WXV Discussion

[Purple 77]

Love the ideas Levi

Although I prefer how it is, I actually really like Option 1, as it makes a H&A match against a peer mean more

[Nige]

I like it how it is

[RaisyDaisy]

What if there's 4 teams on 10-7, do we have a fatal 4-way hell in a cell ladder match?

Tables, Ladders and Chairs

[ossie85]

Thought I'd bring up something that's never been talked about and is rarely controversial....

... the Cap.

How's this for an idea? Instead of the points cap, we have a salary cap.

I don't have the numbers to give an indication of what that cap would be.... but this is how I'd do it.

Each player's price is determined by the average score of that player over the last 3 years (and some kind of base level for players that haven't played a game, again, don't have the numbers on me).

This is the MINIMUM price you have to pay for that player.

Every team can 'poach' at most 1 player (and no team can lose more than 3 players to poaching, I thought about having no limit to poaching, but doesn't seem fair. And it has to be more than 1, otherwise it basically turns into trading.).

So how do you poach?

In order to poach, you have to offer at least 50% more than they are getting paid, and commit to that price for 3 years (as a minimum, if the player's average goes above what the new price would be, they'd have to pay the higher price. Also don't have to pay if they retire). The club that poached would also have to give up its first round draft pick to the team they poached the player from.

Let's say Rio's G Ablett is worth $600,000, and Toronto want to be able to poach him. They offer a $1,000,000 (which is more than 50% what he is currently being paid).

Two things would happen:
a) Rio match the price, committing to paying $1,000,000 over the next 3 years. In which case Toronto do not get the player, and as they failed to poach that player, are still free to try and poach another player.

b) Rio do not match the price, and Toronto have signed Ablett for 3 years at that price (free to trade him still, but only at that price and the other team would have to pay Ablett that new price). Toronto have successfully poached a player, and Rio could theoretically still have 2 more players poached from them (but would have more money, as they no longer have to pay Ablett, to avoid further poaching). Toronto would also have to give up its first round pick to Rio.



It would take some time to administer, but I think it could work.



edit: Actually, since you can only poach one player, let's just make a blanket rule that if you poach a player, you have to give up your first round draft pick.

[Holz]

While i find it interesting i dont like the idea of poaching at all.

I despise the cap but a salary cap would be worse. You build a list based on structure. In the AFL it works because the draft is far more valuable then it is in Supercoach.

plus teams go for other factors then just money. For example hawks have been poaching players because they give them an opportunity to win a flag.

If we really went the AFL route i should be able to go to patrick dangerfield and ask him to move to Dublin for a chance of winning a premiership.

[ossie85]

While i find it interesting i dont like the idea of poaching at all.

I despise the cap but a salary cap would be worse. You build a list based on structure. In the AFL it works because the draft is far more valuable then it is in Supercoach.

plus teams go for other factors then just money. For example hawks have been poaching players because they give them an opportunity to win a flag.

If we really went the AFL route i should be able to go to patrick dangerfield and ask him to move to Dublin for a chance of winning a premiership.

Re: Dangerfield, that's why you have a 'minimum' salary. That's the player they are worth at the very least. I.e. Dangerfield would never have gone to Geelong for minimum price, they still had to pay him something.

If a player is worth that much to you for your structure, you should be willing to pay more for them.

And if we really wanted to go the AFL route, we should also introduce a 'random' element where a player simply walks out of a club (i.e. Beams, Cam McCarthy) for personal reasons. But random doesn't seem fair.

This way is at least systematic, and only MINIMAL damage to the top teams (lose 3 players at most and gain 3 first round draft picks, and they can poach themselves, so 2 at most really)

[Holz]

While i find it interesting i dont like the idea of poaching at all.

I despise the cap but a salary cap would be worse. You build a list based on structure. In the AFL it works because the draft is far more valuable then it is in Supercoach.

plus teams go for other factors then just money. For example hawks have been poaching players because they give them an opportunity to win a flag.

If we really went the AFL route i should be able to go to patrick dangerfield and ask him to move to Dublin for a chance of winning a premiership.

Re: Dangerfield, that's why you have a 'minimum' salary. That's the player they are worth at the very least. I.e. Dangerfield would never have gone to Geelong for minimum price, they still had to pay him something.

If a player is worth that much to you for your structure, you should be willing to pay more for them.

And if we really wanted to go the AFL route, we should also introduce a 'random' element where a player simply walks out of a club (i.e. Beams, Cam McCarthy) for personal reasons. But random doesn't seem fair.

This way is at least systematic, and only MINIMAL damage to the top teams (lose 3 players at most and gain 3 first round draft picks, and they can poach themselves, so 2 at most really)

From an outsider looking in perspective i think it would be incredibly interesting.

From a coaches point of view I would  quit Worlds as soon as any poaching rule comes into place. We already have no control on what are players do on the field, having 100% control of our list brings some sanity (excluding cap). Losing control with trade voting  has been hard enough. 

[ossie85]

From a coaches point of view I would  quit Worlds as soon as any poaching rule comes into place. We already have no control on what are players do on the field, having 100% control of our list brings some sanity (excluding cap). Losing control with trade voting  has been hard enough.

You still have an amazing amount of control - the right to match is always with the current team. And just like the current points cap, you just have to be aware of how much room in the cap you have.

Honestly though, we should be able to have conversations without someone saying 'I'll quit if this happens'. Of course people can (and have) quit at anytime.

[Holz]

From a coaches point of view I would  quit Worlds as soon as any poaching rule comes into place. We already have no control on what are players do on the field, having 100% control of our list brings some sanity (excluding cap). Losing control with trade voting  has been hard enough.

You still have an amazing amount of control - the right to match is always with the current team. And just like the current points cap, you just have to be aware of how much room in the cap you have.

Honestly though, we should be able to have conversations without someone saying 'I'll quit if this happens'. Of course people can (and have) quit at anytime.

It wasn't meant as a blackmail or deterrent it was highlighting how opposed I would be to it. i think it fundamentally goes against everything some of us have built for 5 years, even the new coaches have put hours and hours into their team.

Losing a player to injury is just bad luck.

Can you imagine the flaws in it. One team could be systematically attacked. Matching offers for the first few then they would simply be unable to change it. It would be soo hard to regulate.

What happens if you poach a ruckman? most teams have only 1.

What happens if you have 5 good backman and then 5 different teams put a bid in for each of the players. You cant keep them all.

soo many things that can go wrong with it. I doubt many people wuill enjoy losing their players its the thing that list managers dislike the most in real life.

[GoLions]

I dunno if this would work. At Karen, I would imagine we'd be a fair chunk under the salary (if one were introduced), so we could just go up to Mexico and offer Rocky an insaaaaaaaane amount of cash and get him, and that would be incredibly unfair on Mexico.

Sorta on the same topic of the cap, would there be any merit in draft picks having points associated with them as well? We'd probably like to delist almost half our squad (maybe a slight exaggeration :P), or trade for picks and hope we snag a gem late, but this would obviously put us under the cap.

[ossie85]

Can you imagine the flaws in it. One team could be systematically attacked. Matching offers for the first few then they would simply be unable to change it. It would be soo hard to regulate.

At most you lose 3 players, in return you'd get 3 first round draft picks. If you can't afford to keep your best 1-5 players, you must have a hell of a team. So really you'd only be losing the players you could afford to lose.

It might be good to add a ceiling to a player's price though, just so it doesn't go crazy (i.e. maybe no player can get paid more than $1,000,000).

What happens if you poach a ruckman? most teams have only 1.

If you have 1 ruckman, and he's worth a lot to you, keep them. Alternatively, poach someone elses ruck.

What happens if you have 5 good backman and then 5 different teams put a bid in for each of the players. You cant keep them all.

Well, as I've said a few times. At most only 3 players can leave a club. And you can poach a defender back. So in that case, at worst, you'd lose 2, and only if you couldn't afford them.

soo many things that can go wrong with it. I doubt many people wuill enjoy losing their players its the thing that list managers dislike the most in real life.

Each club will have favourite players. And if you are willing to let a player go, chances are either that player isn't a favourite, or your a team so full of talent you can't afford them. Either way, should be fine.

I dunno if this would work. At Karen, I would imagine we'd be a fair chunk under the salary (if one were introduced), so we could just go up to Mexico and offer Rocky an insaaaaaaaane amount of cash and get him, and that would be incredibly unfair on Mexico.

Sorta on the same topic of the cap, would there be any merit in draft picks having points associated with them as well? We'd probably like to delist almost half our squad (maybe a slight exaggeration :P), or trade for picks and hope we snag a gem late, but this would obviously put us under the cap.

It might be worth putting a ceiling on what you can offer, that's a fair point. But remember, you'd be committed to that price for 3 years, which would hurt your ability to build a list in the future.

[RaisyDaisy]

So this is just a more complex way of trading?

The end result is the same as if we were to just trade, but with more complexity and less control to retain?

I think I would prefer us to refine and improve the current rules for WXV first before we start bringing in more features

Issues like trade voting, total points scored vs % etc are thing I'd like us to be discussing and trying to improve before we started looking at more new things to introduce

[Levi434]

I should start my own XVs with some completely insane rules! Tagging, Salary, Gameplans, training, weather, early season trades.


I like the salary cap rule but if it was introduced then some other things such as "bird years" and Mid Level Exception(MLE) would need to come into it.

Bird Years:
For each 3 years a player is on your roster, they gain one "Bird" year. For each bird year you can go over the salary cap to "sign" half their contract.
Example: Alex Rance has been on Dublin's roster for 3 years and currently has a contract of $700,000. Next year Dublin can sign him for the same except on 50% gets counted to their salary cap.

MLE:
For teams that are at/over the cap they are eligible to sign as many free agents for a minimum salary.
Example: Dublin has 39 out of 40 players on their roster. So they are given an extra Lets say $150,000 to sign one "free agent"

[ossie85]

So this is just a more complex way of trading?

The end result is the same as if we were to just trade, but with more complexity and less control to retain?

I think I would prefer us to refine and improve the current rules for WXV first before we start bringing in more features

Issues like trade voting, total points scored vs % etc are thing I'd like us to be discussing and trying to improve before we started looking at more new things to introduce

I'd argue this is refining a current rule - the issue of a cap, which people have always had feedback on.

There's no reason we can't discuss caps, voting and % at the same time. They are all basically mutually exclusive...

I should start my own XVs with some completely insane rules! Tagging, Salary, Gameplans, training, weather, early season trades.


I like the salary cap rule but if it was introduced then some other things such as "bird years" and Mid Level Exception(MLE) would need to come into it.

Bird Years:
For each 3 years a player is on your roster, they gain one "Bird" year. For each bird year you can go over the salary cap to "sign" half their contract.
Example: Alex Rance has been on Dublin's roster for 3 years and currently has a contract of $700,000. Next year Dublin can sign him for the same except on 50% gets counted to their salary cap.

MLE:
For teams that are at/over the cap they are eligible to sign as many free agents for a minimum salary.
Example: Dublin has 39 out of 40 players on their roster. So they are given an extra Lets say $150,000 to sign one "free agent"

Like it, but complexity creeps into it :)

[Holz]

So this is just a more complex way of trading?

The end result is the same as if we were to just trade, but with more complexity and less control to retain?

I think I would prefer us to refine and improve the current rules for WXV first before we start bringing in more features

Issues like trade voting, total points scored vs % etc are thing I'd like us to be discussing and trying to improve before we started looking at more new things to introduce

not really.

For example if someone ends up taking a Treloar off me and i get a first round pick. Even if that is #1 its robbery. in the AFL it works as the #1 picks are valuable.

But i wouldn't take #1, #2 #5  etc... for Treloar.