WXV Rules Discussion 2017

[meow meow]

Sam Mitchel
Sean Dempster

That's Shaw money right there.

Plus you know, they could keep him and get some super cheap draft picks in and sit comfortably under the cap.

So his trade options are reduced to you?

Sounds good for you bad for mexico

Haven't you seen how shower I am at trading? They got Sicily who is soon to be worth as much as Gibbs alone AND Rocky out of me for Bryce and some tall injured guy.

Zorko for some old injured guy named Griff.

Shuey for some old injured guy named Macca.

Pick 2 for some useless Jobe guy.

When I bring in the age it generally doesn't end up being good for me m8

[GoLions]

just look at the team i was able to make for under $10 million. Tell me how the cap has any relevance when you can do this

M.Hibberd, E.Yeo, R.Burton, L.Mcdonald (N.Newman, M.Scharenberg, A.Francis, J Berry)
J Kelly, C Oliver, C Blakely, M Crouch (D Sheed, JOM, L Partington, , H Greenwood, J Scrimshaw, H Perryman)
M Kreuzer (J Witts, S Darcy, B Preuss)
J Cameron, J Daniher, J Martin, I Henney (C Petracca, M Kennedy, H Mcgluggage, E Hipwood, T Taranto)
B Crouch, D Sheed

What about the other ~12 players (i.e.  minimum $1.2mil) that you've left out?

[Holz]

just look at the team i was able to make for under $10 million. Tell me how the cap has any relevance when you can do this

M.Hibberd, E.Yeo, R.Burton, L.Mcdonald (N.Newman, M.Scharenberg, A.Francis, J Berry)
J Kelly, C Oliver, C Blakely, M Crouch (D Sheed, JOM, L Partington, , H Greenwood, J Scrimshaw, H Perryman)
M Kreuzer (J Witts, S Darcy, B Preuss)
J Cameron, J Daniher, J Martin, I Henney (C Petracca, M Kennedy, H Mcgluggage, E Hipwood, T Taranto)
B Crouch, D Sheed

What about the other ~12 players (i.e.  minimum $1.2mil) that you've left out?

I included those in the 9.5 mil its only 8.3 mil for those

[GoLions]

Another thing I thought of, when teams are going for a bit of a rebuild of sorts, they might have trouble staying over the min cap when going for some top draft picks. I dunno if there's a thing for this already, but perhaps the top 10 or so picks could be worth 150k, as opposed to 100k?

[meow meow]

Just trade in Sam Mitchell and use that loophole.

[Purple 77]

Another thing I thought of, when teams are going for a bit of a rebuild of sorts, they might have trouble staying over the min cap when going for some top draft picks. I dunno if there's a thing for this already, but perhaps the top 10 or so picks could be worth 150k, as opposed to 100k?

Although good in theory, I really want to force these teams to get some salary back in their team :P happy to hear on what others think



Everyone knows how Holz, meow and I sit on the cap and cap values. The guys I really want to hear from are the silent assassins (also the astute) Boomz, JROO and Jay/upthemaidens, and everyone else!

[Nige]

I really want to force these teams to get some salary back in their team

Please do this.

[Holz]

Can we get some opinions on my improved averages rule and age discount rule?

[JBs-Hawks]

I really want to force these teams to get some salary back in their team

Please do this.

Also I think if a player has retired officially in the AFL, they cant be traded at all. Lets stamp out that loophole.

[Torpedo10]

"18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before. "

Has to be a Durability and Premium Factor somewhere in the piece, but this doesn't sound too bad.

[AaronKirk]

There is definitely merit in Holz suggestion in relation to the cap.

Better reflects the current/future value of players in the cap.

Also agree with JB. Players who have retired should not be able to be traded.

I don't remember a situation where a player who had retired was traded from 1 club to another?

[Holz]

"18+ games: 100% of the current season is their average
11-17 games: 50% of the current average 30% of last years and 20% of the year before
6-10 games: 35% of the current average 40% of last years and 25% of the year before
5 or under: 20% of the current average 50% of last years and 30% of the year before.
0 games: 60% of last year and 40% of the year before. "

Has to be a Durability and Premium Factor somewhere in the piece, but this doesn't sound too bad.

Ossie had a durabiloty factor in there and i think it should stay. Im just saying the original calculation of the average should not be 50% this year and 25% the previous two years which i think it is at the moment. If you play 20 games in a season then i dont ubderstand why you would look at the past years.

75 85 100 would be treated as a 90 base in ossie cap
115 105 90 would be treates as a 100 base

Thats what is wrong if both players played 22 games the guy who put up 100 should be treated as 100 not 90. Likewise thr player who put up 90 should be treated as a 90 not a 100.

Then add in the durability factor which ossie had which is a good thing.

Also think the age discount is important its a small thing but a good rule.

[Ringo]

OK this may be different to most but here are my views on the cap.

Cap to be based on previous season only similar to Fantasy competitions as follows:

If a player has played 12 or more games full average to apply.
If a player has played less than 12 games for year average to be discounted by 20% (Ist year rookie players exempt from this concession and average will apply)
If a player has not played at all for the season due to injury previous years average with 20% discount to apply.

3rd point is contentious one and could substitute average over previous 2 years to apply.

Just trying to simplify a little.  may be holes but my initial thoughts.

[meow meow]

^ not bad. Why 12? Why not 10 like in the fantasy games, or 11 since it's half the season?

[Holz]

OK this may be different to most but here are my views on the cap.

Cap to be based on previous season only similar to Fantasy competitions as follows:

If a player has played 12 or more games full average to apply.
If a player has played less than 12 games for year average to be discounted by 20% (Ist year rookie players exempt from this concession and average will apply)
If a player has not played at all for the season due to injury previous years average with 20% discount to apply.

3rd point is contentious one and could substitute average over previous 2 years to apply.

Just trying to simplify a little.  may be holes but my initial thoughts.

its not bad but in my opinion it can be a little flawed thats why fantasy comp make judgement calls to switch up a few players.

The best example would be max Gawn so lets say he didnt play another game, he averaged 92 this year (which is injury affected and not the best reflection in my opinion.

Ringo Rule: Priced at a 74 average
Ossie Rule: Priced at a 101 average
Holz Rule: Priced at a 105 average

not sure on you opinion but 105 seems not bad and arguably a slight discount on his real value but pretty accurate.

Just another one to show im not bias.

Grant Birchall only played 5 games but one of them was a 6 which greatly reduced his average so its down to 63.

Ringo Rule: 50 average
Ossie Rule: 74 average
Holz Rule:  80 average

given birchall in his 5 previous seasons went 95 92 89 86 84, i think pricing him at 80 looks spot on. Then of course he will get some kind of adjustment to help the fact he hasnt been durable.

The fact his points are declining show that why i want the very small age discount in place. As Birchall will be 30 next year he receives a 6% discount, which places him at a 76 average, which pretty much puts him smack on the trend of his last few seasons.

95 92 89 86 84 X 76.

As said before the age discount is to make them closer to their real value and shouldnt been seen as a discount at all just a factor to make it more accurate.