Equalisation Idea

[Purple 77]

Great post ric.

Sticking with the brother though with the minimum points cap though. Yes monty had value at the end of last year, but if you had traded him, this year would have been even worse.

Raines had every chance to get the same amount of points this year, and if he did, you would have had one more player to choose from. You didn't pay anything that would have you better anyway. Getting depth players was the reason I went up from 16th to 4th... and probably the horrible reign of some coaches.

But agree with everything else! You guys actually had a really good trading period. Didn't realise till now.

[Master Q]

Let's not turn this  into a trade brag thread  :P

[DazBurg]

I also think the voting on trades as was the case in the first years also contributed to the imbalance as thewre were trades that should have been negated and rules in place to negate made it hard.  This has now been rectified, just another statement as well.

That Liberatore deal last year that 13 teams let through gives me doubts. Here's hoping for harsher vetoing.

i'm kinda getting sick of people pointing out this trade
this trade is what needs to be done imo everyone complains of the poor lower clubs
NY need forwards we needed another big mid
yet NY have libba, macrae, treloar, bennell, stokes, let alone other youth
but for fowards theyhave? oh travis cloke
but let's break it down a little
ok libba is a gun and averages 110.3 which atm makes him 14th for mids
Mckenzie averages 81 which is 35 for defenders
and yes ball gone down alot averaging only 74.7 at 129th for mids
bust westy averages 90.3 which is 16th for forwards
and pick 6 was jack billings a mid/fwd with huge potential who averages 61 already

my point is yes libba and cannon younger but not as bad as everyone makes out because the teams were TRADING for needs
if this is viewed as unfair to NY then i'm sorry Ossie you cap idea where you want to put a cap and say s forwards are worth more is the exact reason it is total crap

as everyone here views libba worth twice as much so there for we should not get such penaltyies with the way you want it structured as in trade everyone expects same for same

(BTW i know you pointed out how easy it was for us to get under the cap so that isn't the issue the issue is this proves as much as you say forwards are hard ot come by i see no one offering alot for high averaging forwards)

now i'm not saying that trade is perfectly even but the way everyone keeps saying this is whats wrong with the comp is the exact reason it is lopsided

you can not value the same for a straight forward or back as a mid

and i'm totally against loss of picks for clubs that make the finals
PNL made the finals for the first time ever so i wouldn't say we are dominate enough to lose a pick

[elephants]

Let's not turn this  into a trade brag thread  :P

Haha, that wasn't the point of our post :P

[Memphistopheles]

No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.

There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.

This ^

Trying to equalise the comp now is a mistake.

In other XV comps (BXV, AXV) I like that I have a very poor team and have to work to improve my situation.

As long as stupid trades are not put through from here on in and managers care about their teams the bottom sides should naturally come to the top.

If they don't then perhaps we need to consider 'manager/coach' sackings in real life which happens when a club is not satisfied with their performance.

If it looks like a coach is not actively trying to improve the team in the offseason (for example the bottom clubs do no trades) then they could be on the chopping block.

[Nails]

I vote to get rid of minimum cap :-X prevents teams from properly rebuilding imo. Currently with a minimum cap the dildos (can we officially change our name to dildos? I'm guessing no) are going to run into trouble rebuilding. We'll have to trade out a bunch of our old farts now but we won't be able to traded all out otherwise we'll hit the minimum cap. We'll still be useless but the problem we'll have is we'll lose half our players that we can't move on due to retirement next year. Therefore also hurting our future because we couldn't trade all the imminent retirees out. If there was no minimum cap yes we'll still be terrible but at least we'll be able to establish our future better.

[Nige]

No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.

There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.

This ^

Trying to equalise the comp now is a mistake.

In other XV comps (BXV, AXV) I like that I have a very poor team and have to work to improve my situation.

As long as stupid trades are not put through from here on in and managers care about their teams the bottom sides should naturally come to the top.

If they don't then perhaps we need to consider 'manager/coach' sackings in real life which happens when a club is not satisfied with their performance.

If it looks like a coach is not actively trying to improve the team in the offseason (for example the bottom clubs do no trades) then they could be on the chopping block.

Start replying some PMs, kthx.

[ossie85]

I vote to get rid of minimum cap :-X prevents teams from properly rebuilding imo. Currently with a minimum cap the dildos (can we officially change our name to dildos? I'm guessing no) are going to run into trouble rebuilding. We'll have to trade out a bunch of our old farts now but we won't be able to traded all out otherwise we'll hit the minimum cap. We'll still be useless but the problem we'll have is we'll lose half our players that we can't move on due to retirement next year. Therefore also hurting our future because we couldn't trade all the imminent retirees out. If there was no minimum cap yes we'll still be terrible but at least we'll be able to establish our future better.

there has to be a short term long term balance.  I don't want teams to only be able to field 10 players a week for the sake of long term

[Nails]

I vote to get rid of minimum cap :-X prevents teams from properly rebuilding imo. Currently with a minimum cap the dildos (can we officially change our name to dildos? I'm guessing no) are going to run into trouble rebuilding. We'll have to trade out a bunch of our old farts now but we won't be able to traded all out otherwise we'll hit the minimum cap. We'll still be useless but the problem we'll have is we'll lose half our players that we can't move on due to retirement next year. Therefore also hurting our future because we couldn't trade all the imminent retirees out. If there was no minimum cap yes we'll still be terrible but at least we'll be able to establish our future better.

there has to be a short term long term balance.  I don't want teams to only be able to field 10 players a week for the sake of long term

at least they'll be truly competitive in 5 seasons time as opposed to permanently struggling in 8th due to losing half our trade-able players to retirement :(

Don't let the dildos go floppy, ban the minimum cap!

[Vinny]

I don't like the minimum cap either. Teams aren't crazy enough to trade their guys out so they have no XV you gotta rebuild within reason of course.

[Memphistopheles]

No, this is not needed. The teams will balance themselves out over time when the kids that Pacific, Beijing and NDT have start hitting their primes and the old guys that the Suns and Dongs have start dropping off.

There's always going to be bad teams, let the coaches fix it with smart trading and drafting.

This ^

Trying to equalise the comp now is a mistake.

In other XV comps (BXV, AXV) I like that I have a very poor team and have to work to improve my situation.

As long as stupid trades are not put through from here on in and managers care about their teams the bottom sides should naturally come to the top.

If they don't then perhaps we need to consider 'manager/coach' sackings in real life which happens when a club is not satisfied with their performance.

If it looks like a coach is not actively trying to improve the team in the offseason (for example the bottom clubs do no trades) then they could be on the chopping block.

Start replying some PMs, kthx.

Went away this weekend and Mondays/Tuesdays are very busy at the moment.

Slowly getting through them all now.

[ossie85]

New Idea

Thanks to meow (or forward slash - man), for this idea. Though I've adjusted his idea somewhat.

Meow's idea was to merge 2 teams, and create a new team with draft concessions (with the ability to poach at an extremely minor level.  i.e. The top team can nominated 15 untouchables, 2nd team 16, 3rd team 17, up to the 8th team).

I'd like to propose that we merge the FOUR teams (Wellington, Pacific, New Delhi, Beijing) into 3. Wellington and Pacific merging in name only to the 'Pacific Warriors' (name negotiable lol) with Jayman and pothead merging as co-coaches (if they consent), and a 4th team created (Christchurch Saints :P lol). The Christchurch Saints will be co-coaches by meow and kilbluff (if they concent)

Wellington, New Delhi and Beijing.

- Name 15 players to keep.

Pacific

Lose its entire player list.

Pacific Warriors, New Delhi and Beijing

These 3 teams complete its squad with a mini draft. Drafted from players from the Pacific squad, and the remaining squads of Wellington, New Delhi and Beijing.

Beijing will receive pick 1, New Delhi pick 2, and Pacific Warriors pick 3.

The three teams do NOT receive any further draft picks to use (unless they have any unexpected AFL delistings or retirements, which would happen at the end of the draft).


Basically turning 160ish players into 120ish players. This has to improve the playing list dramatically.

Christchurch Saints

Get the remaining players, which should constitute at 20 to 30 players.

They will get picks 4, 5 and 6. And basically all picks originally allocated to Wellington, New Delhi, Pacific and Beijing. Picks 21, 22, 23, 24 in 2nd round, 39, 40, 41, 42 in 3rd round, etc.

SO NONE OF THE TOP 14 TEAMS LOSE ANY PLACE IN DRAFT PICKS.

The top 8 teams would also lose 1 player.

The top ranked team would nominate 15 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The second ranked team would nominate 16 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The third ranked team would nominate 17 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The fourth ranked team would nominate 18 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The fifth ranked team would nominate 19 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The sixth ranked team would nominate 20 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The seventh ranked team would nominate 21 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.
The eight ranked team would nominate 22 untouchables. Christchurch can select any other player.

[kilbluff1985]

yeah i'm not going to be co coach with a troll

[Nige]

Doesn't harm us, so I'm all for it.  :P

[Nails]

flower off with this merging bullshower. Dillos are likely a bottom 4 team next year, who can I merge with?

NO

flower MERGING.