WXV Official Trade Confabulation

[Holz]

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)

heres a first I 100% agree with what a moscow coach has said.

[Purple 77]

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

You know nothing Jon Snow meow meow

[Purple 77]

I'll point out btw, is that Worlds, as a competition, hasn't been this even since 2012; when no trade restrictions were in place at the end of that year which severely lopsided the comp. Maybe that's got to do with good coaches taking over "those" ones, maybe that's got to do with the cap (it totally does), but MAYBE that's got to do with the trade voting as well.

[Holz]

I'll point out btw, is that Worlds, as a competition, hasn't been this even since 2012; when no trade restrictions were in place at the end of that year which severely lopsided the comp. Maybe that's got to do with good coaches taking over "those" ones, maybe that's got to do with the cap (it totally does), but MAYBE that's got to do with the trade voting as well.

maybe its got to do with coaches learning as their a history to go back on and also the fact that initially people went really old to win the flags or really young to try and dominate. The really old teams have pulled back on this approach as its no sustainable and they pull back as players get old. The young teams have had years of high draft picks and also their players arent as young any more and people have learnt having a whole team under 23 is silly.

The high draft picks is what causes equalisation, that and the quality coaching.

Sadly we dont have a parallel universe with no cap and no trade voting but i reckon it would be as even if not more even.

[RaisyDaisy]

Hmmm, I'm fine with the current system but I like the point Juker implied about the voting system essentially disabling a better coach who has insight etc that perhaps others don't etc

Not the best example by a long shot, but I wanted Grigg badly because I had him in i5's previously and watched him closely, believing he could go 90+ and although we got him cheap as he wasn't rated, if he was actually on others radars it could have changed things, essentially penalising me for my knowledge over the other coach

Like I said not a great example at all, but hopefully you get the point

I guess the negative is that having 20 coaches oversee every trade does take away the edge some coaches may have over others. Good for equality, but frustrating as a coach

[Purple 77]

... oh, the curiosities too much.

I'm now dropping his chance at staying to 99%. Please keep that in mind! But I just want to see what I COULD get for him.

For two young-to-mid-aged (no one 27 or over) premos (not potential, not has been), Nat Fyfe COULD be available. Note, one would have to likely be a midfielder, preferably both.

[meow meow]

Is the best player in the world the best player in the world if they never play?

Gibbs > Fyfe

[RaisyDaisy]

Duncan and Hill

You won't get a better offer, but we wouldn't give that anyway :P

Or would we? :X

[iZander]

Duncan and Hill

You won't get a better offer, but we wouldn't give that anyway :P

Or would we? :X

Im pretty sure you would :P

[Holz]

Duncan and Hill

You won't get a better offer, but we wouldn't give that anyway :P

Or would we? :X

Im pretty sure you would :P

You would then the first ever 16 vote rejects

[iZander]

Duncan and Hill

You won't get a better offer, but we wouldn't give that anyway :P

Or would we? :X

Im pretty sure you would :P

You would then the first ever 16 vote rejects

well you wouldnt reject your own trade surly?

[RaisyDaisy]

Haha, no chance we'd give that!

But I was more or less suggesting that is what it would take for Purps to even consider!

Basically, Purps won't trade him

[iZander]

Haha, no chance we'd give that!

But I was more or less suggesting that is what it would take for Purps to even consider!

Basically, Purps won't trade him

Duncan - 95, Hill - 90 now lets say your captain averages 100 (didnt look that close at your team but i think its lewis?). Now lets say fyfe goes 120 (which is lower than last few years).

SO, lets compare, Lewis (100x2) + Duncan (95) + Hill (90) vs Fyfe (120x2) + Lewis (100) + 45

So if you can replace him with a 45 mid you are even, which would so so freaking easy to replace with a player much better than 45 average in the midfield. Basically could get 80+ for chips.

I honestly cant see how you could say you wouldnt do it...

This is worst case scenario too as i rounded up for your averages and rounded down for Fyfes :P

(i hope the maths is right, im really tired right now, but the point remains the same)

[meow meow]

^ Good to see someone else who gets it.

Trading Boak and Gunston for Rocky and Green made sense when I factored in captaincy, then I reaslised that Rocky had no chance of going 120+ again so I bailed.



Purps should have to add something little (2nd round pick) to Fyfe in the above scenario.

[My Chumps]

Haha I would be giving up Duncan and Hill in a heartbeat :-X