WXV Official Trade Confabulation

[RaisyDaisy]

Stop beating a dead horse Holz  ;) trade voting is here to stay

Which reminds me, I've been thinking long and hard on ways to make the whole process a bit more bearable.

Some of the ideas that I think I will implement:

1) I'm going to be a lot more strict on reasons why people are negging a trade. If I think it's because of a personal reason, or the neg is out of being petty, or not enough detail is in the neg, then I simply won't count it

2) I'll be PMing the coaches involved in the negged trade; quoting the reason why people negged the trade, but will omit the author of the trade rejecter(s)

3) I'll be implementing a strict "no whinging" policy. Whenever anyone is whinging about a trade decision, I'll simply say "stop whinging, move on", or maybe even delete their post, even if it looks like I'm being a dick, and even if it is a legitimate complaint... I'm tired of it. I'll no longer be defending my decisions outside of the post that made it, at least in the public eye, i.e. I won't be making ANY posts discussing the merits of a trade. You have no idea how much the last trade period took out of me.

4) I'm thinking about jumping the gun in ruling the decisions of some trades to speed the process up. For example, if we're waiting on 3 more coaches, and I'm happy with a trade that has 1 or 2 votes attached to it, then I'll pass it. The coaches that missed out still have to send me their votes though.

5) If a trade goes ahead where it involved one coach not resolving a loose end in trade talks with another coach i.e. trade someone who another coach PMed about, and you traded them anyway, then I think that might just be an auto-neg, until you resolve the loose end

6).... to be decided  ;)

This I don't like.

If someone negs a trade they should be known.

We shouldn't treat this like an Election, we should treat it like a Parliament.

You don't need to know, because that will influence your opinion of that coach and your future dealings with them

There is no benefit whatsoever of knowing who it was - just their reasoning is what's required

[Purple 77]

Haha cheers RD! Yeah I identified last off-season that making decisions was something I needed to work on, and that trade period made be jaded enough to not care anymore about pleasing everyone :P

You don't need to know, because that will influence your opinion of that coach and your future dealings with them

There is no benefit whatsoever of knowing who it was - just their reasoning is what's required

Yeah this is why, and it'll also get personal eventually.

[Torpedo10]

Stop beating a dead horse Holz  ;) trade voting is here to stay

Which reminds me, I've been thinking long and hard on ways to make the whole process a bit more bearable.

Some of the ideas that I think I will implement:

1) I'm going to be a lot more strict on reasons why people are negging a trade. If I think it's because of a personal reason, or the neg is out of being petty, or not enough detail is in the neg, then I simply won't count it

2) I'll be PMing the coaches involved in the negged trade; quoting the reason why people negged the trade, but will omit the author of the trade rejecter(s)

3) I'll be implementing a strict "no whinging" policy. Whenever anyone is whinging about a trade decision, I'll simply say "stop whinging, move on", or maybe even delete their post, even if it looks like I'm being a dick, and even if it is a legitimate complaint... I'm tired of it. I'll no longer be defending my decisions outside of the post that made it, at least in the public eye, i.e. I won't be making ANY posts discussing the merits of a trade. You have no idea how much the last trade period took out of me.

4) I'm thinking about jumping the gun in ruling the decisions of some trades to speed the process up. For example, if we're waiting on 3 more coaches, and I'm happy with a trade that has 1 or 2 votes attached to it, then I'll pass it. The coaches that missed out still have to send me their votes though.

5) If a trade goes ahead where it involved one coach not resolving a loose end in trade talks with another coach i.e. trade someone who another coach PMed about, and you traded them anyway, then I think that might just be an auto-neg, until you resolve the loose end

6).... to be decided  ;)

This I don't like.

If someone negs a trade they should be known.

We shouldn't treat this like an Election, we should treat it like a Parliament.

You don't need to know, because that will influence your opinion of that coach and your future dealings with them

There is no benefit whatsoever of knowing who it was - just their reasoning is what's required

People's decisions do influence your opinion of the coach. Choosing to Neg a trade is a decision. As long as there's no hostility to select few coaches, then there shouldn't be issues.

That said, Purps' other rules are top notch and should cover any trade negging over other reasons. 

[meow meow]

I'll take over trade rulings if its too much for you Purps. I'd be like "flower you peasant, I am the authorityand I say McKernan isn't worth 12 and if you whine anymore I'll cut your balls off and feed them to Ramsay's dogs.

[meow meow]

...after I give myself a compensation pick for the  Watson and Zorko/Griffen injustices :P

[Ricochet]

hahahaha meow


and great stuff Purps, happy with all those changes

[Holz]

there were lots of deals that passed that turned out to be ripping people off.

then lots of deals that were rejected that look very fair now.

Not being sarcastic, seriously asking - got some examples?

I picked 2014 as we have 1.5 years to evaluate

Trades Rejected:

1. New York Give: Harley Bennell + Aaron Black + Will Hoskin-Elliott + Craig Moller
Dublin Give: Michael Walters + Josh Green + Pick 21 + Pick 39 + Pick 57

Dublin won too much. Walters is looking pretty solid and Pick 21 i would have used on Miller.

2. Moscow trade: Callum Sinclair and 4th Round Pick
London trade: Joe Daniher

Moscow was winning too much. I reckon London came out on top

3. Moscow trade: Heath Shaw
New York trade: Luke McDonald and David Armitage

Moscow again winning too much. They ended up having to give more and in the end got ripped off.

4 Dublin Give: Pick 12 + Pick 21 + Luke Delaney + Shuan Grigg + Sam Frost + Neville Jetta + George Hewett
Dillos Give: Dane Swan + Paul Chapman

Dublin winning too much and bad for the comp. Grigg has turned into a good player, Jetta is starting for me this week and the picks were handy. Pick 12 was lachie weller and as i said 21 would have got me Touk Miller.

5. Dublin Trades: Tom Rockliff + Robert Murphy + N57
Dublin Receives: Steele Sidebottom + Shannon Hurn + Daniel Wells + Josh Saunders + N84

Mexico Trades: Steele Sidebottom + Shannon Hurn
Mexico Receives: Tom Rockliff

Berlin Trades: Daniel Wells + Josh Saunders + N84
Berlin Receives: Robert Murphy + N57

actually much fairer then the trade i ended up getting for rocky. Gunston + Boak over those guys every day of the week. gunston is worth more then Rocky.

6.NDT give: N5
Christchurch give: TAdams

pick 5 aparently not worth Adams.


7.New York give: Tom Liberatore and Harley Bennell
Dublin give: Travis Boak and Jack Gunston

Dublin apparently winning by too much. Thank you competition for saving me of this one.


ok so these are some of the trades that passed:

1. Pacific give: Brad Sheppard
London give: Rory Laird

2. Trade 14
New York give: Mark Blicavs and Darcy Lang
Cape Town give: Nathan Vardy and Jamie Bennell

3. Dublin trade: Charlie Dixon + Jack Watts
Berlin trade: Dayne Zorko + Pick 12

4.Dublin trade: Robbie Gray
Moscow trade: Dustin Martin

5.Dublin give: Brodie Martin + Matthew Taberner
Pacific give: Matthew Scharenberg.

6. Berlin trade: Josh J Kennedy, Paul Duffield + Pick 30
New York trade: Adam Treloar + Pick 24

7. Cairo give: Sam Mitchell and Pick 33
Christchurch give: Nick Smith and Travis Colyer

8. Mexico City give: Zak Jones
Berlin give: Leigh Montagna

[Jay]

Laird averaged 59 that year.. Sure the trade doesn't look good now but at the time it was fine. And that's always going to happen, we can't predict exactly how a trade will turn out. All we can do is look at the facts of each trade at the time. A few will always slip through but overall I think the trade system is very fair and Purp's new rules should make it even better.

[Purple 77]

Lol meow :P



Hindsight is a wonderful thing though, isn't it?

No matter what trade process is involved, ranging from none, democracy, semi-democracy (where we are), or dictatorship, there is going to be some god damn awful trades passed and rejected.

So you listed 15 trades there out of the 200+ that was done during those two years? Not a bad strike rate if you ask me.

[Ricochet]

Laird averaged 59 that year.. Sure the trade doesn't look good now but at the time it was fine. And that's always going to happen, we can't predict exactly how a trade will turn out. All we can do is look at the facts of each trade at the time. A few will always slip through but overall I think the trade system is very fair and Purp's new rules should make it even better.

Exactly Jay.

Most trades that are experience for youth will come back looking shocking when you look at them again a couple of years later.

[RaisyDaisy]

Besides the last 2 trades (that passed) I think all of those other ones you listed are about right

Like Jay said, we can only assess at the time of the trade. Yes in hindsight some of them didn't work out but at the time I don't see any glaring issues

Now that Purps has grown a pair (:P) I think this upcoming trade period will be good

[My Chumps]

Laird averaged 59 that year.. Sure the trade doesn't look good now but at the time it was fine. And that's always going to happen, we can't predict exactly how a trade will turn out. All we can do is look at the facts of each trade at the time. A few will always slip through but overall I think the trade system is very fair and Purp's new rules should make it even better.

Well said!

It's ridiculous to bring up all those "trades that passed" that now look uneven; that's how people attack the entire trade period, to pick up guys who they think are going to be good but are flying under the radar. You get bargains that people don't expect at the time, all part of the fun!

2. Moscow trade: Callum Sinclair and 4th Round Pick
London trade: Joe Daniher

Moscow was winning too much. I reckon London came out on top

Just an aside, how on earth can you say London were coming out on top? Cal Sinclair is a 26y/o who averages 63. He's awful. Daniher at least has potential. He averages more as a 22y/o key forward. flower outta here

[meow meow]

Number 6 is my compo pick isn't it? Thanks Purps, I always knew you were a fair dictator.

[Levi434]

This is going to be one damn interesting trade period! 8)

[Jukes]

I just think that trades should be negged only if they're extraordinarily lopsided and are being affected by other factors (not necessarily collusion but other stuff like personal bias or just plain lack of thought), not nitpicking every single little aspect of a trade and if they're not 100% even in every area they're not fair - this doesn't really reward good trading at all unless a coach knows something that the other coach (and other coaches) does not, moreso good luck (like the Sheppard-Laird trade - not necessarily because of great coaching or trading, just good luck)