chris88 wrote: [span style='font-size: 10px;][span style='font-size: 10px;]I knew people would undervalue Ben Cunnington. To be fair, valuing players is about as subjective as it gets. Otherwise this would be a lot less challenging. And fun
To clarify - what are the rules on vetoes? 1 - Can we veto trades that we think are unbalanced, or are vetoes reserved for trades where we think there's some strange stuff happening? I was under the impression it was the latter, but I'd like clarification. 2 - What proportion of coaches need to veto a trade for it not to happen? Commish? Draft committee? Rules committee?
chris88 wrote: Raptor wrote: Can Gravenger walk? I knew people would undervalue Ben Cunnington. 2013 - 20 games, 96 SC average (and he was subbed off in one game). Last 8 games of the year he averaged 102 or something. I don't reckon many people would trade away a 22 year old midfielder averaging almost 100 in just his 4th year of footy. I certainly wasn't looking at doing so. But I need a ruckman and Nic Nat was offered.If Nic Nat doesn't get fit, I'm buggered - I've lost my future best midfielder for very little. Rory Thompson is a loss as well in defence, but I'm lucky to have young players to step up and replace him. Coniglio will hopefully offset Cunnington's loss - but he remains unfulfilled potential right now. I was so close to vetoing this trade too, but I wont. I do not undervalue Cunnington, but I think you are hugely undervaluing Coniglio in this deal. Rory Thompson is underrated in general and he does beef up this trade imo. I dont think this is a fair trade, but not worth vetoing, in my opinion. Although, I did find this comment kinda humorous: chris88 wrote: So Nic Nat is worth a fly, even with his injuries. He has the potential to be the best ruck in the comp, if not the best player.
JC wrote: chris88 wrote: [span style='font-size: 10px;][span style='font-size: 10px;]I knew people would undervalue Ben Cunnington. To be fair, valuing players is about as subjective as it gets. Otherwise this would be a lot less challenging. And fun That's a fair point JC. Well said.
chris88 wrote: To clarify - what are the rules on vetoes? 1 - Can we veto trades that we think are unbalanced, or are vetoes reserved for trades where we think there's some strange stuff happening? I was under the impression it was the latter, but I'd like clarification. 2 - What proportion of coaches need to veto a trade for it not to happen? Commish? Draft committee? Rules committee? I think we determined that coaches can veto for whatever reason they feel.
anthak wrote: chris88 wrote: Raptor wrote: Can Gravenger walk? I knew people would undervalue Ben Cunnington. 2013 - 20 games, 96 SC average (and he was subbed off in one game). Last 8 games of the year he averaged 102 or something. I don't reckon many people would trade away a 22 year old midfielder averaging almost 100 in just his 4th year of footy. I certainly wasn't looking at doing so. But I need a ruckman and Nic Nat was offered.If Nic Nat doesn't get fit, I'm buggered - I've lost my future best midfielder for very little. Rory Thompson is a loss as well in defence, but I'm lucky to have young players to step up and replace him. Coniglio will hopefully offset Cunnington's loss - but he remains unfulfilled potential right now. I was so close to vetoing this trade too, but I wont. I do not undervalue Cunnington, but I think you are hugely undervaluing Coniglio in this deal. Rory Thompson is underrated in general and he does beef up this trade imo. I dont think this is a fair trade, but not worth vetoing, in my opinion. Although, I did find this comment kinda humorous: chris88 wrote: So Nic Nat is worth a fly, even with his injuries. He has the potential to be the best ruck in the comp, if not the best player. Hey Ant - my worry with Conglio is with who he plays for. GWS showed no signs of improvement this year and my concern is that their approach to recruiting (just getting lots of kids) has simply not worked. I am of the belief that a number of those kids will either be stunted in their development, or might even walk to other clubs. We've seen Taylor Adams mentioned in dispatches recently. At a solid club with veteran leadership I reckon Coniglio would be traveling far better and would be developing better. I'm not so sure about that at GWS. I might well be wrong I guess, but that's my personal take. If he blossoms, he'll be a very good player. But it is an 'if' at the moment. And on Nic Nat - yeah, I probably didn't phrase that very well. I hope he overcomes the groin injury because he relies so much on his athleticism ... we've seen what chronic groin problems can do to players - especially those that need to be on a plane every second week to get to games. He has massive potential, but there's still a bit of a risk there.
chris88 wrote: Raptor wrote: Can Gravenger walk? I knew people would undervalue Ben Cunnington. 2013 - 20 games, 96 SC average (and he was subbed off in one game). Last 8 games of the year he averaged 102 or something. I don't reckon many people would trade away a 22 year old midfielder averaging almost 100 in just his 4th year of footy. I certainly wasn't looking at doing so. But I need a ruckman and Nic Nat was offered.If Nic Nat doesn't get fit, I'm buggered - I've lost my future best midfielder for very little. Rory Thompson is a loss as well in defence, but I'm lucky to have young players to step up and replace him. Coniglio will hopefully offset Cunnington's loss - but he remains unfulfilled potential right now.
I do not understand how you can veto #3 for Garlett, and not veto that deal.... seriously how is that deal fairer then mine?
Fitzy wrote: I do not understand how you can veto #3 for Garlett, and not veto that deal.... seriously how is that deal fairer then mine? I reckon we really need Grav to pay us a visit.
Fitzy wrote: I do not understand how you can veto #3 for Garlett, and not veto that deal.... seriously how is that deal fairer then mine? I voted VETO on both. I understand the explanations but I do not agree with them. To be clear to all parties it's nothing personal, simply a difference in football opinion.
Raptor wrote: Fitzy wrote: I do not understand how you can veto #3 for Garlett, and not veto that deal.... seriously how is that deal fairer then mine? I voted VETO on both. I understand the explanations but I do not agree with them. To be clear to all parties it's nothing personal, simply a difference in football opinion. As long as we are not handing out Veto's for fun. If we really think this is making the competition different, and LLL will be broken, then fine Veto it, I think the trade is fair and I would love to hear Grav's opinion, I doubt he would accept/offer the trade if he didn't like it. But I might be wrong
Raptor wrote: I would say it's incorrect that GWS didn't show improvement. I personally attended and also watched their gameson TV, and I would say towards the end of the season they showed significant improvement. I saw development in a number of their players. They are receiving elite coaching and development resources. Coniglio definitely improved as an overall player. Once his skills are refined over next 2-3 seasons he will be a very valuable star player on a successful GWS team. The notion the GWS stunted is a false one. Some would say my new man Greene stunted his growth (20 point drop in SC). Actually he improved. He played a back pocket defensive role to hone those skills while GWS were developing others inside. Next season he will return to the midfield with an improved defensive mindset. That's my subjective point of view I'd agree that there was a developmental mindset with GWS. That was something that was definitely needed. But I watched a few of their games and I'm not quite sold on them just yet. My worry isn't the talent of their players, because there's a lot of it there. My concern is that without veteran leadership or even a few bigger bodies in the mids, that these kids are going to be taking a beating that could take time off their careers and/or increase the chance for injury. I look at Gold Coast and the fact they had bigger bodies running around in the midfield for a little while - it has definitely helped some of the younger guys in their development. I guess this also gets back almost to some core points in regards to recruiting and different approaches taken. My other concern would be that we may see some of these guys leave or be poached. That can alter things drastically. Not saying any of this stuff is gospel - it may even be utterly wrong. It may be partially wrong, or it may be that Raptor has it nailed and I'm on another planet!! But I have to admit I was hesitant taking on Coniglio looking at things through the viewpoint I have - maybe that sounds a bit silly or overly cautious or something - but I have my concerns.
Raptor wrote: Fitzy wrote: I do not understand how you can veto #3 for Garlett, and not veto that deal.... seriously how is that deal fairer then mine? I voted VETO on both. I understand the explanations but I do not agree with them. To be clear to all parties it's nothing personal, simply a difference in football opinion. Understand entirely Raptor - no probs.
Sounds like you are reluctant to keep Coniglio Chris. I'll take him off your hands for you if you want
anthak wrote: Sounds like you are reluctant to keep Coniglio Chris. I'll take him off your hands for you if you want I probably need him given Cunnington is gone, Harvey has one more year left and with Foley not getting any younger. Cornes will give me some cover for a year or two I hope. I'm hoping that some of my young mids can show a bit this year and perhaps really move up the pecking order. If they don't, my midfield could be all over the shop in 2015.
If you want my opinion I don't really think VETO should exist. If someone makes a trade, they obviously think it is benefiting them in some way. Or else they wouldn't make it. There should be no going back after completing a trade. If you think it is too unfair, don't accept it. The only exception is of course if Ablett is traded for a rookie (for example). In that case, there is an issue that needs to be sorted. Other than that, keep the VETO away and let the coach make the decision. If they make a bad trade, bad luck. They are the ones that chose to go with it.
anthak wrote: chris88 wrote: To clarify - what are the rules on vetoes? 1 - Can we veto trades that we think are unbalanced, or are vetoes reserved for trades where we think there's some strange stuff happening? I was under the impression it was the latter, but I'd like clarification. 2 - What proportion of coaches need to veto a trade for it not to happen? Commish? Draft committee? Rules committee? I think we determined that coaches can veto for whatever reason they feel. Point of clarification please. Is it necessary (incumbent?) or desirable for a member to give a reason for a veto or is the word 'veto' sufficient. Just asking. Reading and thinking, no final opinions as yet on specific trades mentioned.
chris88 wrote: Fitzy wrote: Venus Bay andLarrikin Lagoon have come to the agreement that Larrikin Lagoon will send Draft pick #3 to Venus Bay, and recieve Venus Bay's Jeff Garlett. I never thought I'd say this, or even think it, but I've got my hand very close to the veto button on this one unless I can be convinced otherwise. Sorry guys, it isn't anything personal, but Pick 3 in the PSD - someone like Martin, Hogan, Boyd or Aish - for Jeffie Garlett doesn't seem a fair trade. But that's just me. As was said in The Usual Suspects: 'Convince me ...' Without reading any further down than this, have to say my initial reaction was the same Chris. The safety is off and there is a round in the spout and, while you are at it, give Micky Milkshake a call and see if he is willing to give up Jeffy for pick #3. Careful he doesn't kiss you.
Alright sure, I can't tell you not to Veto as that defies the point. But I thought Veto was in so if something fishy was happening, not if a trade is unbalanced, I am sure we said this at the start and am willing to go find it in the original threads if needed. In saying this I am not trying to get my trade overturned, but so in the future you guys aren't vetoing at everything... Lenny has a point as well, if two coaches agree on something, they must think they are at some advantage.