Official Trade Thread 2016/17

[fanTCfool]

Hey Jukesy,
Trade #33 involving Wingard was not confirmed and will not be going ahead, Boston has also since removed the post.

[elephants]

Hey Jukesy,
Trade #33 involving Wingard was not confirmed and will not be going ahead, Boston has also since removed the post.

Cheers to @psk ;)

[powersuperkents]

Hey Jukesy,
Trade #33 involving Wingard was not confirmed and will not be going ahead, Boston has also since removed the post.

Cheers to @psk ;)

What can I say... We've got to make sure that our new coaches aren't exploited

#worsethantheBarteltrade  ;)

[kilbluff1985]

Hey Jukesy,
Trade #33 involving Wingard was not confirmed and will not be going ahead, Boston has also since removed the post.

Cheers to @psk ;)

What can I say... We've got to make sure that our new coaches aren't exploited

#worsethantheBarteltrade  ;)

I thought  fanTCfool won that trade

Wright = Wingard

[elephants]

Hey Jukesy,
Trade #33 involving Wingard was not confirmed and will not be going ahead, Boston has also since removed the post.

Cheers to @psk ;)

What can I say... We've got to make sure that our new coaches aren't exploited

#worsethantheBarteltrade  ;)

I'm not gonna make a thing of this, but its pretty average form to talk someone out of a trade before its been confirmed.

The competition has rules and regulations in place to ensure lop-sided trades do not pass.

If you believed a new coach was losing the trade, use your vote to reject it? Everyone has different opinions/valuations on players.

My opinion, but I think you're way out of line on this one mate.

Hey Jukesy,
Trade #33 involving Wingard was not confirmed and will not be going ahead, Boston has also since removed the post.

Cheers to @psk ;)

What can I say... We've got to make sure that our new coaches aren't exploited

#worsethantheBarteltrade  ;)

I thought  fanTCfool won that trade

Wright = Wingard

Case in point.

[powersuperkents]

Hey Jukesy,
Trade #33 involving Wingard was not confirmed and will not be going ahead, Boston has also since removed the post.

Cheers to @psk ;)

What can I say... We've got to make sure that our new coaches aren't exploited

#worsethantheBarteltrade  ;)

I thought  fanTCfool won that trade

Wright = Wingard

Mate Wright is only contracted until the end of this season in a rebuilding club... It's unlikely he will be there for a significant amount of time.

& Bastinac is a spud

Wingard is 23 years old and has averaged approximately 100pg on two occasions in his career and could average +100ppg for 3-5 remaining seasons in his career + possesses permanent forward status...

How many times has Wright or Bastinac even reached the 90ppg barrier.

I'm sorry but players like Wingard, Gunston, Hogan etc. are worth the equivalent of a 100ppg mid, not two fringe players. 

I'm not the only one who talked him out of it either... and a lot of coaches were ready with complaints

[kilbluff1985]

i agree with ele

voice complaints about a trade to admin so the rest of the comp can vote

as it's just your opinion not everyone may share the same view

[powersuperkents]

i agree with ele

voice complaints about a trade to admin so the rest of the comp can vote

as it's just your opinion not everyone may share the same view

Again, he was also talked out of it by someone who is a casual observer of our comp...

I'm not the only one.

[elephants]

You're completely missing the point.

There are channels that you can utilise to stop trades from happening. If you're so sure there were multiple other coaches lining up, why did you feel the need to go behind the backs of everybody and stop the trade from happening? You've taken advantage of FTC and his openness to your 'opinions' and it clearly shows you do not trust the ability of the competition as a whole to reject the trade if it needs rejecting.

Your analysis of Wright and Bastinac is laughable. Wright will probably finish top 5 in Carlton's best and fairest this season and his average was pushing into the high 80s. Bastinac has become a key cog in the Lions midfield, a team that is ready to go once their key position stocks have developed. Both players have received interest from other coaches, so should we take your opinion on them as gospel? How about we disband the voting system and let PSK assign every player a value and allow him to adjudicate all trades.

This seems out of character for you PSK. Always thought you were pretty good in terms of self-awareness and ability to abide by competition expectations and values.

[powersuperkents]

You're completely missing the point.

There are channels that you can utilise to stop trades from happening. If you're so sure there were multiple other coaches lining up, why did you feel the need to go behind the backs of everybody and stop the trade from happening? You've taken advantage of FTC and his openness to your 'opinions' and it clearly shows you do not trust the ability of the competition as a whole to reject the trade if it needs rejecting.

Your analysis of Wright and Bastinac is laughable. Wright will probably finish top 5 in Carlton's best and fairest this season and his average was pushing into the high 80s. Bastinac has become a key cog in the Lions midfield, a team that is ready to go once their key position stocks have developed. Both players have received interest from other coaches, so should we take your opinion on them as gospel? How about we disband the voting system and let PSK assign every player a value and allow him to adjudicate all trades.

This seems out of character for you PSK. Always thought you were pretty good in terms of self-awareness and ability to abide by competition expectations and values.

I wasn't the only one.

There was another user who told him the exact same thing (and I don't know if this guy was an assistant coach or a casual observer). So my comments made no difference regardless. I had been in discussions with him before and the negotiation consideration was shaping to be Mitch Duncan + a first/second round NAT pick (which is more around the value of one of the most valuable young forwards in fantasy football). Ultimately, this was impossible due to Armitage's departure and, therefore, Wingard was fair game. But the trade he settled for was considerably lopsided. My comments were merely;

"Mate I (and most other coaches) would have offered you a better deal than that for Wingard" - official message

Note: FTC's reply is privileged... but my response was not what "talked him out of it"

I have become skeptical of this rejection system because all it does is force coaches to alter their trades to frame them in a way that permits the same substantive trade, however, in a manner less open to scrutiny. Some trades are effectively rectified, however, the solution for many others is swap some picks or add a player who may play a game or two (although the addition of Hartung did even up the Bartel trade). At the end of the day we have to admit that some players are unlikely to be more than fringe players and NAT picks are valued quite highly, however, besides the top 3 picks, they are very risky. Furthermore, no coach will complain about the same trade twice. I shamefully admit that even I've taken advantage of these tactics.

The one thing I do see is a trend of lopsided trades regarding certain coaches. There's nothing wrong with trading to improve the team, however, certain coaches will only trade if it tilts in their favour. I have nothing against self-interest, however, problems arise once there is a discrepancy in bargaining power. Specifically, when there are disproportionate amounts of premiums among clubs, it becomes harder for weaker/rebuilding clubs to trade without sacrificing their sources of short-term competitiveness. There's no problem with that, however, young players are risky in themselves and the worst case scenario for these top clubs is that they may miss out on the possibility that one young player may actually become a regular premium in a competitive sport. Conversely, the gain is an established player at the price of the weaker sides competitive abilities.

Finally, I know some coaches get carried away by the notion that they designate players as 'must trades' because of influxes in offers. But usually, esp. when subject to questionable bargaining tactics from other coaches, they forget that they have another option... To keep the player and wait, and not trade at all if no reasonably offers come in. New coaches especially, forget this and are afraid of speaking up afterwards.

The system is the best we have, however, some changes could be made... Public voting, in the name of transparency, would probably be the most significant thing that comes to mind.

PS; I would just like to ask, if you rate Bastinac & Wright so highly, why are you trading out BOTH of them for Wingard? Would it not be safe to assume that one should be sufficient based on your comparisons?

[elephants]

You're completely missing the point.

There are channels that you can utilise to stop trades from happening. If you're so sure there were multiple other coaches lining up, why did you feel the need to go behind the backs of everybody and stop the trade from happening? You've taken advantage of FTC and his openness to your 'opinions' and it clearly shows you do not trust the ability of the competition as a whole to reject the trade if it needs rejecting.

Your analysis of Wright and Bastinac is laughable. Wright will probably finish top 5 in Carlton's best and fairest this season and his average was pushing into the high 80s. Bastinac has become a key cog in the Lions midfield, a team that is ready to go once their key position stocks have developed. Both players have received interest from other coaches, so should we take your opinion on them as gospel? How about we disband the voting system and let PSK assign every player a value and allow him to adjudicate all trades.

This seems out of character for you PSK. Always thought you were pretty good in terms of self-awareness and ability to abide by competition expectations and values.

I wasn't the only one.

There was another user who told him the exact same thing (and I don't know if this guy was an assistant coach or a casual observer). So my comments made no difference regardless. I had been in discussions with him before and the negotiation consideration was shaping to be Mitch Duncan + a first/second round NAT pick (which is more around the value of one of the most valuable young forwards in fantasy football). Ultimately, this was impossible due to Armitage's departure and, therefore, Wingard was fair game. But the trade he settled for was considerably lopsided. My comments were merely;

"Mate I (and most other coaches) would have offered you a better deal than that for Wingard" - official message

Note: FTC's reply is privileged... but my response was not what "talked him out of it"

I have become skeptical of this rejection system because all it does is force coaches to alter their trades to frame them in a way that permits the same substantive trade, however, in a manner less open to scrutiny. Some trades are effectively rectified, however, the solution for many others is swap some picks or add a player who may play a game or two (although the addition of Hartung did even up the Bartel trade). At the end of the day we have to admit that some players are unlikely to be more than fringe players and NAT picks are valued quite highly, however, besides the top 3 picks, they are very risky. Furthermore, no coach will complain about the same trade twice. I shamefully admit that even I've taken advantage of these tactics.

The one thing I do see is a trend of lopsided trades regarding certain coaches. There's nothing wrong with trading to improve the team, however, certain coaches will only trade if it tilts in their favour. I have nothing against self-interest, however, problems arise once there is a discrepancy in bargaining power. Specifically, when there are disproportionate amounts of premiums among clubs, it becomes harder for weaker/rebuilding clubs to trade without sacrificing their sources of short-term competitiveness. There's no problem with that, however, young players are risky in themselves and the worst case scenario for these top clubs is that they may miss out on the possibility that one young player may actually become a regular premium in a competitive sport. Conversely, the gain is an established player at the price of the weaker sides competitive abilities.

Finally, I know some coaches get carried away by the notion that they designate players as 'must trades' because of influxes in offers. But usually, esp. when subject to questionable bargaining tactics from other coaches, they forget that they have another option... To keep the player and wait, and not trade at all if no reasonably offers come in. New coaches especially, forget this and are afraid of speaking up afterwards.

The system is the best we have, however, some changes could be made... Public voting, in the name of transparency, would probably be the most significant thing that comes to mind.

PS; I would just like to ask, if you rate Bastinac & Wright so highly, why are you trading out BOTH of them for Wingard? Would it not be safe to assume that one should be sufficient based on your comparisons?

Never said you were. But FTC said you were the one who messaged him and I'm highlighting that this is against the current expectations of the comp.

I'm sceptical but I'd be interested to see this 'observer' come forward.

I'll admit I've sent messages like that to most coaches in the past, but ONLY when the current deal is confirmed. Wingard was being advertised for weeks before we even came to an agreement.



We're definitely on a completely new tangent now. I don't know if you've got personal grievances with how things are done in here (honestly every other XV comp uses the same/similar system and its been fine for years) or if you're simply deflecting the attention away from the fact you've done a pretty showere bloke thing.

I now see this as an attack on Boston. Too many premiums? When I inherited the list, Jay did draft very well. I walked into a team that was instantly one of the flag fancies. Since then it has largely been about ensuring the team did not fall in a heap come retirement time (there's still someway to go on that score). The best coaches in every league have a clear plan in mind on the trade table, there's no point trading for the sake of trading if you're interested in building a successful XV side.

I get the impression you have an issue with the way some coaches are trading, which is weird. And also kind of not related to the discussion point - your actions behind the scenes.

PS: A 25 and 26 yr old fwd and mid for a 23 yr old fwd who is higher rated longer term? Two for one, FTC needed to support the mids while not copping a huge hit in the midfield (Wingard averaged LESS than Wright).

Buuuuut look mate, I think its pretty evident you've made a stodgy call in judgement.

[powersuperkents]

Honestly, if I may say so, and I know that this may be practically impossible but I thought of it over a year ago and have been hesitant about introducing the idea.

I would vehemently back an independent regulator (i.e. a 3 person trading tribunal). This would consist of 3 Fanfooty users with no affiliation to any of the clubs (i.e. completely impartial), in which coaches submit complaints to them and they deliberate to form a verdict.

This would be ideal. I don't know whether we would be able to establish anything like that or if we could find three users that would be interested, but it would, surely, make this the envy of all comps. Unless something like this already exists in any of the other comps.

I'm also concerned that it would be a significant burden on Jukes to establish such a body - hence, why I've been reluctant to bring it up.

[powersuperkents]

You're completely missing the point.

There are channels that you can utilise to stop trades from happening. If you're so sure there were multiple other coaches lining up, why did you feel the need to go behind the backs of everybody and stop the trade from happening? You've taken advantage of FTC and his openness to your 'opinions' and it clearly shows you do not trust the ability of the competition as a whole to reject the trade if it needs rejecting.

Your analysis of Wright and Bastinac is laughable. Wright will probably finish top 5 in Carlton's best and fairest this season and his average was pushing into the high 80s. Bastinac has become a key cog in the Lions midfield, a team that is ready to go once their key position stocks have developed. Both players have received interest from other coaches, so should we take your opinion on them as gospel? How about we disband the voting system and let PSK assign every player a value and allow him to adjudicate all trades.

This seems out of character for you PSK. Always thought you were pretty good in terms of self-awareness and ability to abide by competition expectations and values.

I wasn't the only one.

There was another user who told him the exact same thing (and I don't know if this guy was an assistant coach or a casual observer). So my comments made no difference regardless. I had been in discussions with him before and the negotiation consideration was shaping to be Mitch Duncan + a first/second round NAT pick (which is more around the value of one of the most valuable young forwards in fantasy football). Ultimately, this was impossible due to Armitage's departure and, therefore, Wingard was fair game. But the trade he settled for was considerably lopsided. My comments were merely;

"Mate I (and most other coaches) would have offered you a better deal than that for Wingard" - official message

Note: FTC's reply is privileged... but my response was not what "talked him out of it"

I have become skeptical of this rejection system because all it does is force coaches to alter their trades to frame them in a way that permits the same substantive trade, however, in a manner less open to scrutiny. Some trades are effectively rectified, however, the solution for many others is swap some picks or add a player who may play a game or two (although the addition of Hartung did even up the Bartel trade). At the end of the day we have to admit that some players are unlikely to be more than fringe players and NAT picks are valued quite highly, however, besides the top 3 picks, they are very risky. Furthermore, no coach will complain about the same trade twice. I shamefully admit that even I've taken advantage of these tactics.

The one thing I do see is a trend of lopsided trades regarding certain coaches. There's nothing wrong with trading to improve the team, however, certain coaches will only trade if it tilts in their favour. I have nothing against self-interest, however, problems arise once there is a discrepancy in bargaining power. Specifically, when there are disproportionate amounts of premiums among clubs, it becomes harder for weaker/rebuilding clubs to trade without sacrificing their sources of short-term competitiveness. There's no problem with that, however, young players are risky in themselves and the worst case scenario for these top clubs is that they may miss out on the possibility that one young player may actually become a regular premium in a competitive sport. Conversely, the gain is an established player at the price of the weaker sides competitive abilities.

Finally, I know some coaches get carried away by the notion that they designate players as 'must trades' because of influxes in offers. But usually, esp. when subject to questionable bargaining tactics from other coaches, they forget that they have another option... To keep the player and wait, and not trade at all if no reasonably offers come in. New coaches especially, forget this and are afraid of speaking up afterwards.

The system is the best we have, however, some changes could be made... Public voting, in the name of transparency, would probably be the most significant thing that comes to mind.

PS; I would just like to ask, if you rate Bastinac & Wright so highly, why are you trading out BOTH of them for Wingard? Would it not be safe to assume that one should be sufficient based on your comparisons?

Never said you were. But FTC said you were the one who messaged him and I'm highlighting that this is against the current expectations of the comp.

I'm sceptical but I'd be interested to see this 'observer' come forward.

I'll admit I've sent messages like that to most coaches in the past, but ONLY when the current deal is confirmed. Wingard was being advertised for weeks before we even came to an agreement.



We're definitely on a completely new tangent now. I don't know if you've got personal grievances with how things are done in here (honestly every other XV comp uses the same/similar system and its been fine for years) or if you're simply deflecting the attention away from the fact you've done a pretty showere bloke thing.

I now see this as an attack on Boston. Too many premiums? When I inherited the list, Jay did draft very well. I walked into a team that was instantly one of the flag fancies. Since then it has largely been about ensuring the team did not fall in a heap come retirement time (there's still someway to go on that score). The best coaches in every league have a clear plan in mind on the trade table, there's no point trading for the sake of trading if you're interested in building a successful XV side.

I get the impression you have an issue with the way some coaches are trading, which is weird. And also kind of not related to the discussion point - your actions behind the scenes.

PS: A 25 and 26 yr old fwd and mid for a 23 yr old fwd who is higher rated longer term? Two for one, FTC needed to support the mids while not copping a huge hit in the midfield (Wingard averaged LESS than Wright).

Buuuuut look mate, I think its pretty evident you've made a stodgy call in judgement.

My message was simply; "Mate I (and most other coaches) would have offered you a better deal than that for Wingard".

It was not a "stodgy" call in judgement, but rather stating the obvious. I know it's not protocol and I should have waited for FTC to post his confirm/reject post, however, it would not have made a difference. In the case of a complaint and, subsequent rejection, the trade would be minutely altered and Wingard would be gained at little cost (come on, a premium for premium deal is fair). I didn't tell him to reject it and he had, in fact, already made the decision at his own accord.

But I will conclude, it was not in accordance with protocol and this discussion would have been avoided had it just been inevitably reported. 

We can focus on the incident, however, everything relevant has been mentioned. Only revealing FTC's comments would remain and that will not happen. The options now are 1) circular argument, 2) normative discussion, or 3) re-enter the trade table.   

[elephants]

No chance of re-entering the trade table. It seems whatever you said to FTC has pretty much seen his demands become too great.

I maintain you've made an error in judgement in not allowing a trade to be confirmed before consulting either party and I don't think I'm alone in thinking this. However there's clearly no chance you will concede this so I'll leave it and move on.

Lets not deflect too much attention from Boston's Grand Final win this weekend ;)

[powersuperkents]

No chance of re-entering the trade table. It seems whatever you said to FTC has pretty much seen his demands become too great.

I maintain you've made an error in judgement in not allowing a trade to be confirmed before consulting either party and I don't think I'm alone in thinking this. However there's clearly no chance you will concede this so I'll leave it and move on.

Lets not deflect too much attention from Boston's Grand Final win this weekend ;)

Too easy mate.

I just want to state that it was not an attack directed at Boston as it would have resulted in the same action if any club had done it.

and finally, on a brighter note;

I want to wish the Best of Luck to both sides this weekend. A Boston premiership is long overdue and Nos has done a superb job by making the Grand Final in his first season. The two best sides, by a country-mile in terms of consistency, should produce a cracker of a match  :)