2016 WXV Awards and 2016 Rules Discussion

[Holz]

trading reflects the best value of a players worth . So shouldn't the cap try to reflect a players true value?

my whole point is who honestly has the better list?

Mexico or Pacific.

Mexico City are in the Prelims, Pacific didn't make the finals. Who has the better list right now? Mexico City.
[/quote]

but what the cap is doing is doing is treat the symptoms not the disease.

In my opinion there is absolutely no bottom in the competition. Dublin this aparent unstopable juggernaut has lost to Pacific, New York and PNL.

NDT have come from a joke of a team to a decent chance of making the prelims in just 2 years.

Rio despite being the 3rd highest cap will likely not win a finals game.

I dont see the problem.

But what the cap does is punish teams for succeeding, if there is a problem (and there isnt) then it is better solved by stopping lists get too strong. Hence cure the disease not treat the symptoms.

Mexico apprently is the strongest team while having not a great list, force them to cut their depth and what you will have is when Mexico falls they will fall further and be on the other side of the ledger struggling to compete. Just because they have been good for a long time is no reason they should then be bottom 4 for the next 4 years to balance it out.

[ossie85]

I prefer the cap as is

You prefer Jeff Garlett to cost half as much as Dangerfield instead of him costing about 300K vs Danger's 800K? HOW? WHY?

Jeff Garlett = $219k versus Dangerfield = $784k

And just remember... these prices will change once I have the last 7 rounds.



Holz, you're arguing against the Cap again. Feel free to list that as a rule change....

[meow meow]

Holz, should Hawthorn have to pay Sam Mitchell way less than Bontempelli next year because he's way older, even though he'll help the Hawks just as much as Bont will help the Dogs? If so, the AFL salary cap is flawed too.

[Holz]

Trade would fail. Bont has 12 premo seasons left vs 1 + 1 + 3 + 2 = 7 premo seasons. Nothing to do with the points cap.

agreed this was exactly the point. the cap is fundamentally flawed if a deal that wouldnt even go close to passing has the losing team with a cap points over 4 times the winning team.

Bullshower.

The cap is for one season. Those 4 players will score 4 times more than Bont for that one season. They cost 4 times more for that one season.

SIMPLE

so what though, this isnt a 1 year comp.

the cap is for one season so it toally disregards the value of lists from 1 year onwards. this isnt the comp we are playing, this isnt the AFL, this is no sport that lasts longer then 1 year.

[RaisyDaisy]

I prefer the cap as is

You prefer Jeff Garlett to cost half as much as Dangerfield instead of him costing about 300K vs Danger's 800K? HOW? WHY?

Every player is currently valued on how much points they scored for the year, so if Garlett scores half the points Danger scores than so be it. We as coaches know the value of players and we value players differently, and that's all part of the trading system, but in terms of the valuation of each team, why is changing from points scored to a dollar value so much better?

Why not just add in a formula to add points for missed games within the current point cap system?

I prefer the cap as is

If anything, just come up with a simple way so that injured players like Fyfe and Beams this year, Libba last year etc have points allocated them

If they miss the year, then just get their previous years average and multiply by 17 rounds

We are playing for the now and the future - I couldn't care less what their past 3 years did their value, just use their past year

It seems like you do though RD? 3 years is a fairly short time, and you want Fyfe and Beams to be priced on past history, but not others? This system has Fyfe #5, and Beams #19, in most expensive players in the comp. They wouldn't be in the top 200 in the current system.

Tom Lonergan would be given a far greater value than he deserves, because the current system assumes that 2 Tom Lonergans = 1 Scott Pendlebury. Which isn't true.

I'm not saying your system doesn't work, because it does.

I just don't see the point in changing everything

[Levi434]

How about each player has a base value.

Let's use Gary Ablett as the example:
According to Oss' stats he lists GAJ at 700k so:
Baseline: 700K
Middle: 1mil
Max: Double the Baseline (1.4mil)

Then the coach can choose to pay them however much they want. Then if a coach only pays them a base amount, that player isn't allowed to be in the leadership group and will only sign a 2 year deal max.

If you sign them to a middle deal, they can sign for 4 years max.

Max deal = max everything. If you want to pay them then do it! So a player can sign for up to 10 years.

[Holz]

Holz, should Hawthorn have to pay Sam Mitchell way less than Bontempelli next year because he's way older, even though he'll help the Hawks just as much as Bont will help the Dogs? If so, the AFL salary cap is flawed too.

The AFL is a business, you need to be competitive and you cant trade away all your youth. This is what creates inequality, you look at all the bottom teams in the AFL and they still have older guys on their list. You dont have the option of just dropping all your guys over 27 like you do in this comp.

The thing that caused inequality was not the top teams it was the bottom teams going too young and giving away all the good players way too cheap. This has taken time to flush itself out of the system but is working. The cap has not fixed this the draft and time has.

[meow meow]

Why not just add in a formula to add points for missed games within the current point cap system?

I designed that myself last year, and even I am saying that Oz's method is better.

The point in changing is that 40 spud + 40 spud + 40 spud = the same amount of points as Pendles under the current system. Those players are useless and shouldn't cost that much.

[meow meow]

Holz, should Hawthorn have to pay Sam Mitchell way less than Bontempelli next year because he's way older, even though he'll help the Hawks just as much as Bont will help the Dogs? If so, the AFL salary cap is flawed too.

The AFL is a business, you need to be competitive and you cant trade away all your youth. This is what creates inequality, you look at all the bottom teams in the AFL and they still have older guys on their list. You dont have the option of just dropping all your guys over 27 like you do in this comp.

The thing that caused inequality was not the top teams it was the bottom teams going too young and giving away all the good players way too cheap. This has taken time to flush itself out of the system but is working. The cap has not fixed this the draft and time has.

2 years ago Collingwood had just one player older than 27 on their list.

Those teams chose to be young and on the bottom of the ladder - so be it. The comp doesn't have to be equal, but it should be as fair as it can be. The new cap will just be fairer.

[Holz]

Holz, should Hawthorn have to pay Sam Mitchell way less than Bontempelli next year because he's way older, even though he'll help the Hawks just as much as Bont will help the Dogs? If so, the AFL salary cap is flawed too.

The AFL is a business, you need to be competitive and you cant trade away all your youth. This is what creates inequality, you look at all the bottom teams in the AFL and they still have older guys on their list. You dont have the option of just dropping all your guys over 27 like you do in this comp.

The thing that caused inequality was not the top teams it was the bottom teams going too young and giving away all the good players way too cheap. This has taken time to flush itself out of the system but is working. The cap has not fixed this the draft and time has.

2 years ago Collingwood had just one player older than 27 on their list.

Those teams chose to be young and on the bottom of the ladder - so be it. The comp doesn't have to be equal, but it should be as fair as it can be. The new cap will just be fairer.

how is it fair to mexico?

you have been good for a long time so now go to the bottom.

equality is about everyone being equal not those who have been top now go to the bottom so everything averages out.

i can expand this idea as to what often wrong in bigger issue with exactly the same sort of thinking.

we shouldnt be worried that a team has been top 4 for 5 years. What we should worry about is a team being invincible or being a walkover.

Mexico isnt a invincable team they lost 5 games this year and put up a horrible score and shouldnt be in the prelims. This isnt a team that needs to be brought back to the pack. This is desregarding the fact its old and will happen anyway.

[meow meow]

WTF are you saying? Nobody forced Mexico to collect the old guys, just as nobody forced Cape Town to rebuild. They're list management decisons that those clubs made, and they're still going to have to deal with them regardless of what system is in place.

[Holz]

WTF are you saying? Nobody forced Mexico to collect the old guys, just as nobody forced Cape Town to rebuild. They're list management decisons that those clubs made, and they're still going to have to deal with them regardless of what system is in place.

ok so Mexico goes over the cap.

what players do they drop, what trades do they make to fix it? and how does this benefit the comp?

they answers are far more important then the structure of the cap. We should talk about these.

[meow meow]

How about you STFU and let Mexico City decide that?

[Purple 77]

Holz, you're arguing against the Cap again. Feel free to list that as a rule change....

There WILL be a cap as long as I'm admin (either points or salary), so FFS, I better not hear any discussion about getting rid of it. I'll delete these posts. I don't care if you see merit behind it, you're wrong, and I'm right :P

No he may not :P



And what's all this about thinking a players' cap value has anything to do with their trade value? They're two entirely separate things.

I mean, who really thinks that way?

I look at say, a 28 year old midfielder averaging a nice 100, and in my end, I have a picture of what that might look in terms of my players e.g. age, potential, draft picks...

I don't even give the cap a second thought... does anyone else? Or am I the odd one out here?

In the AFL, do AFL teams look at players salaries to determine whether they're equal? Of course not! They look at what the players can offer their team!

So why are we talking about how three spuds equal Pendlebury just because their salaries equal that? You think Freo could go to Collingwood and offer Dawson, Suban and Hannath for Pendlebury?

Or how Bontempelli is equal to Dal Santo because their salaries are equal?

This goes for the points cap as well, and it really does my head in when people bring the cap up to justify worth of a player... they're just two entirely different things!

/endrant.



And on the salary multiplication factors, I'd personally prefer the scores to come from the H&A season games (so 17 per year), and not 22, as because that's beyond scope of our competition. But I'm a fan of the salary cap personally.

[meow meow]

Nobody thinks that way, it's just Holz talking crap as usual.