chris88 wrote: 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. [span style='color: #ff0000;]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. /Portals/0/User%20Images/munchkins2med.jpg
Fitzy wrote: But I thought Veto was in so if something fishy was happening, not if a trade is unbalanced, That was what I thought as well Fitzy. But I'm not 100% sure I have to admit.
Fitzy wrote: 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...
Speaking of assumptions. I had a assumed that we have all been doing this gig long enough now to know where we can find the rules and look them up for ourselves, instead of screaming out for a commisherial ruling. I also assumed we had an appointed Trade Commissioner - bama (thank you, ant), if I'm not mistaken. Understandably he cannot rule on a trade he himself is involved in. The new Deputy Commissioner, lenh191, would have to do that. <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font: inherit; background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #444444; text-align: left;]Trades can be vetoed if a majority of 5 non-participating coaches cast a veto vote. Coaches will have roughly 48 hours to veto a trade proposed. <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font: inherit; background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #444444; text-align: left;] <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font: inherit; background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #444444; text-align: left;]I recall reading the ORFFL trade thread last year and the bickering that went on there. I can assure you, despite what P_L and SKT might assert, arguing over a players particular value is a waste of time. It is subjective. A coach who vetoes a trade does not have to provide a reason. It would be better if the two coaches involved in the trade addressed their appeals to the vetoing coach(es) at which time the vetoing coach(es) can make known their reasons, should they wish. Please remember, we are not here to discuss the rules, they exist and, if need be, should be discussed in a separate thread. <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font: inherit; background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #444444; text-align: left;]And, controversial as it may seem on the surface, I see no reason why a vetoing coach, or any other coach for that matter, cannot make a counter offer on a trade that has yet to be ratified. To illustrate the point I have been trying to drive home about discussing trades out of the official trade period, if other coaches had known that #3 was up for grabs they would have had an opportunity to come up with something better than Jeffie. <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font: inherit; background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #444444; text-align: left;]
@ Raptor, not sure how many have been approved, but just one has been vetoed - if i recall correctly. @ TiB, Bama is in charge of trades i think, not Fitzy, although Im sure he would like to be involved in anything trade related
FWIW - I'm not going to veto the trade between Grav and Fitzy right now. I don't believe its balanced, and its not something I'd do. I'd be holding onto that Number 3 draft pick rather tightly as its long term value (despite Fitzy's protestations otherwise) holds overwhelmingly more worth than Jeff Garlett - much and all as Garlett had a bloody good year (almost 80 average as a small forward is fair going) and is only 24ish. But ultimately it comes down to those involved in the trade. If they can explain the trade's worth and logic in a way that hits the mark, then it is their call to make the trade. That said, I can understand the vetoes as well. One important point though - I would like to hear from Grav on this one. I respect hugely that we've heard from Fitzy and he's been good enough to explain his perspective ... I'd like to hear from the fair coach of Larrikin Lagoon as well to get his reasoning behind the move (actually, moves) he has made.
TerryinBangkok wrote: <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font: inherit; background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #444444; text-align: left;]And, controversial as it may seem on the surface, I see no reason why a vetoing coach, or any other coach for that matter, cannot make a counter offer on a trade that has yet to be ratified. To illustrate the point I have been trying to drive home about discussing trades out of the official trade period, if other coaches had known that #3 was up for grabs they would have had an opportunity to come up with something better than Jeffie. <p style='margin-bottom: 10px; font: inherit; background-color: #fbfbfb; color: #444444; text-align: left;] Think Gravenger might be getting a few counter trades in his messages in the coming little while ....
As someone who was offered a round 2 pick for Jack Steven by one of the trade participants I can only assume that this trade was agreed to under the influence of an illegal substance. Having said that I am not vetoing it (as I feel that this is poorly considered, not cheating), but I am harshly critical of it. I do not see the NicNat trade to be as unbalanced, though I wouldn't have done that deal either.. From a ruling perspective, that's up to bama from memory, but if it passes the current league rule for veto, it's veto'd, if we don't like the rule start a thread proposing a new one to use in the next instance... Love the smell of napalm in the trade air
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. Veto.
My 2c I used to participate in an online Ice Hockey league, very similar to this except we used a real game as the simulator. It had an online forum as its community also. After many seasons of these type of discussions we implemented a trade committee. That committees job was to veto TOTALLY AWFUL deals only. Neither of these fit into that space, They are slightly 1 sided? yes. Are they 100% awful trades? No. Coaches need some freedom to wheel and deal and we need to give them that freedom. What I would recommend is that coaches ADVERTISE their available players. They may find on the open market they get a MUCH BETTER DEAL. I think if the league knew Nic Nat was freely available (as well as pick 3) they might have got a lot lot more than what they did. No veto from me on those grounds.
Both trades are terrible in my view, but Grav has entered into them so its his loss. Nic Nat is a top 10 player in the comp, personally I wouldn't have given up Nic Nat by himself without throwing a top 3 pedigree pick in Coniglio in. Wouldn't have done the Garlett trade either. I understand the logic slightly more, just not in this draft and the position of Grav's team currently. But as has been said by a couple of other posters, buyer beware. Just wish that I could've got a piece of the action because I would have offered more. BTW, if anyone has a defender averaging 80 that they want to talk about I have a number of mids and draft picks that I could be convinced to part with.
jimbowan wrote: My 2c I used to participate in an online Ice Hockey league, very similar to this except we used a real game as the simulator. It had an online forum as its community also. After many seasons of these type of discussions we implemented a trade committee. That committees job was to veto TOTALLY AWFUL deals only. Neither of these fit into that space, They are slightly 1 sided? yes. Are they 100% awful trades? No. Coaches need some freedom to wheel and deal and we need to give them that freedom. What I would recommend is that coaches ADVERTISE their available players. They may find on the open market they get a MUCH BETTER DEAL. I think if the league knew Nic Nat was freely available (as well as pick 3) they might have got a lot lot more than what they did. No veto from me on those grounds. +1, I'm with Jimbo. Unless the trade is completely 1 sided, let it go. It is the coaches decision to make the trade or not.
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. Thnx Raptor A wise man once said you gotta drink (plenty) before you even think about crawling.Still working on that.Gotta love power outages, 2 days with no computer/net.TBH though had more pressing issues, like keeping all my perishables cold/frozen and bathing my kids in a bucket Sure there is a fair bit of foot tapping going on out there, will post some of my thoughts/justifications later tonight.mmm... subjectivity...
Grav, hope you can get this ('Gotta love power outages, 2 days with no computer/net.TBH though had more pressing issues, like keeping all my perishables cold/frozen and bathing my kids in a bucket') sorted out and at some time in the future you can look back and smile about how it made a relationship so much better or an experience so much more enjoyable. From experience you know I am not an easy bargainer, but if you had put NicNat up instead of the other guy I would have bent over backwards to make it worth. I still believe in markets despite very few coaches being interested in my disclosure that Hannebery or Ziebell was available as part of a deal for a young elite forward. Or wait, gosh, maybe there are not that many young elite forwards out there?
gravenger wrote: mmm... subjectivity... <img class='ForumImage' src='http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121205194539/simpsons/images/thumb/7/7f/Mmm.jpg/250px-Mmm.jpg[/img]
JC wrote: gravenger wrote:mmm... subjectivity... <img alt='' class='ForumImage' src='http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121205194539/simpsons/images/thumb/7/7f/Mmm.jpg/250px-Mmm.jpg[/img] Thnx JC, you took the drool right out of my mouth
gravenger 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. Thnx Raptor A wise man once said you gotta drink (plenty) before you even think about crawling.Still working on that.Gotta love power outages, 2 days with no computer/net.TBH though had more pressing issues, like keeping all my perishables cold/frozen and bathing my kids in a bucket Sure there is a fair bit of foot tapping going on out there, will post some of my thoughts/justifications later tonight.mmm... subjectivity... Hope you and yours are OK Grav and that everything is sorted out soon. And I feel I owe people here in this thread, particularly perhaps Fitzy, an apology as well - I brought up an issue with the Fitzy-Grav trade and wanted to know a little more info about it yet I honestly didn't foresee the shitstorm that the mooted trade between me and Grav would cause. Maybe I am too close to the deal, but I had to sell myself on the trade. I wasn't entirely convinced to be honest but thought I'd better do the trade because I needed a ruckman. I actually approached Grav initially inquiring about a young midfielder of his (not Coniglio) because I felt I needed another young midfielder to support Cunnington. Instead I ended up trading Cunnington to get a ruckman, as well as Rory Thompson who I have a high opinion of. I'm starting to realise how stupid that must sound - that I had to sell myself on the deal. So I'm going to get out of this thread and shut my mouth for a little while and let other people have their say - especially Gravenger. Again, apologies to everyone here, and to Fitzy - I am sorry, I didn't mean to sound like a hypocrite or anything in asking about your trade; that wasn't my intent at all.