WXV Discussion

[meow meow]

We could copy the AFL'S cap to the exact dollar if we really wanted to. I think realistic pricing should be the goal.

[ossie85]

Age is an interesting one, unfortunately I don't have those stats easily enough :P I could adjust the durability factor a bit, which basically makes youth undervalued a tad

We could copy the AFL'S cap to the exact dollar if we really wanted to. I think realistic pricing should be the goal.

Why not. What's the AFL cap?

[Holz]

Age is an interesting one, unfortunately I don't have those stats easily enough :P I could adjust the durability factor a bit, which basically makes youth undervalued a tad

We could copy the AFL'S cap to the exact dollar if we really wanted to. I think realistic pricing should be the goal.

Why not. What's the AFL cap?

I think i could work on getting a age factor into it if its a case of you like it you just dont have the stats for it.

age seems to be one of if not the main reason people trade and value players.

first question i ask people when i trade is what age bracket are you looking for.

[Levi434]

If you want ages come and pay me for them :P

Yes, I google searched every single AFL player and I don't regret a second of those 7 hours 8)

I'm flowering crazy

[Holz]

If you want ages come and pay me for them :P

Yes, I google searched every single AFL player and I don't regret a second of those 7 hours 8)

I'm flowering crazy

If Rio magically gets a priority pick now when know why :P

[meow meow]

Age is an interesting one, unfortunately I don't have those stats easily enough :P I could adjust the durability factor a bit, which basically makes youth undervalued a tad

We could copy the AFL'S cap to the exact dollar if we really wanted to. I think realistic pricing should be the goal.

Why not. What's the AFL cap?

$10,600,000 (GWS have more)

It's going up by 500K this year because the AFL is doing away with the veteran list and currently only half of a rookies salary counts (if a team has 4 rookies that is, less discount the more players a team has)

So pretty much 11.1 million next year with half of rookies pay still outside of the cap. 11.3 should take care of it.

There's certain pay rates for draftees too. A first round pick gets paid more than a second round and so on.

There's also match payments of 4500 per game for every player (factored into contracts already). A 500K contact only amounts to 410K if that player misses 20 games for the season. This detail is pretty much irrelevant though.

[meow meow]

Hawks salary cap is significantly higher than Richmond. Hawks have 5, tigers have 1. That's basically an extra 500k in their cap.

There are 49 players listed as veterans in 2016.

$127,435 per veteran is allowed outside of the cap.

[RaisyDaisy]

Excellent work Os - much appreciated

So at this stage, this proposal is simply to replace the cap, but does not include poaching right? So we just trade as per normal but need to now keep under a salary cap as opposed to points cap?

I think the average over 2-3 years and durability factors are great, but I'm not sure about the premium factor only because guys like Neale, Bont etc etc who might only have 1 year of premium scores will be undervalued because it looks over the past 2-3 years

In regards to the age factor being discussed, the issue there is that every year you will need to readjust every players value. I know you will have to do that with their averages and durability anyway, but I don't think ages should be factored into their value because ages is something we all take into consideration when negotiating and evaluating trades anyway

Instead of age, what about overall points scored factor? It's not the exactly the same as durability too so average, overall points and durability is my 2c to think about :)

[Holz]

Excellent work Os - much appreciated

So at this stage, this proposal is simply to replace the cap, but does not include poaching right? So we just trade as per normal but need to now keep under a salary cap as opposed to points cap?

I think the average over 2-3 years and durability factors are great, but I'm not sure about the premium factor only because guys like Neale, Bont etc etc who might only have 1 year of premium scores will be undervalued because it looks over the past 2-3 years

In regards to the age factor being discussed, the issue there is that every year you will need to readjust every players value. I know you will have to do that with their averages and durability anyway, but I don't think ages should be factored into their value because ages is something we all take into consideration when negotiating and evaluating trades anyway

Instead of age, what about overall points scored factor? It's not the exactly the same as durability too so average, overall points and durability is my 2c to think about :)

but if its something we take into account then trading shouldnt it take into account in the cap. If we are talking equalisation it should be quality of the list and not just that output for the year. This hurts Dublin but in no way should Mexico have a value higher then me, this is not to come off as bragging or anything but if people had the choice of poaching a team would you rather poach Dublin's or Mexico.

I feel pacific and berlin are a little low on the list i would much prefer their lists then Rio, Meixco.

The age should balance that out. In the extreme if you had a team of 25 year olds who average 150 a week and a team of 32 year olds who average 155 a week. Who really is the stronger team.

[RaisyDaisy]

The concern I have with that though Holz is that if it's being taken into account in the cap, and then it also gets taken into account in trade negotiations (Because it will always) then it's essentially being factored in twice

[Holz]

The concern I have with that though Holz is that if it's being taken into account in the cap, and then it also gets taken into account in trade negotiations (Because it will always) then it's essentially being factored in twice

isnt that the point. The cap should reflect the value of a players worth and in trading that should reflect the players worth. So everything that is factored in a trade should be factored in the cap.

Its like saying scoring ability is factored in trading so it shouldn't be in the cap.

[GoLions]

The concern I have with that though Holz is that if it's being taken into account in the cap, and then it also gets taken into account in trade negotiations (Because it will always) then it's essentially being factored in twice

isnt that the point. The cap should reflect the value of a players worth and in trading that should reflect the players worth. So everything that is factored in a trade should be factored in the cap.

Its like saying scoring ability is factored in trading so it shouldn't be in the cap.

Yep. If Boyd and Docherty both had the same 3 year average, you wouldn't want to be paying the same amount from your salary cap for them.

[upthemaidens]

I've probably missed something, but why can't we just use the end of year SuperCoach prices as a bases for our salary cap?
     It's more reflective of SC fantasy relevance then the actual AFL salary.

[Torpedo10]

I've probably missed something, but why can't we just use the end of year SuperCoach prices as a bases for our salary cap?
     It's more reflective of SC fantasy relevance then the actual AFL salary.

A very good idea!

[Holz]

I've probably missed something, but why can't we just use the end of year SuperCoach prices as a bases for our salary cap?
     It's more reflective of SC fantasy relevance then the actual AFL salary.

Because its a rolling average formula.

So the last few rounds matter greatly for example.

Bont 107 average priced at 590k
Pendles 118 average priced at 580k
hanners 110 average priced at 490k

also the multipier drops so if someone averaged 100 leading into the season and scored 100 every week their price would drop throught the season.

so Beams 612k 3rd most expensive in the comp.

Sandi 587K, apparently better then Pendles.