WXV Rules Discussion 2018

[Holz]

Jaeger O'Meara was 100k cap last year.


               HOLZ

Im against the cap and didn't agree or totally understand how it was newly calculated.

I still dont have a clear understanding why we even have a cap.

So i cant explain at all.

We seem to have similar teams up the top and down the bottom most years, the same if not more then other comps.

We need to decide why we have a cap before we talk about how it actually should be calculated.

Is it to equalize teams in scoring
is it to balance list quality
Is it to stop teams going hard for premierships
is it to stop tanking

[Adamant]

All of the above.

[JBs-Hawks]

Jaeger O'Meara was 100k cap last year.


               HOLZ

Im against the cap and didn't agree or totally understand how it was newly calculated.

I still dont have a clear understanding why we even have a cap.

So i cant explain at all.

We seem to have similar teams up the top and down the bottom most years, the same if not more then other comps.

We need to decide why we have a cap before we talk about how it actually should be calculated.

Is it to equalize teams in scoring
is it to balance list quality
Is it to stop teams going hard for premierships
is it to stop tanking

None of the above.

We just have it so there is something for you to complain about between August and the International draft.

That or it's a great little unique element that ossie thought would add a little extra strategy to the worlds experience which we all love and cherish!

[Purple 77]

Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.

Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.

If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.

So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.

Absolutely I would. Because in reality those clubs aren't trading a top 20 pick (with extra cap as you propose) for a spud, it's 4th,  5th rounders if at all, else they get drafted in the rookie draft. And EVERY single year, a few of those spuds gets up and does something, improving that team.  So I'm against any initiative that makes it easier for teams to get above the min cap, thus decreasing the chances of that happening.

I understand the sentiment though, as bigger picks should be worth more. And they are - through the trade market. Cap values and trade values were never meant to reflect one another, so it's through the trade market that top 20 picks get priced appropriately.

[GoLions]

Aw, I'm not too sure on that one, but I appreciate and respect where it's coming from.

Puts an extra mill or so in the total cap, thus would increase the min cap by 1 mill / 18, so about 50k, and although it's minimal, it effectively means the lower teams get a cop out in trying to get over the min cap, which are the teams I most want to be over it.

If anything I think -15% of the average cap is generous for a min cap.

So would you rather they trade one of their picks for nathan brown to get over instead? Which is what has happened in the past. And personally I'm planning on trading pick 1 anyway (hmu fellas), but regardless of whether i have pick 1 or if ada does, i just think they should be worth a bit more than your later picks.

Absolutely I would. Because in reality those clubs aren't trading a top 20 pick (with extra cap as you propose) for a spud, it's 4th,  5th rounders if at all, else they get drafted in the rookie draft. And EVERY single year, a few of those spuds gets up and does something, improving that team.  So I'm against any initiative that makes it easier for teams to get above the min cap, thus decreasing the chances of that happening.

I understand the sentiment though, as bigger picks should be worth more. And they are - through the trade market. Cap values and trade values were never meant to reflect one another, so it's through the trade market that top 20 picks get priced appropriately.

My point was that if a club wants to get above the min cap, they can do so via those showerty trades or drafting rookies with extra cap. The extra 50k (max, due to avg going up) here wouldn't really impact that.

But yeah, literally the only reason I brought it up is simply because I think Pick 1 should be worth more than Pick 90.

[GoLions]

Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.

As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.

The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.

[RaisyDaisy]

GL makes a good point

I think everyone would agree that it makes sense for Pick 1 to be worth more than Pick 90, and as he says every year the teams with a low cap end up just filling their lists with spuds for the sole purpose of getting above the cap, which does sound pretty counter intuitive because they don't actually want those players, but basically have to just for the purposes of getting above the cap

Now you could argue they should trade in better players with decent $ value, but if they're going down the youth path that really doesn't help at all

It's a tricky one

[RaisyDaisy]

Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.

As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.

The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.

That sounds like it could get really messy

We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.

I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy

Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?

[GoLions]

Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.

As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.

The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.

That sounds like it could get really messy

We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.

I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy

Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?

Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)

[Ringo]

Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.

As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.

The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.

That sounds like it could get really messy

We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.

I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy

Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?

Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)

Remember the AFL are introducing live pick trading this year so we would following their initiative as well.  Ad has been said could get really messy for Admin to monitor as well.

Regarding the draft picks I would suggest after thinking about it maybe make all first round picks worth 125 points for simplicity.

[GoLions]

Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.

As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.

The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.

That sounds like it could get really messy

We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.

I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy

Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?

Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)

Remember the AFL are introducing live pick trading this year so we would following their initiative as well.  Ad has been said could get really messy for Admin to monitor as well.

Regarding the draft picks I would suggest after thinking about it maybe make all first round picks worth 125 points for simplicity.

Wouldn't work. Would technically mean pick 1 and 18 are equal, and would be passed if a trade was done to swap just those picks.

[iZander]

Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.

As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.

The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.

That sounds like it could get really messy

We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.

I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy

Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?

Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)

Remember the AFL are introducing live pick trading this year so we would following their initiative as well.  Ad has been said could get really messy for Admin to monitor as well.

Regarding the draft picks I would suggest after thinking about it maybe make all first round picks worth 125 points for simplicity.

Wouldn't work. Would technically mean pick 1 and 18 are equal, and would be passed if a trade was done to swap just those picks.

Does it matter if trades are done that are "unfair" when it wont change who they pick up anyway. For example if you have ur eye on someone there is no difference between taking Willem Drew at N6 or picking him up at 10-15 where he would have gone while getting a very small upgrade lower down in the draft. For example in the above scenario they might have decided to trade N6 for N10 and a small upgrade in the 2nd round which people would of said is way unfair but it would of resulted in them getting a better outcome cause they would of still got the guy they wanted but got an upgrade elsewhere. Would of also worked out well for the otherside who gets a big upgrade.
If your doing live trading its because you want someone you think will slip later or more likely you want someone who slipped later than you expected. Either way the net result probably doesnt change much, picks are very subjective.

[meow meow]

I'll give you 9 + 10 for 1 + 68

2864 vs 3059

If 200 is the magic number then I say the team with the later first pick should have to be 200 points OVER the value of the team with the earlier pick.

1 + 68 for 6 + 8 just looks fairer IMO.

3059 vs 3302

[GoLions]

I'll give you 9 + 10 for 1 + 68

2864 vs 3059

If 200 is the magic number then I say the team with the later first pick should have to be 200 points OVER the value of the team with the earlier pick.

1 + 68 for 6 + 8 just looks fairer IMO.

3059 vs 3302

Yeah i don't mind that. I hadn't looked at any values or anything, was just pulling numbers out of my ass haha, but this seems good.

[GoLions]

Other rule suggestion, and not sure if it has been mentioned cause I haven't followed much due to work being full on the last few weeks, is live pick trading. 2hr rule still stands if you come online, but you have the chance to trade picks (and only picks) during that window.

As an example, when Ringo picked Willem Drew, I was left with a choice between Ainsworth and SPS, and I was pretty much split on both. Would have been more than happy at that point to attempt to work a trade with meow in that short period of time, providing he was also online and interested in moving up to my spot in the draft.

The main issue I see here is that unbalanced trades could be made if a team gets really desperate to move up or down the draft, so perhaps we could also use the points system that the AFL uses, and trades need to fall within a certain range in terms of the difference between draft points. For arguments sake, the acceptable difference is 200 points, so you could trade pick 7 (lets say worth 1200) and pick 45 (lets say worth 100) for pick 8 (1100) and pick 30 (310), making it 1300 for 1410. But you couldn't do 7 for 8 and 30, as that would give a difference of 210.

That sounds like it could get really messy

We have enough time during the trade period to get the picks we want.

I like the idea in theory, but my initial reaction is that it would just get messy

Maybe we trial it, but only in the 1st round? See how it worked, and then discuss it again the following year?

Yeah, it definitely could get messy haha, hence why we would need some system that allows for trades to effectively be automatically approved/rejected. The idea is if a player slips further than you thought they would, or if someone goes earlier than you expected. You would imagine that it would only really occur in the 1st round or thereabouts anyway, but yeah, I think it's something that could add something extra to WXVs and make the draft a bit more interesting! (to those online anyway :P)

Remember the AFL are introducing live pick trading this year so we would following their initiative as well.  Ad has been said could get really messy for Admin to monitor as well.

Regarding the draft picks I would suggest after thinking about it maybe make all first round picks worth 125 points for simplicity.

Wouldn't work. Would technically mean pick 1 and 18 are equal, and would be passed if a trade was done to swap just those picks.

Does it matter if trades are done that are "unfair" when it wont change who they pick up anyway. For example if you have ur eye on someone there is no difference between taking Willem Drew at N6 or picking him up at 10-15 where he would have gone while getting a very small upgrade lower down in the draft. For example in the above scenario they might have decided to trade N6 for N10 and a small upgrade in the 2nd round which people would of said is way unfair but it would of resulted in them getting a better outcome cause they would of still got the guy they wanted but got an upgrade elsewhere. Would of also worked out well for the otherside who gets a big upgrade.
If your doing live trading its because you want someone you think will slip later or more likely you want someone who slipped later than you expected. Either way the net result probably doesnt change much, picks are very subjective.

For the sake of having trades automatically passed, i think so.