AXVS: OFFICIAL TRADE THREAD (2014/15)

[SydneyRox]

Vietnam Vipers Give - Patrick Karnezis
PNG Head Hunters Give - Lee Spurr

Karnezis could go boom next year, but I am in need of defenders, Spurr is a best 22 player with a good if not spectacular average

[Rusty00]

Vietnam Vipers Give - Patrick Karnezis
PNG Head Hunters Give - Lee Spurr

Karnezis could go boom next year, but I am in need of defenders, Spurr is a best 22 player with a good if not spectacular average

Confirmed.

Taking a punt on Karnezis getting some game time and scoring well at the Pies. Spurr is solid but not in our future plans.

[Memphistopheles]

Well clearly there has been quite a bit of backlash over this decision and a few bitter feelings from a few coaches. If anyone thinks this is a dead competition, nothing is stopping them from leaving.

Now if my decision was so exceptionally poor, then I'm sure the trade committee, of 3 of the most respected FF members will see sense and allow the trade to go through. I'm not perfect and while I stand by the decision I made, I do have the ability to make mistakes, and I hope that others can respect that. That is the entire reason for having the trade committee, so that I do not have the final word.

So if everyone could now allow them to do their job and rule on this trade, we can see whether or not the decision truly is fair.

The decision to block this trade was the right one in my opinion as well.

Hibberd could potentially be the #1 defender next season and unlike the others who are challenging for that crown who are mid/forwards he will keep def for the conceivable future.

So in exchange in a trade you would expect to get perhaps a F1 or F2 for him not and F4 and a guy who's only played one real season.

You also can't say forwards outscore defenders and therefore are more valuable - in fact I'd argue the opposite. Good scoring defenders are much harder to find in this competition and as each team must start 4 on the field they are more valuable even though they score less.

Hibberd is one of maybe 25 defenders who will score well in this comp next season - McGovern is potentially one of about 100 forwards who could score well in this competition next season.

[Vlossy]

Well clearly there has been quite a bit of backlash over this decision and a few bitter feelings from a few coaches. If anyone thinks this is a dead competition, nothing is stopping them from leaving.

Now if my decision was so exceptionally poor, then I'm sure the trade committee, of 3 of the most respected FF members will see sense and allow the trade to go through. I'm not perfect and while I stand by the decision I made, I do have the ability to make mistakes, and I hope that others can respect that. That is the entire reason for having the trade committee, so that I do not have the final word.

So if everyone could now allow them to do their job and rule on this trade, we can see whether or not the decision truly is fair.

The decision to block this trade was the right one in my opinion as well.

Hibberd could potentially be the #1 defender next season and unlike the others who are challenging for that crown who are mid/forwards he will keep def for the conceivable future.

So in exchange in a trade you would expect to get perhaps a F1 or F2 for him not and F4 and a guy who's only played one real season.

You also can't say forwards outscore defenders and therefore are more valuable - in fact I'd argue the opposite. Good scoring defenders are much harder to find in this competition and as each team must start 4 on the field they are more valuable even though they score less.

Hibberd is one of maybe 25 defenders who will score well in this comp next season - McGovern is potentially one of about 100 forwards who could score well in this competition next season.

Using the above logic, please explain to me the Rioli trade.

I would have thought a fit Rioli is in the top bracket of the forwards. Might even potentially be #1 fwd next year. In exchange you got 3 players who have not played a full season combined and none of which is best 22 in their respective teams at the start of 2015. Koops and Nige went after McGovern with a plan in mind. McGovern came back from preseason at the start of the year unfit and overweight. If he has a good preseason then who knows what he is capable of. This kid will be a star imo. Clean hands and can play that swing role all teams are wanting. He played plenty down back after Glass retired and Brown got injured. He is definitely a chance for DPP and if he gets he might feature in those 25 backs you mentioned. Time will tell but his potential and upside is huge.

Always happy to hear the thoughts of others but this will be decided by the board. Nost and I will respect the decision no matter which way it falls.

[Vinny]

I reckon this is the correct decision in negging this but the Rioli one shouldn't have gone through either. One bad trade going through doesn't give reason to allow another one through so using Rioli as an argument is useless man.

[Noz]

I would actually really like to know what the rules of this trade period are.

Because on merit if you can trade Rioli for 2 players who have barely played AFL then every trade put forward should get accepted.

[Vlossy]

I reckon this is the correct decision in negging this but the Rioli one shouldn't have gone through either. One bad trade going through doesn't give reason to allow another one through so using Rioli as an argument is useless man.

More pointing out the obvious ;)

[Vlossy]

I reckon this is the correct decision in negging this but the Rioli one shouldn't have gone through either. One bad trade going through doesn't give reason to allow another one through so using Rioli as an argument is useless man.

I am not sure I agree with this comment either. I would have thought that previously approved trades set the standard on what constitutes a fair trade. Like sets a precedence.

I am only new to this comp so happy to be corrected.

[Vinny]

I disagree man.

Some times mistakes are made and trades shouldn't have been approved. I mean BB is just another guy, he does the best he can. We should be looking to learn from this and fix it the next time. A bad trade shouldn't lower standards for future ones.

Like in other comps, WXV for example, in earlier years a lot of dodgy trades went through which has caused some equalisation issues. Allowing dodgy trades now because previous ones went through just makes things worse. Now the uneven trades that go through has cut down big time.

[Vlossy]

I disagree man.

Some times mistakes are made and trades shouldn't have been approved. I mean BB is just another guy, he does the best he can. We should be looking to learn from this and fix it the next time. A bad trade shouldn't lower standards for future ones.

Like in other comps, WXV for example, in earlier years a lot of dodgy trades went through which has caused some equalisation issues. Allowing dodgy trades now because previous ones went through just makes things worse. Now the uneven trades that go through has cut down big time.

It is fine to disagree. I do what to point out though that I have never mentioned BB once. He puts in a lot of time here and he is fully aware of the respect Nost and I have for him.

I agree with the approach of learning from mistakes. I am not even sure if a mistake has been made to be truthful. Happy with whatever comes of it.  It is very important to hear all thoughts so happy for the discussion to take place. Nost and I are pretty laid back characters and this is just a game. There will always be decisions made that people dont agree with.  It is the nature of the beast haha!

[Vinny]

Haha yeah for sure man. Discussion/banter makes the comp good. :P

[Justin Bieber]

We complained about the Cyril one. We complained on this one. Wasn't like this trade was the only trade people didn't like.

[Noz]

We just like complaining

[Memphistopheles]

Well clearly there has been quite a bit of backlash over this decision and a few bitter feelings from a few coaches. If anyone thinks this is a dead competition, nothing is stopping them from leaving.

Now if my decision was so exceptionally poor, then I'm sure the trade committee, of 3 of the most respected FF members will see sense and allow the trade to go through. I'm not perfect and while I stand by the decision I made, I do have the ability to make mistakes, and I hope that others can respect that. That is the entire reason for having the trade committee, so that I do not have the final word.

So if everyone could now allow them to do their job and rule on this trade, we can see whether or not the decision truly is fair.

The decision to block this trade was the right one in my opinion as well.

Hibberd could potentially be the #1 defender next season and unlike the others who are challenging for that crown who are mid/forwards he will keep def for the conceivable future.

So in exchange in a trade you would expect to get perhaps a F1 or F2 for him not and F4 and a guy who's only played one real season.

You also can't say forwards outscore defenders and therefore are more valuable - in fact I'd argue the opposite. Good scoring defenders are much harder to find in this competition and as each team must start 4 on the field they are more valuable even though they score less.

Hibberd is one of maybe 25 defenders who will score well in this comp next season - McGovern is potentially one of about 100 forwards who could score well in this competition next season.

Using the above logic, please explain to me the Rioli trade.

I would have thought a fit Rioli is in the top bracket of the forwards. Might even potentially be #1 fwd next year. In exchange you got 3 players who have not played a full season combined and none of which is best 22 in their respective teams at the start of 2015. Koops and Nige went after McGovern with a plan in mind. McGovern came back from preseason at the start of the year unfit and overweight. If he has a good preseason then who knows what he is capable of. This kid will be a star imo. Clean hands and can play that swing role all teams are wanting. He played plenty down back after Glass retired and Brown got injured. He is definitely a chance for DPP and if he gets he might feature in those 25 backs you mentioned. Time will tell but his potential and upside is huge.

Always happy to hear the thoughts of others but this will be decided by the board. Nost and I will respect the decision no matter which way it falls.

It's simple - Rioli hasn't played a full season since 2008 which is five years ago and in the last two he played 11 and 13 games respectively (regular season). While he is capable of big scores him missing so many games is not ideal.

I traded him for a first round pick (the top 25 in this draft has plenty of potential) a guy who has just cemented his spot in the senior side and is a goalkicking midfielder (probably mid/fwd next season and in the future) with potential (played every game from Round 16 onwards and finished the season with a three-goal 117 SB point performance) and a young key forward who has been carving up the VFL and showed very good signs (3 goals and 97 SB points) on debut.

Wood just needs time and pre-seasons (he was very skinny when he was drafted) to come good - I have no doubt he will come good, Gunston style. Wood's currency may have gone back a bit due to Waite's arrival but I didn't know that when I did the deal and also Waite and Petrie will retire in 1-2 seasons which is when Wood will get his chance and then my team will be ready to challenge.

That's fair compensation imo for an injury prone gun.

Also, somewhat surprisingly that was the best deal on the table for him - no-one was offering up and good players for him which I'm guessing is due to his injury-proneness.

What seems to be the issue here which I kind of agree with is that the trade committee was brought in halfway through this trade period/after some trades have already been made and ruled on.

This means that any future trades sent to the committee were ruled on but not this one which was the controversial one of

Maybe we should open it up to the trade committee so that anyone who has a problem with a trade that was done before they were brought in can get it assessed? can't really have one rule for part of the trade period and one rule for another - although apparently you can in the AFL with Sydney :P

Though this trade getting canned would be very annoying now as I've planned for the draft etc. I'm confident it will stand up to scrutiny considering I'm getting three good chances for a good Rioli replacement and then extra.

[Nige]

Memph does raise an interesting point.

The committee was brought in after the trade period had started but yet we can't put any other rule changes to vote even though there's plenty of time before the season that they could affect?