WXV Trade Talk

[JBs-Hawks]

Im clearly on the same wave length as everyone else. The two trades i negged we're pased comfortably haha

[kilbluff1985]

btw i assume with rejected trades only those 2 teams can discuss a new deal and other teams cant put in offers?

since trade period is finished

[Ricochet]

Haha I got no idea what's going on.

the copy and paste bug was in affect with one of the trades and one of the coaches comments was just 'Believe JROO'

Oh hahah, I just missed it.

haha i lost it

[ossie85]

btw i assume with rejected trades only those 2 teams can discuss a new deal and other teams cant put in offers?

since trade period is finished

correct

[RaisyDaisy]

To the coaches who negged our Libba/Bennell for Boak/Gunston trade: Seeing as we can only deal with holz to try and rejig this what sort of changes do you need to see to pass this?

As previously mentioned, we only gave up 10ppg based on this years averages, but getting a guaranteed career forward and Boak being 26 entering his absolute prime made this deal fair in our opinions

So what can we do?

Seeing as age was such a big concern for you, the only option I see is holz changing Boak to Sloane, but he isn't going to do that, so that leaves us stumped :(

[Hellopplz]

Oh geez, I'm on a bus and cracked up at the believe Jroo comment ;D. Luckily I'm at the back and nobody noticed...

Yay PNL's trades passed :D. Thought the Kade deal would get more heat :x.

[Ringo]

For the life of me I can not see how you all approved trade 115 without the analysis I did.  Giving away that I was the coach who voted against it.  How you can give Capetown an improvement of 51 picks overall over New Delhi really surprises me, especially with the positions of both New Delhi and Capetown in the competition, but as you all voted for it will accept.
Feel I had to say something on this trade as it did not sit easy with me. 

[kilbluff1985]

i think it's fine like most others the 54 spots they move up are in the second half of the draft and worth hardly anything

[Ricochet]

For the life of me I can not see how you all approved trade 115 without the analysis I did.  Giving away that I was the coach who voted against it.  How you can give Capetown an improvement of 51 picks overall over New Delhi really surprises me, especially with the positions of both New Delhi and Capetown in the competition, but as you all voted for it will accept.
Feel I had to say something on this trade as it did not sit easy with me. 

Top 3-4 of this draft have a pretty clear gap on the rest imo mate. Thats why we went hard after it. It now locks away 2 of Petrecca, Heeney, McCartin or Brayshaw for us.

NDT gives: Nat 5 + Nat 45, Nat 47 and Nat 57
Cape Town gives: Nat 4 + Nat 54 + Nat 59 + Nat 88

So N57 basically = N59

Leaving
Nat 5 + Nat 45, Nat 47 + Nat 57
Nat 4 + Nat 54 + Nat 88 + Nat 59

Nat 54 + N88 roughly = N47

So that leaves
Nat 5 + Nat 45 + Nat 47 + Nat 57
Nat 4 + Nat 54 + Nat 88 + Nat 59

Think thats pretty reasonable

[meow meow]

I don't think getting a guy who might play 4 games at an average of 40 instead of a guy who might play 3 games at an average of 35 is what I would consider to be grossly unjust and something that is going to ruin the competition.

As for the Rockliff trade... prepare yourselves for a wall of text

[Holz]

Would love to hear the argument how christchuch is winning by too much in the Rocky trade.

I say its top 10 biggest ever trade losses for them

[meow meow]

Based on last year:

Rocky (c) 264
Gilbert 55
319

Sandi (c) 216
Gibbs 106
322

This trade can't be negged on a short term points basis since it is statistically even. The ages/remaining seasons of players involved is close enough to being spot on even. That right there is enough proof for it to pass.

You might think that Rocky can't maintain his average, but you could easily say that a fit Gilbert will improve enough to make up for it. Short term it is dead even.

Gilbert and Sandi have roughly the same amount of years left, same with Gibbs and Rocky. In 2 years when Sandi and Gilbert are gone it will be Rocky (264) vs Gibbs (212). Massive win for Christchurch, right? No. Long term it is a slight loss for me but I think the gap will close (240 vs 220) so that softens the blow.

I'm willing to take the slight long term loss to get some short term ruck cover... even though Wilbur is the only ruck that I need. Do you think that I would have traded out HMac, Hannath, Lowden, Daw and Downie if I didn't intend on bringing in another ruck? The value of me getting ruck cover has to be factored in. The pros vs cons even themselves out and it's fair.

If all this is wrong, then show me how and why it should be negged?

[Jroo]

Yeah well said meow.

For me, I've got plenty of depth (Stokes and Christo can't even start in my side!), so don't mind losing some in making 10-15 points on Gibbs.

I don't see why I should give up more, when I'm already losing two 105+ players for one 120 player.

[JBs-Hawks]

People just get scared when big name players are involved  and hit the neg

[Vinny]

People just get scared when big name players are involved  and hit the neg