We clearly need the debates - keep them coming - all discussion on improvements and clarification is welcome! My personal views are this: A coach owns all his picks, live or not, and can do what he likes with them. The reasoning behind this is that we now trade multiple drafts in advance, so how can we even know if a (later) pick that is being traded now, will be live come the actual draft time. Its just not possible, so all picks should be fair game. I never liked the idea of trading during drafts - it gets messy (can anyone think of an example???) - but the majority agreed to it, so we have it and need t manage it. It can slow things down, but thats a risk we need to take. The trade between Korumburra and Pearcedale was legal as per our rules, but I didn't agree with it as it seemed lop sided. I expressed that, but didn't actually veto myself (and as commissioner, I always wonder whether I should ever veto anything, or just be the "final say" in matters). In trade five, also involving Korumburra, MSD44 was traded for PSD R3 (placing a certain perceived value on both picks - basically R3 for R3). In the now vetoed trade, MSD14 was to be traded for PSD R4 (basically R1 for R4). This places a completely different value on each pick, as an MSD pick 30 places earlier was now valued at PSD R4, or approximately 18 places less (yes, not exactly...). Kudos to Mick for putting in a ballsy offer for MSD14, but the perceived value changed way too dramatically for my liking. As commissioner: We don't make rule changes on the run - that's a very bad idea. Any rule(s) that any coach wants changed / added / removed, should be brought up, discussed, and properly debated. We can then all informatively vote on all proposals. As per this current situation between Korumburra and Pearcedale: The trade was legal. All picks are considered to be owned by a coach, whether they are live or not (this has become more complex since in-draft trading was introduced, and it looks like it needs to be voted on again). All trades are subject to veto. The minimum number of vetoes were cast, so the trade was voided. The draft must now continue.
I'm going to propose that all vetos must be accompanied by reasoning. I'm perfectly fine with vetos that are justified, but a "sour grapes" veto because some coach got a good deal that you missed out on, is not ok.
In trade five, also involving Korumburra, MSD44 was traded for PSD R3 (placing a certain perceived value on both picks - basically R3 for R3). In the now vetoed trade, MSD14 was to be traded for PSD R4 (basically R1 for R4). This places a completely different value on each pick, as an MSD pick 30 places earlier was now valued at PSD R4, or approximately 18 places less (yes, not exactly...). Kudos to Mick for putting in a ballsy offer for MSD14, but the perceived value changed way too dramatically for my liking. I’m not sure your perceived value matters. As we have said before, people’s perceptions on trades can vary widely, there is no exact science on what someone wants and is happy with. The completely different value on each pick traded above you mention, is your perception on the value and not a written formula and not exactly what the coaches involved believe is the value. For every trade that takes place there will always be different views on value it’s just how management works. Value is in the eye of the beholder Like I said before, vetos are no good and are being used the wrong way
It is very possible old mate, we will always have 4 mandatory picks in the PSD, so trading away any of your first 4 rounds of draft picks is easy to follow. Anything after forces coaches to delist or trade so he has exactly the same amount of draft picks as list spaces available. MSD is basically the same, if you trade away future 3rd round MSD draft picks then you’ll have to have 3 list spots free prior to draft. Obviously keeping note of future trades and policing coaches on how many list spaces they need free prior to drafting is essential for all this to be clear and simple.
Also I think we should get advice from others, we can’t all be possibly that smart that we know what we are doing. Remember lads we are all going through this together. It’s not as if we have done this before. Probably nothing wrong with getting others to through some views in if they can be bothered.
Its not my perceived value, its Korumburra's perceived value. In one trade Korumburra thought that their 3rd round MSD (MSD44) was valued equivalent to a 3rd round PSD, which is fair enough if thats what they think its worth. No-one vetoed this trade, as no-one had a problem with it, so it'd be fair to assume that the other coaches also believed that this perceived value was fair. In another trade, also involving Korumburra, they tried to trade in a 1st round MSD (MSD14) which was 30 picks better than the one they recently traded out, but this time thought that all that should give up was a 4th round PSD. At some point in time there was a change in perceived value, that once a 3rd round pick was equivalent to a 3rd round pick, but now a 1st round pick is equivalent to a fourth round pick. This is the significant change that I personally don't agree with. Clearly there were vetos for this trade, so its fair to assume that other coaches also saw the significant change in perceived value, and voiced their disapproval.
I think there is a simpler solution. I don't see a problem with trading any picks you own up until the delistment deadline. Once that deadline passes then the 'dead' picks are officially removed and can no longer be traded. To me that seems a pretty simple way of avoiding the problem without being forced to delist players because of trades you made in the past.
You may not agree with the significant change in perceived value and others but the coaches involved TTT and EDEN did agree on the value shouldn’t that be all that matters? Not weather we agree with the value, not sure we have much say in value when we aren’t the ones managing the teams involved. It’s very hard to put yourselves in someone else’s shoes. Don’t get me wrong mate I understand your thoughts and yes I agree both trades are different. But we can’t agrue that every person has different views on what’s best for their club. I bet we all sit there at times and say “gee I wouldn’t have drafted him” or “gee wiz I wouldn’t have traded him for him” but that’s our views and we really have no right telling people what the value of things are. This reasoning behind Vetos issue is a prickly one.
@Tylo I understand what your saying, but I don’t like that future picks in MSD drafts can be added to trades for higher value to secure the trade, then come future MSD draft the coach doesn’t delist any players or trade away players to free list space to make the picks valid. The coach not delisting is effectively filling his list with a good player for nothing. He may have never got the trade trough without using the msd picks for value. I agree all dead picks at present MSD and present PSD after 4th round should be deleted as soon as draft starts. Give an example of how this may work..... I trade my future MSD round 3 pick for Josh Bruce.....I now know that I have automatically activated my first 3 rounds of the future MSD, therefore making me manage my list to suit, weather I trade out 3 players to free my list 3 spots or delist 3 players it don’t matter, the main thing is that I know I have to manage my list to suit my trade deal I just made.....it would stop me from maybe doing the deal knowing the ramifications. If I was to not have to worry about delisting anyone in the future I’m more or less getting something for something I don’t have or may never have if I don’t delist. I’m getting Bruce for nothing. Great deal for me
I know what you mean, it just doesn't bother me. It's the same for everyone. Maybe worth another vote at season's end.