WXV Trade Thread

[kilbluff1985]

after hearing Sam Mitchell will indeed be a D/M in 2014 he will be on the table for a younger gun mid or a not old gun ruck

Trading Mitchell for a "gun" is way overs imo. You want a young gun mid, so you want a 10 season premo or a not old gun ruck... so you want a 5-7 year premo ruck

For a guy who play 1 or 2 seasons as a defender? Yes, he's more valuable now that he's a defender but he isn't worth his weight in gold.

we are willing to do a Judd/Mitchell deal for the right price but for Mitchell alone i don't mean someone like Fyfe i mean maybe an Adams etc

[CrowsFan]

KB you realise that the next trading period you can't just trade anyone you want right? You have to have a reason for trading, i.e you lost a forward due to positional changes so you are trading to get one. I guess someone like Mexico could trade for Mitchell since they have lost Goddard as a defender, but not everyone is going to be able to trade with you.

[kilbluff1985]

KB you realise that the next trading period you can't just trade anyone you want right? You have to have a reason for trading, i.e you lost a forward due to positional changes so you are trading to get one. I guess someone like Mexico could trade for Mitchell since they have lost Goddard as a defender, but not everyone is going to be able to trade with you.

that had slipped my mind lol, thanks. :'(

[Holz]

KB you realise that the next trading period you can't just trade anyone you want right? You have to have a reason for trading, i.e you lost a forward due to positional changes so you are trading to get one. I guess someone like Mexico could trade for Mitchell since they have lost Goddard as a defender, but not everyone is going to be able to trade with you.

couldnt that fact that mitchell picked up dpp be a reason for trading though?

they might not need a defender and assumed mitchell was going to be mid only. It wasnt a certainty he would gain dpp i was 50/50

[kilbluff1985]

KB you realise that the next trading period you can't just trade anyone you want right? You have to have a reason for trading, i.e you lost a forward due to positional changes so you are trading to get one. I guess someone like Mexico could trade for Mitchell since they have lost Goddard as a defender, but not everyone is going to be able to trade with you.

couldnt that fact that mitchell picked up dpp be a reason for trading though?

they might not need a defender and assumed mitchell was going to be mid only. It wasnt a certainty he would gain dpp i was 50/50

but we can still use him as a mid and is even better to us with DPP

[Memphistopheles]

Is "Our team still needs improving?" a good enough reason :P

[CrowsFan]

KB you realise that the next trading period you can't just trade anyone you want right? You have to have a reason for trading, i.e you lost a forward due to positional changes so you are trading to get one. I guess someone like Mexico could trade for Mitchell since they have lost Goddard as a defender, but not everyone is going to be able to trade with you.

couldnt that fact that mitchell picked up dpp be a reason for trading though?

they might not need a defender and assumed mitchell was going to be mid only. It wasnt a certainty he would gain dpp i was 50/50

Would have to let ossie rule, but in my opinion no it shouldn't be a reason. Because as KB said they can still use him as a mid, so they haven't actually lost anything from their team. As he said he is even better since he got the DPP, so if I was running the game (which clearly I'm not) then you wouldn't be able to trade someone who gained DPP since you haven't actually lost anything.

[elephants]

Is "Our team still needs improving?" a good enough reason :P

Was thinking this exact thing :P

"Our team cant get much worse"

;D

[Nails]

KB you realise that the next trading period you can't just trade anyone you want right? You have to have a reason for trading, i.e you lost a forward due to positional changes so you are trading to get one. I guess someone like Mexico could trade for Mitchell since they have lost Goddard as a defender, but not everyone is going to be able to trade with you.

couldnt that fact that mitchell picked up dpp be a reason for trading though?

they might not need a defender and assumed mitchell was going to be mid only. It wasnt a certainty he would gain dpp i was 50/50

Would have to let ossie rule, but in my opinion no it shouldn't be a reason. Because as KB said they can still use him as a mid, so they haven't actually lost anything from their team. As he said he is even better since he got the DPP, so if I was running the game (which clearly I'm not) then you wouldn't be able to trade someone who gained DPP since you haven't actually lost anything.

I think under this rule (similar thing happened with Jared Brennan for me last year)

(I think) KB is allowed to trade in a mid for someone else in his team under the idea that "well now that Mitchell is a defender, it'd be stupid to not play him as a defender so I need to trade in a mid to cover the hole that is caused by Mitchell becoming D/M eligible"

[CrowsFan]

KB you realise that the next trading period you can't just trade anyone you want right? You have to have a reason for trading, i.e you lost a forward due to positional changes so you are trading to get one. I guess someone like Mexico could trade for Mitchell since they have lost Goddard as a defender, but not everyone is going to be able to trade with you.

couldnt that fact that mitchell picked up dpp be a reason for trading though?

they might not need a defender and assumed mitchell was going to be mid only. It wasnt a certainty he would gain dpp i was 50/50

Would have to let ossie rule, but in my opinion no it shouldn't be a reason. Because as KB said they can still use him as a mid, so they haven't actually lost anything from their team. As he said he is even better since he got the DPP, so if I was running the game (which clearly I'm not) then you wouldn't be able to trade someone who gained DPP since you haven't actually lost anything.

I think under this rule (similar thing happened with Jared Brennan for me last year)

(I think) KB is allowed to trade in a mid for someone else in his team under the idea that "well now that Mitchell is a defender, it'd be stupid to not play him as a defender so I need to trade in a mid to cover the hole that is caused by Mitchell becoming D/M eligible"

Yeah that makes sense, but in this case KB is wanting to trade away Mitchell. Not cover his move from midfield to defense

[Nails]

Yeah I don't think he can trade him under the context he wants, but maybe he can sighting "he's worth more now and given more trade value is only fair he can be traded now" idk

or maybe he can trade mitchell on for a midfielder sighting he's never really going to be used as a mid anyway and he needs mids, but keeping mitchell would be stupid for a team that needs mids as he's going to used as a defender, therefore trading him for a slightly better mid

idk

[kilbluff1985]

but if another team needs a defender due to DPP changes i could trade him for anyone right?

[CrowsFan]

but if another team needs a defender due to DPP changes i could trade him for anyone right?

Yep. It's only one team that needs to validate why they need to do the trade.

[elephants]

And there's a cap on movements in this second period too, right?

[ossie85]

And there's a cap on movements in this second period too, right?

Yes, but you're probably going to ask what it is.... I don't think more than 5....