All right, were do I start.. Firstly, it was my intent to be able to provide prompt comment on these proposed trades and hopefully convince fellow coaches that I hadn't lost my marbles. Unfortunately I couldn't make this happen as I have been electrically challenged for nearly two days. Had I provided some timely justification, would it have resulted in less vetos? Who knows. If people want to veto trades cos they have a different opinion on player values to me then that is their perogative and their right. I may decide to engage in some discussion on this rule at a later time and thread, but at the moment thems are the rules so I will work within them. So why have I elected to make two separate trade deals which on first glance seem heavily stacked against me? (insert Rob Morrison voice over) Well i'm glad you asked! You see, although the 'keeper' premise of this league is not lost on me, I like many coaches are somewhat mildly interested in WINNING THE PREMIERSHIP!! Now this is where subjectivity comes into play. In analysing my current list, I reckon my group is about middle of the road. Had I experienced a bit more luck over the last seven months (let alone the last two days) then perhaps my team might have reflected that assessment, on the ladder. I feel my window is open right now and with a few tweeks and my newly aquired magic lamp, I reckon I can give this thing a nudge. So how do I tweek this rabble and (in the process) make my own luck? Well my midfield is my weakest link, so I figured lets go shopping... 'Hang on' I said, 'Noone in their right mind is gonna give up a premium mid to immediately boost my midfield!' So it comes down to this, do I want to sacrifice some (potential) long term gain to reap some immediate benefits? My answer was Yes, and hence my strategy of improving my immediate ladder position (at the expense of a high draft pick or potentially the best ruck) is revealed. Now could I have gotten a better deal on Nic Nat or Pick #3? Maybe, but that is what I have negotiated to date. I have not declared anyone in my team as completely 'off limits' and my inbox is not overflowing. As TiB suggests, if coaches want to veto any trades then come back with a counter then I guess that is within the rules of the game (although maybe not the spirit). Now I could babble on forever about why I value certain players over others but that would be boring and largely irrelevant. In the end, i'm in this for a bit of fun and feel that I will personally get more enjoyment out of this caper if I can be more competitive in the short term. FIN
These two trades seriously suck, and are unbalanced, but I agree with my codpiece friend... They are not so unbalanced that they reek of collusion, or will severely weaken a team immediately. so I will not veto, but you can be assured that mid season and next years Pre seasons trades for these four teams will come under a lot more scrutiny.
Given the angst that the trade between Grav and myself has caused, I have sent him my second round pick in the next PSD - pick 30 overall I think, in return for his 4th round pick in the next PSD - pick 57 I think. At the moment I am probably unlikely to use pick 57, dependent on how many players I delist. So ultimately Grav may be getting my second round pick simply as an addition to the previously stated trade. If I do use pick 57 it may well be just to redraft someone, I don't know. I know we agreed on a deal, but both of us were unaware that it would cause this level of disquiet amongst fellow coaches. I don't know how orthodox adding this draft pick arrangement into the deal is, but, again, given the disquiet this has caused and the opinion of fellow coaches here that the deal is unbalanced, I suggested an action that would hopefully help the situation (one that Grav accepted). Terry - I've sent you a message as well.
While both trades appear to be lob sided I don't see any reason to veto them. They are grown men and can work out what's best for there teams. i have a list of untouchables and available players on the mount beauty thread if your interested.
It is clear to me that Gravenger is beyond help, so I withdraw my veto on the #3 draft pick. But I am still shaking my head. Not my job really, but someone has to do it. Without the need to tally, there is (as of Bangkok time) not the required 5 vetos on either of the 'controversial' trade proposals, so at midnight tonight (AEST), they pass. The view is that people have had an opportunity to express their reservations and exercise their rights as coaches and now we move on. Chris should not feel bad about it as it is healthy and his initial reservations did not precipitate any landslide. No one should take views on trades as being personal and there will, hopefully, not be any tit for tat. Despite the Wombat's reservations, the veto is the perfect mechanism to say, 'Whoa back there, let's talk about this'. And 48 hours is reserved for this purpose.
Thanks TiB and all whom vetoed on the premise that I was getting a raw deal and further consideration was needed. Contrary to popular belief I am not a complete F$@%wit and there is some method to my madness. I have participated in a number of trade periods since joining this league and the resulting comings and goings (in hindsight) have brought equal amounts of delight and dispair. Thems the risks (and hopefully) the rewards. My eyes are wide open and I have not made these decisions lightly. Fwiw - I would like to allay any fears amongst fellow coaches that I am not nor intend to be involved in any deliberate trade collusion which will grossly improve a particular team or bring this league into disrepute. And I will not be tit for tat vetoing. Babble over, thanks for listening...
Its your team mate I say do as you will.... within reason I am going to start another thread with regards to a trade committee. There is an easier way to do these things to avoid such flare ups.
The coaches from Marble Bar Misfits and Lovely Banks Lilacs have sat down and struck a deal. Matt Rosa for Tayte Pears
Lovely Banks and Charlie's Opening have agreed a trade which sees Majak Daw head to Charlie's Opening in exchange for Josh Hill and a pick 69 Charlie's Opening and Foul Bay have agreed a deal which sees Heath Shaw and Pick 51 head to the Chickens in exchange for Danyle Pearce, Josh Thomas and Pick 16
Bandit wrote: Charlie's Opening and Foul Bay have agreed a deal which sees Heath Shaw and Charlie's Opening 3 round pick head to the Chickens in exchange for Danyle Pearce, Josh Thomas and Foul Bays 1st Round pick. ?
chris88 wrote: Bandit wrote: Charlie's Opening and Foul Bay have agreed a deal which sees Heath Shaw and Charlie's Opening 3 round pick head to the Chickens in exchange for Danyle Pearce, Josh Thomas and Foul Bays 1st Round pick. ? ?, ? In summary an ageing, temperamental defender with a short fuse who averages around the 100 point mark when he gets on the field plus a third round pick goes one way. The other side is a heavily inked, slightly younger D/M who might be up for reclassification as an M who has averaged in the low 80's, plus a young M who has averaged close to 80 in his first 18 games and a first round pick.* Is there a player missing who is from Banditto's outfit to the Chooks from this announcement? * - Personal opinions, not be confused with those of the Clubs or the AFL.
Bandit wrote: Charlie's Opening and Foul Bay have agreed a deal which sees Heath Shaw and Charlie's Opening 3 round pick head to the Chickens in exchange for Danyle Pearce, Josh Thomas and Foul Bays 1st Round pick. Hope there's something missing that shouldn't be in this deal. If not, I'm afraid to say there's been some horrible trades by particular coaches. But, I'll stick to my words and I won't choose to veto, as I think if CR really wants to give away a R1 pick, a def/mid and an up-and coming youngster for an aging, short temper defender + a R3 pick then so be it. Freedom is freedom, I guess. But seriously, clarification is needed on CR's behalf. This trade is unbelievably lop-sided.
I've personally got no problem with it. I had tried to pry Heater away from Bandit and he was, rightly so, playing hard ball. Heater is one of the best of the best defenders. CR needs a prem def for his team and he's got a lot of depth players that are not entirely valuable to him, playing in the twos. Makes sense to me.
I'll let chief have his say but from my side I take a 25 point hit in defence to give up shaw. a top 3 defender commands at least a 1st round draft pick... The guy is only 27 so he is hardly old. As Ant said I was playing hard ball with heater and several had tried.
Also need to declare (and this may open a can of worms) that if Hill gets delisted then Jen has the right to reverse the deal. Jen was worried he would be without a home so I added that clause. I'm waiting for Bama to bring the hammer down now as when I think about it it means those players are off the table until the preseason trade period, when they could be back on!
I've noticed a number of 'ifs' creeping in to our little game of trades. The understanding has always been that, if you choose to trade at this time of the year, you do so accepting the risks. Whereas the law says there are no ifs, buts or maybes. Those risks include delistment, retirement, LTI (remember the trampoline?), traded, prison sentence (Scotland anyone?), loss of MPP/DPP, shaving of beards or removal of tats. However, there is nothing to prevent a gentleman's or ladies agreement to reverse said trade at the next trade period, should their agreed upon unforeseen circumstance occur. Can of worms closed. [span style='font-size: 24px; color: #c00000;]'lob-sided'??? Kinda like it.
Chris of the ? has agreed to send Kyle Martin and pick #48 to the warmer climes of the Whits in exchange for pick #42 + a pack of fruit tingles (the shop was out of chips).
So fruit tingles are have slightly less currency worthiness than chips or more? where do red frogs and big boss cigars sit on the currency table?