AXVS: OFFICIAL TRADE THREAD (2014/15)

[Jroo]

Can trades be rejected because of team balance, competitiveness next year, tanking, etc. ??

Because Tbag already has 5-6 pretty good forwards, so why would he trade out his best mid, when he already has a weak midfield, for another really average forward.

Surely that has to be looked at. (Both from a tanking POV and the trade isn't exactly even).

[JBs-Hawks]

Lol.

[tbagrocks]

What's the difference between having 6 good forwards and 6 good mids? Forwards are as good as mids in this comp ;) so having one or two utilities of forwards is up to a Coaches discretion!

[Jroo]

What's the difference between having 6 good forwards and 6 good mids? Forwards are as good as mids in this comp ;) so having one or two utilities of forwards is up to a Coaches discretion!

Not really, I'd take a mid over a fwd every day. But as you said it's up to the coach.
I know there's more mids than fwds, but only 40 fwds averaged over 100 this year. 121 mids averaged over 100.

I was just saying you've only really got Neale, Macrae, Hill and Viney as mids. Not sure why you'd trade out your highest scoring player for a fwd who wouldn't even start for you.

[tbagrocks]

What's the difference between having 6 good forwards and 6 good mids? Forwards are as good as mids in this comp ;) so having one or two utilities of forwards is up to a Coaches discretion!

Not really, I'd take a mid over a fwd every day. But as you said it's up to the coach.
I know there's more mids than fwds, but only 40 fwds averaged over 100 this year. 121 mids averaged over 100.

I was just saying you've only really got Neale, Macrae, Hill and Viney as mids. Not sure why you'd trade out your highest scoring player for a fwd who wouldn't even start for you.

I disagree, Cas will start, more than likely play 5-6 forwards this year too. Remember who went at #1 pick back in the inaugural AXV draft? (That thread still top 6 on the site btw :o )

Yes it was a forward, not Gary Ablett but a forward. Forwards score as well as mids in this comp and having half a dozen gooduns, might be an advantage ;D

[BB67th]

I will get around to ruling on trades momentarily.

At the moment we are left without a trade committee really, so my suggestion is that the committee is dissolved for now, with all trade decisions made by me. We can then have a vote on what to do about a committee before next year's trade period, which is probably what should have happened in the first place. My apologies that we did not have a vote on it to start with.

That does still leave trades involving my team, but I don't think any trades I make are too uneven or should cause too much controversy. If there is a situation where one of my trades attracts a lot of attention from a few coaches, we can look at what to do with it then.

[Jroo]

I will get around to ruling on trades momentarily.

At the moment we are left without a trade committee really, so my suggestion is that the committee is dissolved for now, with all trade decisions made by me. We can then have a vote on what to do about a committee before next year's trade period, which is probably what should have happened in the first place. My apologies that we did not have a vote on it to start with.

That does still leave trades involving my team, but I don't think any trades I make are too uneven or should cause too much controversy. If there is a situation where one of my trades attracts a lot of attention from a few coaches, we can look at what to do with it then.

Yep good stuff BB, probably the best way to go about it now.

[BB67th]

ok might as well post an actual trade in the trade thread...

KL Crocs give: Gibbs + R47
Folders give: Malceski + Dal Santo

BB to confirm.

Losing Gibbs and bringing in two old guys was tough given he is about to hit his prime but reason is our backline is our weakest line and Malceski strengthens that. NDS adds some mid depth


Trade will have to be split over two periods.

Period 1
Crocs give: R47
Folders give: NDS

Period 2
Crocs give: BGibbs
Folders give: Malceski

CONFIRMED

Reasoning: I am giving up two premium older players for a younger premium who can be my team's captain for a few years to come. The pick is just a little extra bit to even it up.

[Noz]

Though that I don't disagree with the trade BB you really shouldnt be confirming your own trades.

[BB67th]

Though that I don't disagree with the trade BB you really shouldnt be confirming your own trades.

I do agree, I don't really feel comfortable about it, but with no trade committee now, I'm not too sure what other action there is to take.

I am open to suggestions though :)

[Noz]

Though that I don't disagree with the trade BB you really shouldnt be confirming your own trades.

I do agree, I don't really feel comfortable about it, but with no trade committee now, I'm not too sure what other action there is to take.

I am open to suggestions though :)

Like I said BB this is a good trade so not looking to cause an argument here.  :)

Perhaps a voting system would work best for example if you have declined a trade then you can put it up to a vote that only coaches can participate in.

For example just going back to this trade for an example.

McGovern and Hibberd trade you declined it so you would then put it up to a vote where each coach can vote Yes or No and the majority rules. This way you can''t have upset coaches with the outcome because the majority of coaches on this forum have voted for or against the trade.

[BB67th]

Strikers give:  Casboult+ N#14+ N#62+ R#46+ R#62

Llamas give:  Mundy+ N#35+ N#67+ R#35

Tbag to confirm

We have a Forward favouring system, we at the Llamas favour our forwards for this reason and we are glad to welcome aboard a new and exciting forward in place of the ol, try long, try hard midfielder, which we think our younger team will step into and produce from next season

Confirm

BLOCKED

Reasoning: This trade really doesn't get through for two reasons. The first being that a 125 average midfielder is being traded for an 85 average forward, and a pick upgrade from 35 to 14 (the other picks involved more or less even themselves out). While Mundy is older, he still has 2-3 quality years of football in him as a premium, and Casboult is no rookie either, being 25 by the time next season starts.
There is also the fact of team balance, which is taken into consideration, though not as much as the fairness of the trade itself. I feel the Llamas are placing themselves in a very risky position, with quite a weak midfield at this stage, and here they are trading away what would probably be their captain for a player who comes in at F4 for them at best.

[Rids]

Noz is correct.

I understand the decision but think it would be more fair to just replace the trade committee members for 2 reasons.

1. It was introduced for the whole reason to take the heat off BB and assist him and the comp in regards to trades. I agree with why it was introduced.

2. Other trades have been determined by the use of the committee.

My suggestion is that 3 coaches from other clubs form the new committee. These members should be decided on by a rotating roster so each club in the comp gets represented at some time eg: ladder positions from last year, top 3 teams form the first committee for trade A, next 3 teams form the next committee for trade B and so on.

[Noz]

Noz is correct.

I understand the decision but think it would be more fair to just replace the trade committee members for 2 reasons.

1. It was introduced for the whole reason to take the heat off BB and assist him and the comp in regards to trades. I agree with why it was introduced.

2. Other trades have been determined by the use of the committee.

My suggestion is that 3 coaches from other clubs form the new committee. These members should be decided on by a rotating roster so each club in the comp gets represented at some time eg: ladder positions from last year, top 3 teams form the first committee for trade A, next 3 teams form the next committee for trade B and so on.

I don't see why we all can't be apart of the committee everything in this competition gets put to a vote and everyone has their opportunity to vote so why not let every coach be in the committee and have a chance to vote.

[Rids]

Noz is correct.

I understand the decision but think it would be more fair to just replace the trade committee members for 2 reasons.

1. It was introduced for the whole reason to take the heat off BB and assist him and the comp in regards to trades. I agree with why it was introduced.

2. Other trades have been determined by the use of the committee.

My suggestion is that 3 coaches from other clubs form the new committee. These members should be decided on by a rotating roster so each club in the comp gets represented at some time eg: ladder positions from last year, top 3 teams form the first committee for trade A, next 3 teams form the next committee for trade B and so on.

I don't see why we all can't be apart of the committee everything in this competition gets put to a vote and everyone has their opportunity to vote so why not let every coach be in the committee and have a chance to vote.

It could work for sure. Was more thinking of keeping it similar to what had been introduced with the 3 members.