward if you lost a forward etc for example?

Think this would be more fair?

I disagree. Every team is different so say a team lost a midfielder, but depth in midfield is still good, then having the option to draft another position should still be available.

I'm not fussed because I didn't lose anyone, but in your scenario, what if whoever had heppell chose the best defender available and then whoever had hurley couldn't pick a defender up because there weren't any good ones left? And what if they couldn't cover the defensive loss?

What if a 50 ppg averaging mid got banned and was ranked last but on their pick they pick up a 50 ppg forward? Now they've suddenly got an advantage?

If you lose a mid but aren't going to take a mid due to having good mid depth, then you obviously don't need a top up player imo

Yeah I agree, so you'd have to take a player from that same position as the one you lost