Draft and Mini Trade for Relinquished Teams Players.

[Nige]

I'm in a similar position to the guys above yet I agree with Ringo.

[Vinny]

Yeah but surely you wouldn't pick 29+ year olds for rebuilding, it is just a massive waste so you can be semi competitive for a bit and go back to the bottom when they retire?

[kilbluff1985]

Yeah but surely you wouldn't pick 29+ year olds for rebuilding, it is just a massive waste so you can be semi competitive for a bit and go back to the bottom when they retire?

Trade bait Vinny

[Spite]

Rigged

James Aish and Bontempelli like Libba/Prestia/Treloar can go from 70s (probably like 85 in sportal) first year average players to 100+ average players without an issue. I don't think we should be restricted in just 1-2 seasons players like Bontempelli and Aish WILL be averaging more than anyone on that list if things go the right way.

Exactly this ^

Bontempelli IMO is the player on the list likely to be the best and I'd compare him with A young Pendles. To be forced to not pick a future perma-captain is not fair IMO.

Also a 90 avg player (this season if u exclude his score of 10) is definitely best XV for us over guys like Crowley and Cunningham who have been starters for us this year.

Ok see how you said "if things go the right way"? That means it's a risk. An unnecessary risk. You can select a 23 year old sheils averaging 118 for no risk or even a 27 year old 135 avg player.
This draft is meant to even the comp straight away, that's the purpose of it. All you are doing is picking for the future while the strong teams get stronger (hello if we get stokes for a year or two)  then the gap will grow between top teams and bottom teams.

Aish isn't even guaranteed to average as high as 130, sure he's good but in a team with heaps of mids will he get enough contested ball (that's what this comp values!) to get to the 130 avg?  Pointless risk.

[Vinny]

Yeah I don't mean that young but having to take a 29, 30, or even 31 year old just to have him retire in two years shouldn't be a must. They aren't super high value trade bait either.

A 27 year old is great but not that old..

[Nige]

Yeah but surely you wouldn't pick 29+ year olds for rebuilding, it is just a massive waste so you can be semi competitive for a bit and go back to the bottom when they retire?

It's not like the teams down the bottom don't have any good young players though. While these older guys age then younger guys are gonna get older, improve and probably score better.

I'm keeping Boomer until he calls time on his career and he's the older guys on my list by a mile.

Plus Spite raises a great point.

[Nails]

Adding one 135 average player to my list who just retires before the rest of my team isn't going to do much in the scheme of things.

By enabling the currently good teams to get Aish/Bontempelli it's extending the gap.

I add a 135 average to my list and it'll increase my total points by what 10-20 per week? something like that. Let a top team gain Aish - they sit Aish on the side lines but in 3-4 seasons my player has retired and they've got a 135 average player for the next 10 seasons. Therefore they've gained an even bigger advantage over me in the long run.

[Vinny]

Keeping older players for the sake of being competitive isn't worth it IMO, especially when you are only going to be competitive for a year or two with them.

It seems like we just want the competition to be competitive with all the teams short-term. There is literally no point in that, When a team has a bad list it will take time for them to get competitive and they'll have to trade out their older players and get younger ones and wait for them to develop, it just how a rebuild is.

The only reason AFL teams carry their older players during a rebuild is so they can mentor the younger guys and there is a certain level of experience guiding the rest of the team. It isn't like that in XVs.

[Nige]

Then why don't all you delist all your players over 24?

By the time your 18 year olds become their age and become great scorers all those guys will be 30.

[Ringo]

Some of you have missed the point here

I am stating that even if you are rebuilding there a 3 25 years and under players who will be in your team for the next 5 - 6 years that should be considered rather than players who are still risks. To also give you the chance to be competitive and not wait 5 years.

[Spite]

Keeping older players for the sake of being competitive isn't worth it IMO, especially when you are only going to be competitive for a year or two with them.

It seems like we just want the competition to be competitive with all the teams short-term. There is literally no point in that, When a team has a bad list it will take time for them to get competitive and they'll have to trade out their older players and get younger ones and wait for them to develop, it just how a rebuild is.

The only reason AFL teams carry their older players during a rebuild is so they can mentor the younger guys and there is a certain level of experience guiding the rest of the team. It isn't like that in XVs.

Ok fine so explain to me this - not including people who didn't draft their initial team - why are we helping anyone for their own fault of drafting a terrible team? It was literally two seasons ago, how can people mess up so badly they need to have concession after concession? If they drafted a team with the AIM of being successful in five or so years (therefore drafting young guns) then they deserve to be at the bottom since it was their plan and they do not deserve to have these extra picks to help them out.

Any bonus for coming near last should be phased out now and not re-added to the game for atleast two more seasons.

If the recycled player draft is going to be used how it's planning to be used - I vote that it be scrapped and all players go into the NATIONAL draft. Then teams wanting young players will get more young players and everyone gets what they want.
For example - we will pick up a 22 year old, meaning a first rounder in real life will slip into the second round for steins etc to take

[Nails]

Then why don't all you delist all your players over 24?

By the time your 18 year olds become their age and become great scorers all those guys will be 30.

and some of the highest averaging players are 30. It's perfect. 30.

It's perfect you want your peak old players at 30 and your young ones at ~24-25. It's about the perfect mix.

Getting one higher averaging player is a 10-20 point boost, it isn't going to help us win more games, we'll score a total of 20 BXV points more for the season...

Get Aish we're good for 12 seasons, get one of the others we good for 4.

Got to also consider that our teams are improving with players like David Swallow, Ebert, Conca, Leuenberger and whoever else is we're on the way up.

[LF]

Keeping older players for the sake of being competitive isn't worth it IMO, especially when you are only going to be competitive for a year or two with them.

It seems like we just want the competition to be competitive with all the teams short-term. There is literally no point in that, When a team has a bad list it will take time for them to get competitive and they'll have to trade out their older players and get younger ones and wait for them to develop, it just how a rebuild is.

The only reason AFL teams carry their older players during a rebuild is so they can mentor the younger guys and there is a certain level of experience guiding the rest of the team. It isn't like that in XVs.

Ok fine so explain to me this - not including people who didn't draft their initial team - why are we helping anyone for their own fault of drafting a terrible team? It was literally two seasons ago, how can people mess up so badly they need to have concession after concession? If they drafted a team with the AIM of being successful in five or so years (therefore drafting young guns) then they deserve to be at the bottom since it was their plan and they do not deserve to have these extra picks to help them out.

Any bonus for coming near last should be phased out now and not re-added to the game for atleast two more seasons.

If the recycled player draft is going to be used how it's planning to be used - I vote that it be scrapped and all players go into the NATIONAL draft. Then teams wanting young players will get more young players and everyone gets what they want.
For example - we will pick up a 22 year old, meaning a first rounder in real life will slip into the second round for steins etc to take

I originally suggested the players from the 2 teams should go straight to the rookie draft and not have a recycled player draft
Nat Draft should just be kept for best new young draftees and nobody else.

[Nige]

Got the best idea yet. Everyone with players 21 or younger must trade them to Memph, Nails and Vin or they're banned from BXVs for eternity.  :)

[Nails]

Some of you have missed the point here

I am stating that even if you are rebuilding there a 3 25 years and under players who will be in your team for the next 5 - 6 years that should be considered rather than players who are still risks. To also give you the chance to be competitive and not wait 5 years.

They'll be good for 4-5 years.

Just as Boyd, Hartung and co. start to be any good they'll be gone. We won't be truly competitive if we can't get players developing our future. Aish is every of being a 100+ average player next season.

We'd be a LOT better off with him developing with players like Boyd, Hartung, McStay etc. than have 1 player peaking when the rest of our squad is still growing.

In the long run we're more likely to be a top 4 grand final threat with Aish than say Marc Murphy who'd just make us more likely to finish 12th instead of 15th.

End of the day I'd prefer not be competitive for another 2 seasons and then be a real threat for the premiership than feel good about finishing 12th next season.