WXV Discussion

[ossie85]

Caps punish success, I agree

but so do every one of your suggestions Holz

[Holz]

Caps punish success, I agree

but so do every one of your suggestions Holz

they relatively do by only giving benefits to those who are poor.

there is a big difference between giving to the poor and taking from the rich directly and giving to the poor that's what im opposed to. A priority pick for NDT would move me from 18 to 19. thats nothing to me.

the cap forces me to sack my bench and trade in injured players at a premium. That does damage to me next year but more importantly hurts my future.

It will force teams to go the way of the dillos and in need of handouts in the future when it could have been avoided.

If a team cant improve with say pick 1 and 3 in the draft than they aren't running things properly.

[Holz]

I still say me helping out Dillos with trade and drafting advice did more to equal the comp than any equalization rules did and I will continue to do so.

[MajorLazer]

Teams do improve with pick 1 and 3, but ultimately teams improve more drastically through trading. With different coaches rating different players/picks, it's always gonna be hit and miss. It's really difficult to see the improvement of a team through the draft til further down the track. I don't think we need any changes through this season and offseason. It seems like we are gonna have a stable base of coaches and it gives everyone an opportunity to decide what they are gonna do with their lists. If we still have problems next season, then that could be the time to make a decision, but not yet.

[Holz]

Teams do improve with pick 1 and 3, but ultimately teams improve more drastically through trading. With different coaches rating different players/picks, it's always gonna be hit and miss. It's really difficult to see the improvement of a team through the draft til further down the track. I don't think we need any changes through this season and offseason. It seems like we are gonna have a stable base of coaches and it gives everyone an opportunity to decide what they are gonna do with their lists. If we still have problems next season, then that could be the time to make a decision, but not yet.

agree but i have seen issues with the cap every year and issues with the OOP Ruck this year.

[Nige]

Teams do improve with pick 1 and 3, but ultimately teams improve more drastically through trading. With different coaches rating different players/picks, it's always gonna be hit and miss. It's really difficult to see the improvement of a team through the draft til further down the track. I don't think we need any changes through this season and offseason. It seems like we are gonna have a stable base of coaches and it gives everyone an opportunity to decide what they are gonna do with their lists. If we still have problems next season, then that could be the time to make a decision, but not yet.

agree but i have seen issues with the cap every year and issues with the OOP Ruck this year.

How'd you let your second team end up with no ruck?

[ossie85]

Teams do improve with pick 1 and 3, but ultimately teams improve more drastically through trading. With different coaches rating different players/picks, it's always gonna be hit and miss. It's really difficult to see the improvement of a team through the draft til further down the track. I don't think we need any changes through this season and offseason. It seems like we are gonna have a stable base of coaches and it gives everyone an opportunity to decide what they are gonna do with their lists. If we still have problems next season, then that could be the time to make a decision, but not yet.

Great points ML

Ruck issues have mostly been bad luck, except for Buenos Aires who traded them all out

[MajorLazer]

Yeah I understand that, but it seems like every season we've also had coaches leave and huge lists overhauls. Some stability from coaches and lists could be handy to let us take a step back and see the state of the league.

Rucks have almost always been down to injury and seriously if people are struggling to play a ruckman, they should be willing to do more to get one.

[Holz]

Teams do improve with pick 1 and 3, but ultimately teams improve more drastically through trading. With different coaches rating different players/picks, it's always gonna be hit and miss. It's really difficult to see the improvement of a team through the draft til further down the track. I don't think we need any changes through this season and offseason. It seems like we are gonna have a stable base of coaches and it gives everyone an opportunity to decide what they are gonna do with their lists. If we still have problems next season, then that could be the time to make a decision, but not yet.

agree but i have seen issues with the cap every year and issues with the OOP Ruck this year.

How'd you let your second team end up with no ruck?

I only stepped in after the first trade period and they dropped redden without me. It wasnt worth a top 5 pick to waste on a ruck so the best I could do was punt on Sam Durdin as a ruck. I picked up Redden for Dublin to help them but was unable to give him to them because of the trading restrictions.

when I have a full trade period to work on it it will be my first goal. Its very very tough though so I would like to see some concession with the OOP rucks or dillos will need to massively overpay for a ruck man, putting their development back a year.

[Holz]

Yeah I understand that, but it seems like every season we've also had coaches leave and huge lists overhauls. Some stability from coaches and lists could be handy to let us take a step back and see the state of the league.

Rucks have almost always been down to injury and seriously if people are struggling to play a ruckman, they should be willing to do more to get one.

Anyone out there willing to give up a starting ruckman? if you are send me a PM as im on the look out for one.

[MajorLazer]

Teams do improve with pick 1 and 3, but ultimately teams improve more drastically through trading. With different coaches rating different players/picks, it's always gonna be hit and miss. It's really difficult to see the improvement of a team through the draft til further down the track. I don't think we need any changes through this season and offseason. It seems like we are gonna have a stable base of coaches and it gives everyone an opportunity to decide what they are gonna do with their lists. If we still have problems next season, then that could be the time to make a decision, but not yet.

agree but i have seen issues with the cap every year and issues with the OOP Ruck this year.

How'd you let your second team end up with no ruck?

I only stepped in after the first trade period and they dropped redden without me. It wasnt worth a top 5 pick to waste on a ruck so the best I could do was punt on Sam Durdin as a ruck. I picked up Redden for Dublin to help them but was unable to give him to them because of the trading restrictions.

when I have a full trade period to work on it it will be my first goal. Its very very tough though so I would like to see some concession with the OOP rucks or dillos will need to massively overpay for a ruck man, putting their development back a year.

I think that the main thing is that rucks are a valuable position. So what would seem to be overpaying, is just due to their scarcity. Also I understand that some teams were kinda put in a bad situation by previous coaches, but undervaluing rucks and not having a decent ruck is a huge mistake in my eyes.

[Ringo]

Sorry for starting this.  Only pointing out that when I get a player reaching potential I virtually have to trade them because no one wants the older player.  Tried to get rid of Stanton last year but no one wanted him as an example.
So this year will probably have to trade Hanners, Edwards or Rampe maybe 2 to get another prem and remain below cap.

A solution to this is hard to be fair which is why i have not really commented a lot on it.

Teams that have super premium players out for lengthy periods really benefit from the cap and how do we treat that.
Teams that have O'Meara, Ablett, Swallow, Bennell, Rocky, Mumford, Wells, Liberatore to name some that have missed or will miss at least 6 weeks of the season really benefit as opposed to a team that has mid tier p[layers playing every week.

Been thinking further on this and just wondering whether this may be an option maybe a little complicated but will take away the inconsistencies of the cap and I do not mind being shot down.
Players are categoirsied based on previous performances into 4 tiers
super Premium say players averaging above 105
Mid Premium players averaging between 90 and 105
Other
Rookie players (that is played less than 5 games for the club)  Do away with rookie list as well

Then we list restrictions
Maximum of 7 super premiums and 7 mid premiums per team

Will mean 1/3rd of you list averages more than 90 and will encourage depth being built in others to cover injuries.

Injured players maintain their average so teams do not benefit from injuries as is the case now.

[Purple 77]

Can't help but disagree with pretty much everything you bring up Holz.

Caps punish success, I agree

but so do every one of your suggestions Holz

they relatively do by only giving benefits to those who are poor.

there is a big difference between giving to the poor and taking from the rich directly and giving to the poor that's what im opposed to. A priority pick for NDT would move me from 18 to 19. thats nothing to me.

the cap forces me to sack my bench and trade in injured players at a premium. That does damage to me next year but more importantly hurts my future.

It will force teams to go the way of the dillos and in need of handouts in the future when it could have been avoided.

If a team cant improve with say pick 1 and 3 in the draft than they aren't running things properly.

You say that you are forced to cut bench players. That's not entirely true now, is it. The only player you were forced to delist of note was James Podsiadly, and he has done literally nothing this year.

You say that the top teams will go the way of the Dillos... also not true. Look at the youth of your list for goodness sake, you'll be dominating for years. Your old players; Dal Santo, Murphy and Mundy, the former two you deliberately traded in knowing that they won't last long and were for a premiership push. When they retire, you basically pay the price then don't you, for that short term fix. You got the benefit of the premium years they gave you, but when their careers end, the cost is you lose them for nothing (or trade them at a huge discount, like Buenos Aires). That's just the way it is, and shouldn't be brought up as a reason to critique the cap.

I don't see any evidence that the cap has had any positives on the comp but i can bring up quite a few negatives. Forced equalization methods like this aren't the way to go. Make sure the bottom teams have good support and lead by good coaches and than giving them advantages in the drafts is the way to go.

Are you serious? Look at 2013, and look now. The comp is WAY more even. My resurgence in 2013 and continued improvement was entirely due to the depth I acquired in 2013, then traded out to bring in fewer but better players. Beijing and Pacific are also on the same rout, they have acquired mountains of depth now (just look at their cap), with a lot of this acquirement of depth spear-headed by getting above the minimum cap. The minimum cap forces improvement via ensuring you have players playing every week! And usually one of these depth players that weren't very good at every club, break out into a best XV player. Hence, the cap forces you to bring in more AFL ready players, and increases the likelihood of receiving a surprise gem.

Even this year when New Delhi will fall drastically short of the cap, they'll HAVE to bring in more AFL regulars, which ensures they'll have XV players playing most weeks, something they haven't had this year.

And the maximum cap? It is incredibly easy to get under it. There is a plethora of options: 1) required delistings usually bring it under, but if it doesn't 2) trading often does 3) trade depth players for a decent draft pick.... these are beneficial moves. If anything, I would love to see the maximum cap brought down, but I won't.



This is something I heavily supported ossie bringing in at the time, and, like him, and putting the foot down. The cap isn't going anywhere... but is open for modifications.

[Ricochet]

Yeah I understand that, but it seems like every season we've also had coaches leave and huge lists overhauls. Some stability from coaches and lists could be handy to let us take a step back and see the state of the league.

Rucks have almost always been down to injury and seriously if people are struggling to play a ruckman, they should be willing to do more to get one.

Exactly. That's what we tried to do anyway

Which is why I'm not that keen on the OOP Ruck new rules everyone is proposing tbh. We went hard after rucks because they are scarce. And now they will be less valuable if these new rules do come in

[MajorLazer]

Sorry for starting this.  Only pointing out that when I get a player reaching potential I virtually have to trade them because no one wants the older player.  Tried to get rid of Stanton last year but no one wanted him as an example.
So this year will probably have to trade Hanners, Edwards or Rampe maybe 2 to get another prem and remain below cap.

A solution to this is hard to be fair which is why i have not really commented a lot on it.

Teams that have super premium players out for lengthy periods really benefit from the cap and how do we treat that.
Teams that have O'Meara, Ablett, Swallow, Bennell, Rocky, Mumford, Wells, Liberatore to name some that have missed or will miss at least 6 weeks of the season really benefit as opposed to a team that has mid tier p[layers playing every week.

Been thinking further on this and just wondering whether this may be an option maybe a little complicated but will take away the inconsistencies of the cap and I do not mind being shot down.
Players are categoirsied based on previous performances into 4 tiers
super Premium say players averaging above 105
Mid Premium players averaging between 90 and 105
Other
Rookie players (that is played less than 5 games for the club)  Do away with rookie list as well

Then we list restrictions
Maximum of 7 super premiums and 7 mid premiums per team

Will mean 1/3rd of you list averages more than 90 and will encourage depth being built in others to cover injuries.

Injured players maintain their average so teams do not benefit from injuries as is the case now.

Yeah the main thing I think is important to remember is that teams that have these players are already penalised by not having their best players to play each week. I agree that it may seem unfair at the end of the season when it comes to the cap and trading and what not, but during the season (trust me, and I'm sure you've had similar) it's definitely not fun. I'd much rather have Mummy playing all year and cop the cap hit than the situation we have now. Just my two cents on the matter.