WXV Trade Talk

[Jroo]

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

Yeah, i actually agree with this

[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. 

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

Sorry but when I went to school this is how I would do it.

4 to 5  is + 1
54 to 45 is - 9
59 - 47 is -12
88 - 57 is - 31
so that adds up to an advantage of 51 picks according to my simple maths. I do not think even you can argue against this simple maths. Do not see how you can argue 54 + 88 = 47 as according to reports only 70 players may be picked up so there may not even be a pick 88.

Can not also believe that you passed Trade 116 with the possibility of leaving Dildos a player short with Nahas de-listing.

[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

Sorry but when I went to school this is how I would do it.

4 to 5  is + 1
54 to 45 is - 9
59 - 47 is -12
88 - 57 is - 31
so that adds up to an advantage of 51 picks according to my simple maths. I do not think even you can argue against this simple maths. Do not see how you can argue 54 + 88 = 47 as according to reports only 70 players may be picked up so there may not even be a pick 88.

lol simple maths? mate every single pick has a different value. A pick in the 80s does not hold the same value as a pick in the 20s. Same goes for a pick upgrade in the ass end of the draft compared to the top end. So your 'simple maths' can't really be used to evaluate a trade like this

oh and this draft doesn't just include those kids taken in the National draft so n88 holds some value

[Jay]

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

[Ringo]

Still does not alter the fact that there is a substantial upward movement in pick order for one of the parties which in my opinion is grossly unfair and you will not convince me otherwise with your spin. Bet you would be down on me if I was getting an increase of 51 pick positions in the Royals but thats right you did your best to try and get our trades negged as being unfair, Do not comment often in the thread but some of the trades that are going through are ridiculous and some that are getting negged do not deserve to be. But you will have the last word as usual Rico.

[meow meow]

So giving up picks #11 and #70 is equal to #1 and #80 since it's a 10 position movement each time? Come on Ringo.

The picks in the 45+ range are highly speculatative and not worth a great deal. NDT have a slight win but nothing major. Definitely not worth worrying about.

[Ricochet]

Still does not alter the fact that there is a substantial upward movement in pick order for one of the parties which in my opinion is grossly unfair and you will not convince me otherwise with your spin. Bet you would be down on me if I was getting an increase of 51 pick positions in the Royals but thats right you did your best to try and get our trades negged as being unfair, Do not comment often in the thread but some of the trades that are going through are ridiculous and some that are getting negged do not deserve to be. But you will have the last word as usual Rico.

really? grow up mate.
I was just explaining the trade broken down and how we see it

[ossie85]

Ok, let's say the move from pick 5 to 4 is worth '100 points'

So, to be even, that would still mean that every other pick increase (the 51 extra spots) would need to be worth on average 2 points!

What we're saying, is the move from pick 5 to 4 is worth, on average, FIFTY times more than all the other picks.

[JBs-Hawks]

The trade is basically when broken down.

Heeney for Laverde + mediocre player

nothing wrong at all

[Nige]

Trade 113
Rio give: Rory Thompson + Nat 10
Cairo give: Andrew Mackie
Votes Against: 4
Coach Comments: Believe that too much is being paid for Mackie, an older defender with limited scoring power
Admin Comments: Ive ummed and arred about this one. Basically Pick 10 was traded for McKenzie earlier (ish), and Mackie was basically swapped for Giles. So does Rory Thompson + Trent McKenzie for Jon Giles make sense? Just. But in the end swapping 2 young players for an older one. Sorry guys, think Cairo need to add a bit more ( a draft pick or something).
Final result: REJECTED

A Cairo trade rejected?  :o :'(

Only took until the final lot of trades, I thought our luck was too good to be true.

My only hesitation was that I had no idea how people valued Rory Thompson and Andrew Mackie so didn't know whether to add something our side of the deal (Mackie) to get it across the line, I guess we'll add a pick to even it out.

[ossie85]

The trade is basically when broken down.

Heeney for Laverde + mediocre player

nothing wrong at all

It may seem obvious now which player is going to be good, but its rarely the case. Jack Watts, Tom Scully, Jack Trengove, Scott Gumbleton... and even more recently in O'Rourke..

Langdon went in the 60s... So many variables.

[JBs-Hawks]

Trade 113
Rio give: Rory Thompson + Nat 10
Cairo give: Andrew Mackie
Votes Against: 4
Coach Comments: Believe that too much is being paid for Mackie, an older defender with limited scoring power
Admin Comments: Ive ummed and arred about this one. Basically Pick 10 was traded for McKenzie earlier (ish), and Mackie was basically swapped for Giles. So does Rory Thompson + Trent McKenzie for Jon Giles make sense? Just. But in the end swapping 2 young players for an older one. Sorry guys, think Cairo need to add a bit more ( a draft pick or something).
Final result: REJECTED

How does the trade voting actually work seeing as this only had 4/17 cotes against?

A Cairo trade rejected?  :o :'(

Only took until the final lot of trades, I thought our luck was too good to be true.

My only hesitation was that I had no idea how people valued Rory Thompson and Andrew Mackie so didn't know whether to add something our side of the deal (Mackie) to get it across the line, I guess we'll add a pick to even it out.

How does the trade voting actually work seeing as this only had 4/17 cotes against?

[meow meow]

It's not even, but neg-worthy? Maybe if it was 30's down to 20's, but not that late in the draft.

4/5 - meh
45/54 - meh
47/59 - meh
57/88 - meh

57 will probably be as much of a spud as 88

[Nige]

Trade 113
Rio give: Rory Thompson + Nat 10
Cairo give: Andrew Mackie
Votes Against: 4
Coach Comments: Believe that too much is being paid for Mackie, an older defender with limited scoring power
Admin Comments: Ive ummed and arred about this one. Basically Pick 10 was traded for McKenzie earlier (ish), and Mackie was basically swapped for Giles. So does Rory Thompson + Trent McKenzie for Jon Giles make sense? Just. But in the end swapping 2 young players for an older one. Sorry guys, think Cairo need to add a bit more ( a draft pick or something).
Final result: REJECTED

A Cairo trade rejected?  :o :'(

Only took until the final lot of trades, I thought our luck was too good to be true.

My only hesitation was that I had no idea how people valued Rory Thompson and Andrew Mackie so didn't know whether to add something our side of the deal (Mackie) to get it across the line, I guess we'll add a pick to even it out.

How does the trade voting actually work seeing as this only had 4/17 cotes against?

I think the rule is that a trade needs 6 votes against to stop it from passing. 4 coaches negged it and Oss admin vote is worth 3 votes so I think that meant 7 votes against which is why it didn't go through. Basically, it hinged on how Oss felt about it.

[JBs-Hawks]

The trade is basically when broken down.

Heeney for Laverde + mediocre player

nothing wrong at all

It may seem obvious now which player is going to be good, but its rarely the case. Jack Watts, Tom Scully, Jack Trengove, Scott Gumbleton... and even more recently in O'Rourke..

Langdon went in the 60s... So many variables.

We can say that about any player in hindsight. Rocky went in rookie draft. But all we can go on now is how they are currently rated based on their junior results and so far top 4 are streets ahead of the rest.