Should injured players lose value?

[ossie85]

Should players who miss games due to injury, or even form, lose value as the season progresses? (i.e even as low as losing 1% to 5% of value each round).

I know a few people have kept Michael Barlow for a week or 2 so they can trade him at a more oppurtune time, but is this really realistic? Surely a player isn't worth as much if they are missing games.

I don't know where I stand with this! On one hand, I think it would add a new dimension to the game, but on the other hand I don't like changing the game unnecessarily.


Thoughts?

[Samm79]

Interesting point. I think having one less scoring player is enough of a disadvantage. How cheap would Roo have been though!

[ossie85]

Riewoldt is a good example for sure!

Maybe even have a 'sell' value and a 'buy' value?

[Sharker18]

having the money sitting on the bench is loss enough i reckon. Also the fact that the game they get injured they will generally have a very low score and normally takes a few weeks to get back into form, meaning they will drop plenty already! If you decided to keep Roo all this time i think you have already lost enough without punishing you more....

[ossie85]

Not so much punishment, more of an incentive to sell is what I was after. But yes, good point.

[Justin Bieber]

It's a good point but doubt it'll ever happen.

If you have don't have the player, can you still buy him later in the year for cheaper, if he decreases the way you say ossie? So it effects everyone instead of just the people who have him.

[Blueboys]

Interesting point for sure.

Not sure how you would work out the amout they go down each week while they miss?

I feel it's going to force people to trade more.

If this ever happens then I want 10% interest on my cash!  ;D hahaha

[ossie85]

I'm a fan of earning interest on cash! Always like that idea.

And don't know Hello, either way has merit

[tom_scully]

As this game is supposed to be like managing a "real team" I think about it this way. They shouldn't lose value for injuries because in real life Roo's next contract won't be cheaper because he tore his hammy this year. However, if a players form was bad all season a la Neon Leon, his next contract renewal would not be as valuable.

[CFC 1979]

well it's a stats/ points = $  system

so the only way that you should make or loose cash is by playing for mine

[fever]

off topic, but i think players should have to play a certain % of any given match for their score to count (say 60% or something).

it basically means when a player picks up an injury very early in the match their score is basically flowered for the day, their price will suffer that week and also in the weeks to come when their b/e gets big because of a bad score. i think that if they get injured before the cutoff time it should be as if they hadn't played.

[ossie85]

off topic, but i think players should have to play a certain % of any given match for their score to count (say 60% or something).

it basically means when a player picks up an injury very early in the match their score is basically flowered for the day, their price will suffer that week and also in the weeks to come when their b/e gets big because of a bad score. i think that if they get injured before the cutoff time it should be as if they hadn't played.

Not a huge fan of that, mostly because it goes against what actually happens in a real match. A player gets injured in the first 5 minutes, you're stuck wiuth it. Would be a fan if the AFL change the rules and allow substitutions though.

[fever]

i didn't word my thoughts very well. i meant in terms of their price fluctuations. i def think they should count towards your weekly score/league results, but i think it's very harsh on a players price and that their price should remain constant if they play less than whatever % is settled on.

[Prospector_1]

off topic, but i think players should have to play a certain % of any given match for their score to count (say 60% or something).

it basically means when a player picks up an injury very early in the match their score is basically flowered for the day, their price will suffer that week and also in the weeks to come when their b/e gets big because of a bad score. i think that if they get injured before the cutoff time it should be as if they hadn't played.

Not a huge fan of that, mostly because it goes against what actually happens in a real match. A player gets injured in the first 5 minutes, you're stuck wiuth it. Would be a fan if the AFL change the rules and allow substitutions though.

Nah, that was already dealt with by having four interchange players. The intention was not originally to use the interchanges the way they are now. Even accepting the way the benchies are used now, I can't see why an 18 man game can't be played for 2 hours with 4 guys to cover any injuries and niggles. It's the club's responsibility to put 18 fit men on the field, and have 4 fit men to cover any problems. I don't think more interchanges should be encouraged. The game IS a marathon, and I wouldn't want to see that endurance question further compromised.