Ok so we now started the finals.
Teams outside the 8 will be thinking of next year, so to get discussion going please post what your looking to sell, what your looking to buy and soo forth.
Croatia is keen for trade talks
Chuck us a pm and ask about players,some obviously will be off the table unless you can make an offer we can't possibly refuse and some will be easily moveable
Birchall lids rocky jpk goldy barlow 1st pick, kelly jjk all for sale
I am going to go after defenders very hard.
Its the reason i lost basically every single week.
Will give away for free
MID: David Myers
Tradeable
DEF: Taylor Duryea
MID: Stephen Hill, Mark Blicavs, Harry Cunningham, Alex Sexton, James Aish
FWD: Travis Varcoe, Dylan Buckley
50/50 chance
DEF: Matt Broadbent, Cameron Sutcliffe, Martin Gleeson, Mitchell Hibberd, Declan Watson, Sam McLarty
MID: Aaron Hall, Trent Dumont, Shai Bolton
RUC: Tom Bellchambers, Matthew Flynn
FWD: Jack Riewoldt, Shaun McKernan, Cory Gregson, Mason Redman, Todd Marshall, Josh Daicos
Hard to get
DEF: Marcus Adams, Daniel Howe, Daniel McKenzie
MID: Brad Hill, Patrick Cripps, Jacob Hopper
FWD Jeremy Cameron, Callum Ah Chee, Ben Crocker, Corey Wagner
You're basically not getting him
DEF: Andrew McGrath
MID: Alex Neal-Bullen
FWD Jack Sinclair
I love trading so send me the offers!
On the Trade Table but have decent or significant market value:
Pick 15, Grant Birchall, James Kelly, Tom Rockliff, Josh P Kennedy, Isaac Smith, Kieren Jack, Michael Barlow, Todd Goldstein, Brett Deledio, Josh J Kennedy, Matt Wright
Guys im unlikely to move:
Christian Salem, Rohan Bewick, Braydon Preuss, Hugh Greenwood (rookie 1), Cameron Rayner (Nat 1), Mason Wood, Ryan Lester, David Cuningham
send me a PM loads of guys will be moving.
My Goal is once the season is over and the 2 next coaches are announced that we will have a trade night on Discord.I will try and organise for as many people as possible to get on at the same time and we can have lots of trade talk maybe a few auctions or too and really get some deals done. Let me know when people are generally free.
Won't enter into extremely heavy trade talks until after the Bashers finals run is over, but as always, we will be keen to be super active in trade period!
Feel free to throw us a PM!
Well that was short-lived :P
Bashers Trading Scenario (cheers for the template Atto)
Tradeable
DEF: J.Trengove, N.Broad
MID: C.Masten, C.Bird, G.Horlin-Smith
50/50 chance
DEF: H.Hartlett, D.Byrne-Jones, J.Ramsay, E.Hughes, N.Robertson
MID: B.Boekhurst, B.Sier, N.O'Kearny
FWD: J.Thomas, N.Hrovat. T.Broomhead, P.McCartin, C.Brown
Hard to get
DEF: B.Houli, B.Smith, N.Vlastuin
MID: B.Gibbs, T.Cotchin, J.Redden
RUC: S.Jacobs, R.Lobb
FWD L.Franklin, M.Walters, E.Langdon, O.Florent
Offer me the world and we'll see
DEF: J.Lloyd, E.Yeo
MID: P.Dangerfield, M.Crouch
Bags already packed, transfer demands met
DEF: B.Williams
MID: J.Lyons
As always though, hit me with a PM and I'm sure with some back and forth we can sort something out!
Quote from: elephants on August 21, 2017, 02:37:38 PM
(cheers for the template Atto)
God damn I should copyright this!
could go a ruck #flowerhickey #flowernicholls #flowergiles
Quote from: Atto on August 21, 2017, 04:00:36 PM
Quote from: elephants on August 21, 2017, 02:37:38 PM
(cheers for the template Atto)
God damn I should copyright this!
Hahaha its just so beautiful!
Quote from: Ziplock on August 21, 2017, 04:04:01 PM
could go a ruck #flowerhickey #flowernicholls #flowergiles
Come grab another expansion ruckman in Lobb, or just take Trengove for laffs ;D
Zac Smith could be available!
Quote from: Holz on August 15, 2017, 11:15:31 AM
On the Trade Table but have decent or significant market value:
Pick 15, Grant Birchall, James Kelly, Tom Rockliff, Josh P Kennedy, Isaac Smith, Kieren Jack, Michael Barlow, Todd Goldstein, Brett Deledio, Josh J Kennedy, Matt Wright
Guys im unlikely to move:
Christian Salem, Rohan Bewick, Braydon Preuss, Hugh Greenwood (rookie 1), Cameron Rayner (Nat 1), Mason Wood, Ryan Lester, David Cuningham
send me a PM loads of guys will be moving.
Serious question. Can you trade a retiring player??
Quote from: LaHug on August 22, 2017, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 15, 2017, 11:15:31 AM
On the Trade Table but have decent or significant market value:
Pick 15, Grant Birchall, James Kelly, Tom Rockliff, Josh P Kennedy, Isaac Smith, Kieren Jack, Michael Barlow, Todd Goldstein, Brett Deledio, Josh J Kennedy, Matt Wright
Guys im unlikely to move:
Christian Salem, Rohan Bewick, Braydon Preuss, Hugh Greenwood (rookie 1), Cameron Rayner (Nat 1), Mason Wood, Ryan Lester, David Cuningham
send me a PM loads of guys will be moving.
Serious question. Can you trade a retiring player??
Wouldn't have thought so, I believe Holz didn't know Kelly was retiring when he made this post?
In Americas DT I did punt on Bartel being offered a new contract, but that was before he had announced a retirement - so its a different scenario
Quote from: LaHug on August 22, 2017, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Holz on August 15, 2017, 11:15:31 AM
On the Trade Table but have decent or significant market value:
Pick 15, Grant Birchall, James Kelly, Tom Rockliff, Josh P Kennedy, Isaac Smith, Kieren Jack, Michael Barlow, Todd Goldstein, Brett Deledio, Josh J Kennedy, Matt Wright
Guys im unlikely to move:
Christian Salem, Rohan Bewick, Braydon Preuss, Hugh Greenwood (rookie 1), Cameron Rayner (Nat 1), Mason Wood, Ryan Lester, David Cuningham
send me a PM loads of guys will be moving.
Serious question. Can you trade a retiring player??
I had him on the list before i knew he was retiring. With no cap there is no reason to pick up a retired player unless you think some other club will take them.
Ruckman, Shane Mumford from the Bears could go!
Well, the Grand Final is over now and into the real stuff :P
Lets get some action going in here so I don't have to post GIFs of tumbleweeds!
We're fairly happy with our list at the moment so won't trade if we don't have to. However, we're trying to implement our under 25 rule for another year so the following are up for grabs:
Adam Oxley
Mark Hutchings
Jack Darling
Jamie Cripps
Alex Fasolo
Matt de Boer
The following are also up for grabs due to depth in their respective positions:
Sean Lemmens
Jackson Nelson
Nathan Wright
Looking for (you guessed it) players under 25 at the start of next season.
Roulettes still trying to work out what they are needing this trade period. Please feel free to message Nostra and I if anyone interests. Pretty much we are open to trading anyone so will just do 2 categories below.
Hard to Move:
Def: S. Savage, S. Mayes, T. Cutler, B. Maynard, C. Ellis, R. Clarke
Mids: M. Bontempelli, D. Zorko, S. Selwood, R. Matheison, W. Setterfield, H. Wigg, J. Berry
Rucks: M. Kreuzer, A. Phillips, K. Tippett
Fwds: R. Gray, T. Greene, T. Boak, C. Petracca, J. Hogan, J. DeGoey, K. Kirby
Available for Trade:
Def: S. Burgoyne, M.Johnson, Z. Jones
Mids: G. Ablett, R. Griffen, A. Miles
Rucks:
Fwds: T. Bell, S. Motlop, L. Greenwood, J. Harmes, B. Ah Chee, B. Howlett,
Retired
L. Hodge
L. Montagna
L. Hansen
D. Gorringe
Also considering trading the following:
H Crozier
O McDonald
J Smith
R Bonner
M Paparone
H Goddard
B Long
J Lonergan
D Clarke
N Graham
H McCluggage
J Jansen
R O'Brien
T Membrey
K Stewart
J Simpkin
D Moore
B Lennon
K Langford
Tradeable: B.Sinclair, J.Wagner, T.Barrass, J.Smith, C.Byrne, T.Hunt, D.Pearce, L.Jetta, S.Hampson, M.Taberner, B.Griffiths, M.Brown
50/50: C.Hooker, J.Geary, A.Rance, D.Mundy, M.Rosa, B.Stretch, D.Menzel, B.Matera, T.Colyer
Hard to get: T.Stewart, R.Conca, A.Brayshaw, S.Grigg, D.Prestia, J.Witts, B.McEvoy, J.Ceglar, T.Hawkins
Untouchable: M.Hurley, C.Oliver, O.Wines, W.Brodie, J.Graham, B.Scheer, L.Dahlhaus, T.McLean
Retiring: I.Maric, D.Petrie
Had a few good offers for guys already so if you’re after someone send Tom or I a message either here or on Discord soon! We’re mainly looking for defenders this period. :)
who isnt looking for a defender.
I've got superstar defenders Adam Oxley, Sean Lemmens, and Jackson Nelson on the trading block!
For those seeking Defenders I have the following players that may be of interest:
Tom McDonald (Melb)
25YO key defender who averaged +80 this year and will be likely to gain a Fwd / Def role for 2018. Doesn't really go big often but is very consistent and durable.
Jason Johannisen (WB)
25YO running defender who averaged a modest 77 this year, however came off the back of 90+ Norm Smith Medal year in 16. Despite having a drop in output this year, he still produced a number of good scores and had his averaged reduced due to an injury. Expect him to return to top form in 18.
Steven May (GC)
25YO key defender, captain of the suns, and soon to be their best player. Had his average dropped due to an injury affected match, however still managed to average 76. Only one ton, but lots of 80s and 90s mean a really consistent performer.
Daniel Rich (Bris)
27YO running defender, the heart and soul of a rebuilding lions outfit. Averaged 74 but has been at 80+ in several previous seasons and would expect to see him there again.
These guys are all getting a bit old for my liking, so keen to move them on for quality younger player or good draft picks. Not particularly after any positions, just want good potential.
Anyone wanna give me a forward or two
Bears trading table:
Tradeable:
Def: T Cole - T Sheridan - H Grundy - J McVeigh
Fwd: J Battle
50/50 Chance:
Def: H Himmelburg
Ruck: E Ratugolea (R/F) - M Lobbe
Fwd: A Young
Hard to Get:
Def: J Thurlow - H Perryman (D/M) - L Henderson - J Harbrow - D McKenzie M Suckling
Mid: A Swallow - L Picken - L Partington - J Lewis
Ruck: S Mumford - J Trengove
Fwd: J Westhoff - J Waite - C Rioli - K Amon (F/M) - H Bennell (F/M)
Looks like staying:
Def: C McKenna - L Ryan - L Brown - S Hurn
Mid: N Fyfe - Z Merrett - M Duncan - D Swallow
Ruck: C Sinclair (R/F) - S Naismith
Fwd: I Heeney - J Sicily - K Turner - J Laverde - R Lester (F/M)
Quote from: elephants on August 21, 2017, 02:37:38 PM
Well that was short-lived :P
Bashers Trading Scenario (cheers for the template Atto)
Tradeable
DEF: J.Trengove, N.Broad
MID: C.Masten, C.Bird, G.Horlin-Smith
50/50 chance
DEF: H.Hartlett, D.Byrne-Jones, J.Ramsay, E.Hughes, N.Robertson, B.Williams
MID: B.Boekhurst, B.Sier, N.O'Kearny
FWD: J.Thomas, N.Hrovat. T.Broomhead, P.McCartin, C.Brown
Hard to get - but have a dig!
DEF: B.Houli, B.Smith
MID: B.Gibbs, J.Redden, J.Lyons
RUC: S.Jacobs, R.Lobb
FWD L.Franklin, M.Walters, E.Langdon, O.Florent
Offer me the world and we'll see
DEF: J.Lloyd, E.Yeo
MID: P.Dangerfield, M.Crouch
Bags already packed, transfer demands met
DEF: N.Vlastuin
MID: T.Cotchin
As always though, hit me with a PM and I'm sure with some back and forth we can sort something out!
In light of recent events, I thought I'd give this a little update - as always hit me up via PM and I'll hit you back asap ;D
To make it clear, everyone that messaged me and said:
"awh, Lyons is gone. That sucks we would have liked him."
I expect PMs from you all now :P
I haven't done a trade yet so I feel like I'm lagging behind :P
Here's a summary of the Wolves current list. I'm happy to hear offers for any player but if you aren't prepared to pay for the guys with big currency then don't bother :P
Definitely on the table:
Bernie Vince, Aaron Mullett, Adam Saad, Kamdyn McIntosh, Ben Reid, Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti, Sam Gibson, Daniel Venables, Darcy Macpherson, Chris Mayne, Dale Thomas, Paul Puopolo, James Rose, Aaron Black, Brett Eddy
Takes a decent offer:
Zac Williams, Kade Kolodjashnij, Jack Scrimshaw, Nic Newman, Marc Murphy, Brad Ebert, Liam Shiels, Sam Menegola, Joe Atley, Corey Lyons, Rory Atkins, Stefan Martin, Matthew Leuenberger, Archie Smith, Luke Breust, Keiren Lovell, Tom Papley
Be prepared to pay!:
Alex Witherden, Dylan Shiel, Brad Crouch, Jack Gunston, Chad Wingard, Ryan Burton
LuKe Shuey is available if you give me a good forward
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 02, 2017, 01:19:26 AM
LuKe Shuey is available if you give me a good forward
Jack Darling? He's our best forward
Quote from: LaHug on September 02, 2017, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 02, 2017, 01:19:26 AM
LuKe Shuey is available if you give me a good forward
Jack Darling? He's our best forward
C Rioli returning from injury
Keep trying
Quote from: nas on September 02, 2017, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: LaHug on September 02, 2017, 01:05:49 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 02, 2017, 01:19:26 AM
LuKe Shuey is available if you give me a good forward
Jack Darling? He's our best forward
C Rioli returning from injury
Michael Walters? Known around these parts as MichGOAT GOATers
So after some discussion we are able to offer Tom T Lynch up if anyone is interested,we've had interest already so opening up to others as well.
Looking for a decent mid for him.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 02, 2017, 01:19:26 AM
LuKe Shuey is available if you give me a good forward
Quote from: LF on September 02, 2017, 02:37:15 PM
So after some discussion we are able to offer Tom T Lynch up if anyone is interested,we've had interest already so opening up to others as well.
Looking for a decent mid for him.
You guys should talk
Quote from: elephants on September 02, 2017, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 02, 2017, 01:19:26 AM
LuKe Shuey is available if you give me a good forward
Quote from: LF on September 02, 2017, 02:37:15 PM
So after some discussion we are able to offer Tom T Lynch up if anyone is interested,we've had interest already so opening up to others as well.
Looking for a decent mid for him.
You guys should talk
That's actually a really good straight swap. Similar age too.
Quote from: LaHug on September 02, 2017, 07:27:49 PM
Quote from: elephants on September 02, 2017, 03:01:41 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 02, 2017, 01:19:26 AM
LuKe Shuey is available if you give me a good forward
Quote from: LF on September 02, 2017, 02:37:15 PM
So after some discussion we are able to offer Tom T Lynch up if anyone is interested,we've had interest already so opening up to others as well.
Looking for a decent mid for him.
You guys should talk
That's actually a really good straight swap. Similar age too.
hands off :o
Anyone interested in Jake Melksham? Only averaged in the 70s but scored a couple of big tons including a 124 in his last game of the season. Fair potential to have Def status next year.
Lynch is basically gone,if you want to put an offer up then now is the time
Don't take me not trading or sending many PMs as a sign of inactivity, I'm just really happy with my team after expected DPP changes and don't feel the need to trade much, if at all.
Now im pretty happy with the moes i have made and there will be no mass exodus.
In saying that i will stick the great Tom Rockliff up for trade. I'm looking for another superstar captain option but can add to my side or you can add to your side.
Rockliff
2014: 132 average
2015: 114 average (without the red vests)
2016: 117 average
2017: 129 average pre injury then played with a bung shoulder.
I don't like that trade...
Vardy is already 26, Wood turns 24 in a week, Heppell is 25.
Vardy averaged 66 and might not play behind Nic Nat (even if he does play, you can't honestly say you expect him to improve on 66 with Nic Nat back). Wood averaged 65 and didn't make it back from a calf injury after Round 15. Heppell averaged 100 after a year off.
It just seems like Heppell is way more valuable and the trade is too one-sided, even with the number 1 pick. Maybe I'm undervaluing draft picks though.
Quote from: LaHug on September 06, 2017, 04:13:37 PM
I don't like that trade...
Vardy is already 26, Wood turns 24 in a week, Heppell is 25.
Vardy averaged 66 and might not play behind Nic Nat (even if he does play, you can't honestly say you expect him to improve on 66 with Nic Nat back). Wood averaged 65 and didn't make it back from a calf injury after Round 15. Heppell averaged 100 after a year off.
It just seems like Heppell is way more valuable and the trade is too one-sided, even with the number 1 pick. Maybe I'm undervaluing draft picks though.
Spink has the other Eagles rucks anyway so makes sense there
Quote from: LaHug on September 06, 2017, 04:13:37 PM
I don't like that trade...
Vardy is already 26, Wood turns 24 in a week, Heppell is 25.
Vardy averaged 66 and might not play behind Nic Nat (even if he does play, you can't honestly say you expect him to improve on 66 with Nic Nat back). Wood averaged 65 and didn't make it back from a calf injury after Round 15. Heppell averaged 100 after a year off.
It just seems like Heppell is way more valuable and the trade is too one-sided, even with the number 1 pick. Maybe I'm undervaluing draft picks though.
My opinion as an outsider may not count for a lot but it seems strange that a 25yo mid in his prime is being traded because a team is 'rebuilding'. Surely he captains the young team for the next several years if anything.
I am not sold on that trade either tbh.
A team that played finals selling a 25 year old captain option for 2 'fringe' players around the same age and the number 1 pick in a weak draft.
It makes no sense to me at all especially considering the other trades made this off-season - trading out Dyson Heppell, Tom McDonald, Scott Lycett and Jason Johannisen types for kids and picks. Then bringing in guys like Wood and Vardy...
Quote from: Nige on September 06, 2017, 04:39:08 PM
Quote from: LaHug on September 06, 2017, 04:13:37 PM
I don't like that trade...
Vardy is already 26, Wood turns 24 in a week, Heppell is 25.
Vardy averaged 66 and might not play behind Nic Nat (even if he does play, you can't honestly say you expect him to improve on 66 with Nic Nat back). Wood averaged 65 and didn't make it back from a calf injury after Round 15. Heppell averaged 100 after a year off.
It just seems like Heppell is way more valuable and the trade is too one-sided, even with the number 1 pick. Maybe I'm undervaluing draft picks though.
My opinion as an outsider may not count for a lot but it seems strange that a 25yo mid in his prime is being traded because a team is 'rebuilding'. Surely he captains the young team for the next several years if anything.
He sure isn't captaining the team when his captain Averages 117
just to remind people trade confirmation thread is for trade confirmations. ideally if you have an issue with a trade PM me, if not trade
Tbh in a 14 team comp and under 25 policy is ridiculous!
Who rules on the trade as Holz is involved?
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 06, 2017, 05:37:29 PM
Tbh in a 14 team comp and under 25 policy is ridiculous!
Who rules on the trade as Holz is involved?
I wait for PMs or in this case posting in the Trade Confirmation thread. All of my trades go to review and then i ask DT people not in Euro.
not saying who is who.
If I was a coach, I'd find the lack of transparency a little alarming. :-X
I don't like this trade either, sorry.
For Spink to be giving up a young captain option, Dyson Heppell, in a team that is rebuilding he should be receiving more in compensation.
Vardy is a good player, but with a horrendous injury history and job security doubts once Nic Nat returns, all he represents is extra back-up to Spinks existing WC rucks.
Wood is a bit of an enigma. Everybody knows how talented this kid is and his injury troubles, but unfortunately in 4 years he still hasn't shown to be hugely fantasy relevant.
Pick 1 is pick 1.
Hey Folks.
All fair comments, I'm sure it will be taken into consideration and possibly be changed or rejected.
Just wanted to share a thought though. A few of my trades this offseason have been debated, and almost rejected. I've also got feedback that some haven't liked the direction I've taken my team.
My response is that this is a game, and that trading and drafting are pretty much the only real skill elements to the game. I love the nature of trading, and trying to find hidden gems. I see the game a bit like buying shares - aiming to buy low and sell high, which is why I pretty much always trade for younger players that I feel can break out and increase their value.
I know some of my trades might raise an eyebrow, but I've been successful with this more often than not and trades that initially look like I've lost, end up being a win in time. I'm patient, prepared to watch my players, and that is why I love this game and find it satisfying in a way that regular DT is not.
I appreciate the need to ensure trades are even, to safeguard against teams completely bottoming out, however too much regulation makes it a darn boring game. We nearly shut down the EXV because there was no banter or discussion going on mid season, and if we make it too hard to get a deal done, then we might end up with little to no banter, and everyone's team's remaining the same - in which case might as well just do normal DT.
Not meaning to dispute the fair comments made by others here, just to point out that this is diminishing a part of the game I really love.
My first look at the trade was Pick 1 & Wood alone would be worth Hepp...
Quote from: Torpedo10 on September 06, 2017, 06:42:11 PM
My first look at the trade was Pick 1 & Wood alone would be worth Hepp...
That was my opinion too. Obviously Wood and Vardy are depth/ cover, but pick 1 weights it out ok for me. I'm a little confused about the team structure as well, but I dont think it's uneven enough to reject it.
well the only post trade confirmations in this thread thing kinda fell apart :P
Its good to see some major activity. I respect everyone's opinions and will listen to them all. As i do with all trades that I or people have issue with i go to coaches outside of the euro who play DT and I trust. Its the same people but i dont say there name so they are not influenced.
Im getting a large range of opinions on this which is very expected as picks are the hardest thing to rate in the comp. They very rarely move.
Just a few points.
1. Spinking is not tanking at all, people seem to have issue with some of his trades. Regardless he has built a very good list and it will certainly compete next year. As long as a team is not tanking they can take their list however they want.
2. Unless you think Heppell will dramatically increase his average he will not be a captain option. He is the 31st ranked mid in the comp which puts him high end M3. There are 50+ mids who got 96 in DT. DT is a midfielders comp. The other thing is Spinking has done a great job of collecting very good mids, Dochers,Whitfield,Neale,Macrae
3. Vardy is clearly a back up to NN but a valuable one, Spink played an OOP alot and this hurt his team. 65 is not that high but its respectable in DT, The low end Starting rucks all average in the low 80s. So vardy is 20 off that which is far better then an OOP which might be 45+ This certainly helps spinkings team.
I have no issue with what spinking is doing in the trade period. He has a very competitive side
Docherty, May, Rich, Weits (Logue, Doodee, Kolo)
Whitfield, Neale, Macrae, JOM (Acres, Lang, Cockatoo)
NN (Vardy)
Miller, Kennedy, Taranto, Jong (Wright, Taylor, Francis, Mckay )
Parish Hopper
and he has pick 1, 8, 9 in the draft.
I think he is doing a very good job with that list, is being very active. Thats what you want from a coach.
Quote from: Ziplock on September 06, 2017, 06:53:24 PM
Quote from: Torpedo10 on September 06, 2017, 06:42:11 PM
My first look at the trade was Pick 1 & Wood alone would be worth Hepp...
That was my opinion too. Obviously Wood and Vardy are depth/ cover, but pick 1 weights it out ok for me. I'm a little confused about the team structure as well, but I dont think it's uneven enough to reject it.
Yep I see absolutely no problem with it either
Thanks for explaining it all rationally, guys. I guess it's not too bad after all. You know it's an alright trade when some people think one team wins and others think another does.
Good to see some discussion back in Euro too.
Quote from: LaHug on September 06, 2017, 07:33:13 PM
Thanks for explaining it all rationally, guys. I guess it's not too bad after all. You know it's an alright trade when some people think one team wins and others think another does.
Good to see some discussion back in Euro too.
Thanks lh.
Picks for players are always tough as peoples value differs greatly.
I tried to make thr offer balanced. Enough that people who dont like picks where happy and not that much that peopke who rate high draft picks werent unhappy.
What i an happy about is the activity in the euro.
MacMillan and Wallis can be packaged together for a decent mid if anyone is interested
I'll be around most of today for talks as have a day off
Quote from: LF on September 07, 2017, 10:49:16 AM
MacMillan and Wallis can be packaged together for a decent mid if anyone is interested
I'll be around most of today for talks as have a day off
geez thats an enticing offer. Issue for my squad is i dont know how DPP will hit my team i have alot of guys who will be F/m or M.
making it very tough to do deals.
Quote from: LF on September 07, 2017, 10:49:16 AM
MacMillan and Wallis can be packaged together for a decent mid if anyone is interested
I'll be around most of today for talks as have a day off
how decent is decent :P
Shameless plug here for you SuperCoach conissieurs,
SuperCoach finals competition now open,
Registration & General Info: http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,110333.msg1897969.html#msg1897969
Team Submissions: http://forum.fanfooty.com.au/index.php/topic,108099.msg1803140.html#msg1803140
All welcome, free entry, FF run, fuel your SC desires, get around it.
Sorry to post this but I think it requires discussion. I made a trade with Spink and it was rejected and needed further tinkering.
Unbeknown to me, the tinkering of the trade was done without my knowledge or approval/confirmation. I have since changed my mind in regards to trading the player involved but have been told bad luck. From my point of view if a trade is sent to be renegotiated, then I should be involved in it, not someone else without my permission doing things without my approval. I am very annoyed that this has occurred. I would think that even though I am receiving more that I should still get a say in what the new picks/players are as well as having final say whether a trade that involves my team should proceed or not. Everyone should have a right to change their minds at any point of renegotiation.
Quote from: Atto on September 07, 2017, 06:15:02 PM
Sorry to post this but I think it requires discussion. I made a trade with Spink and it was rejected and needed further tinkering.
Unbeknown to me, the tinkering of the trade was done without my knowledge or approval/confirmation. I have since changed my mind in regards to trading the player involved but have been told bad luck. From my point of view if a trade is sent to be renegotiated, then I should be involved in it, not someone else without my permission doing things without my approval. I am very annoyed that this has occurred. I would think that even though I am receiving more that I should still get a say in what the new picks/players are as well as having final say whether a trade that involves my team should proceed or not. Everyone should have a right to change their minds at any point of renegotiation.
I'm sorry to hear this happened, this is terrible.
Quote from: Nige on September 07, 2017, 06:19:55 PM
Quote from: Atto on September 07, 2017, 06:15:02 PM
Sorry to post this but I think it requires discussion. I made a trade with Spink and it was rejected and needed further tinkering.
Unbeknown to me, the tinkering of the trade was done without my knowledge or approval/confirmation. I have since changed my mind in regards to trading the player involved but have been told bad luck. From my point of view if a trade is sent to be renegotiated, then I should be involved in it, not someone else without my permission doing things without my approval. I am very annoyed that this has occurred. I would think that even though I am receiving more that I should still get a say in what the new picks/players are as well as having final say whether a trade that involves my team should proceed or not. Everyone should have a right to change their minds at any point of renegotiation.
I'm sorry to hear this happened, this is terrible.
And Hilarious at the same time ;D
Quote from: Atto on September 07, 2017, 06:15:02 PM
Sorry to post this but I think it requires discussion. I made a trade with Spink and it was rejected and needed further tinkering.
Unbeknown to me, the tinkering of the trade was done without my knowledge or approval/confirmation. I have since changed my mind in regards to trading the player involved but have been told bad luck. From my point of view if a trade is sent to be renegotiated, then I should be involved in it, not someone else without my permission doing things without my approval. I am very annoyed that this has occurred. I would think that even though I am receiving more that I should still get a say in what the new picks/players are as well as having final say whether a trade that involves my team should proceed or not. Everyone should have a right to change their minds at any point of renegotiation.
If one of my trades needed to be reviewed with things added or removed, then I would want to be a part of it.
I can't remember any time either myself or Nostra not being involved to be honest with the renegotiations. Nostra and I have also left the trade and not worried if we disagreed with the ruling as well (for both scenarios).
I might be missing something here, but shouldn't the trade be renegotiated between the 2 coaches involved and if not enough then rejected again? And if that hasn't happened then why not just revoke the trade now and let the 2 coaches see if they can work out another deal both are happy with?
Wow.
The story from my end is that Atto and I negotiated and agreed on a straight swap of players. Holz messaged saying I needed to add picks or it would be rejected. I added picks, informed Atto and assumed it was a done deal.
Have spoken to Atto about other deals and he hasn't mentioned any concerns with the trade or suggested something different.
Understand the sentiment about being involved in any renegotiations, but I assumed it was fine considering he received exactly what we'd agreed on plus Additional picks.
:(
A bit to play out here it seems.
(http://i.imgur.com/qB7b6.gif)
Hope all can be resolved!
Quote from: Spinking on September 07, 2017, 06:39:16 PM
Wow.
The story from my end is that Atto and I negotiated and agreed on a straight swap of players. Holz messaged saying I needed to add picks or it would be rejected. I added picks, informed Atto and assumed it was a done deal.
Have spoken to Atto about other deals and he hasn't mentioned any concerns with the trade or suggested something different.
Understand the sentiment about being involved in any renegotiations, but I assumed it was fine considering he received exactly what we'd agreed on plus Additional picks.
:(
This is also a reply to your message Spink.
I never said anything along the lines of "Yes, let's do it" with the renegotiated trades. First trade, yeah. Otherwise, no. Check our messages. Basically Holz and yourself renegotiated the trade without my say (didn't even see it by the time it was approved) and that is what the main problem is.
He said, she said, who knows at this point.
As an independent and objective observer who had not been involved in any trading up to this point, Im willing to take the now tainted players and picks in dispute into the Valkyries free of charge.
#topbloke
Ok i will be talking to both atto and spinking via pm to talk this one out.
In positive news the discussion is in the right thread.
Quote from: Holz on September 07, 2017, 07:45:08 PM
In positive news the discussion is in the right thread.
You had power to move the other posts you know :P.
To put in my 2 cents- I don't think the above situation should have occurred, purely because it sets a bad and potentially dangerous precedent.
However- if the only trade were additions to Attos list I can see why it might have been over looked to consult him. To give a hypothetical scenario.
Team A offers: Player X
Team B offers: Player Y
*Team A accepts, Team B accepts*
*The trade is being judge as uneven to Team As advantage and is altered*
*Team A is consulted, Team B is not*
Team A offers: Player X + Pick 1
Team B offers: Player Y
The original trade that Team B agreed to actually still stands- you can split the trade into two components, player X for player Y and pick 1 for nothing.
That being said, Spinks original modification to the trade did specify 'Atto to confirm', which he didn't. On the basis that it was recognised the other coach needed to accept it and that this didn't occur I don't think it's unreasonable that the trade is reversed.
TL;DR, if it hadn't been acknowledged the other coach needed to accept the trade to make it legal, I would have thought that the trade should stand as the initial agree to component of it was still there with no detriment to the side complaining. But since it was indicated the trade still needed verification and that wasnt provided, I think it should be reversed.
Anywaaaay. Too many cocktails :P
Hopper is a spud anyway!
Quote from: Ziplock on September 07, 2017, 10:42:34 PM
To put in my 2 cents- I don't think the above situation should have occurred, purely because it sets a bad and potentially dangerous precedent.
However- if the only trade were additions to Attos list I can see why it might have been over looked to consult him. To give a hypothetical scenario.
Team A offers: Player X
Team B offers: Player Y
*Team A accepts, Team B accepts*
*The trade is being judge as uneven to Team As advantage and is altered*
*Team A is consulted, Team B is not*
Team A offers: Player X + Pick 1
Team B offers: Player Y
The original trade that Team B agreed to actually still stands- you can split the trade into two components, player X for player Y and pick 1 for nothing.
That being said, Spinks original modification to the trade did specify 'Atto to confirm', which he didn't. On the basis that it was recognised the other coach needed to accept it and that this didn't occur I don't think it's unreasonable that the trade is reversed.
TL;DR, if it hadn't been acknowledged the other coach needed to accept the trade to make it legal, I would have thought that the trade should stand as the initial agree to component of it was still there with no detriment to the side complaining. But since it was indicated the trade still needed verification and that wasnt provided, I think it should be reversed.
Anywaaaay. Too many cocktails :P
That is the procedure exactly zip and the reasoning. If the player swap was agreed to by team B then by default they will also accept player B + pick.
This has been done numerous times. Of course if team B needs to change or add something. Or if player a changes or removes something then player B needs to be consulted.
In terms of spinking you are right he didnt have to say atto ro confirm.
I will speak to both to get a good resolution.
Well some entertaining reading upon my return home :)
Was out playing 8ball and a good night it was, l won the Sunraysia Singles Championship 8)
Anyway, l'll add my 2 cents worth in point form
1. Trade posted/confirmed
2. Trade rejected in current form.
3. Suggested to renegotiate and add picks.
4. Picks added, trade approved, but without Atto's input/confirmation.
5. Atto objects, outlining his reasoning.
In my opinion the final approval is invalid because Atto was involved in no way. So it is then back to being being rejected in the initial form and a suggestion to renegotiate. Atto is free to choose whether he does or doesn't.
Just off to polish my shotgun in preperation for the next coach to ignore my PM :P
Quote from: elephants on September 08, 2017, 12:28:40 AM
Just off to polish my shotgun in preperation for the next coach to ignore my PM :P
l'll ignore one if you want ::)
Let's bring in trade voting
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 08, 2017, 12:35:39 AM
Let's bring in trade voting
please no lol
.......this is just a healthy debate, no need for ground breaking change
Quote from: nostradamus on September 08, 2017, 12:45:14 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 08, 2017, 12:35:39 AM
Let's bring in trade voting
please no lol
.......this is just a healthy debate, no need for ground breaking change
Probably easier to just not approve trades that haven't been confirmed by all parties involved tbh :p
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:14:06 AM
Quote from: nostradamus on September 08, 2017, 12:45:14 AM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 08, 2017, 12:35:39 AM
Let's bring in trade voting
please no lol
.......this is just a healthy debate, no need for ground breaking change
Probably easier to just not approve trades that haven't been confirmed by all parties involved tbh :p
ummmmm yes
Also easier to just let the coaches involved negotiate the additional picks/players to be involved. No-one else should be able to dictate what your team requires eg: an additional pick vs a better pick provided. No good getting an additional pick if you are not using it.
I would be very annoyed if I was not involved in this.
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 09:13:31 AM
Also easier to just let the coaches involved negotiate the additional picks/players to be involved. No-one else should be able to dictate what your team requires eg: an additional pick vs a better pick provided. No good getting an additional pick if you are not using it.
I would be very annoyed if I was not involved in this.
Both coaches agreed to a straight swap. Isn't the issue making sure that it is deemed a fair trade in the approval process. Essentially the way it comes down to is if you agree to Player X and then get offered Player X + Pick Y. You cant then go i dont agree to that deal. There are only a few possible reasons why you would.
1. Another coach has offered you a better deal which is a huge no no.
2. The fact you get told you are losing makes you rethink your value of the players. Not a valid reason
3. You have done more research into the players post trade - not a valid reason as should have been done before.
4. Someone gets injured, plays a good or bad game, player movements in the players team all post confirmation - this is not valid as the trade is looked at at the point of confirmation.
I can involve the other player now which is what people want, but under no circumstances can you say im backing out of this deal. There is only one way a deal can go down and that is the perceived winning trader does not add enough to make the trade valid. Both teams most confirm if the winning player removes or change a asset, or if the losing player has to add or change a asset.
Essentially it comes down to this.
If both teams agree that
Team A gives
Team B gives Y
and they agree X = Y
then if it turns into X + Z for Y then I will involve Team B in the negotiations but Team B is not in a position to say i dont confirm receiving X + Z as they have already confirmed to receiving X. That is exactly the same as confirming a trade and then 1 day later changing your mind before it goes to vote and pulling out. That precedence is not being set. Once a deal is confirmed it is confirmed.
As i said i will send a message to both parties.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 10:23:25 AM
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 09:13:31 AM
Also easier to just let the coaches involved negotiate the additional picks/players to be involved. No-one else should be able to dictate what your team requires eg: an additional pick vs a better pick provided. No good getting an additional pick if you are not using it.
I would be very annoyed if I was not involved in this.
Both coaches agreed to a straight swap. Isn't the issue making sure that it is deemed a fair trade in the approval process. Essentially the way it comes down to is if you agree to Player X and then get offered Player X + Pick Y. You cant then go i dont agree to that deal. There are only a few possible reasons why you would.
1. Another coach has offered you a better deal which is a huge no no.
2. The fact you get told you are losing makes you rethink your value of the players. Not a valid reason
3. You have done more research into the players post trade - not a valid reason as should have been done before.
4. Someone gets injured, plays a good or bad game, player movements in the players team all post confirmation - this is not valid as the trade is looked at at the point of confirmation.
I can involve the other player now which is what people want, but under no circumstances can you say im backing out of this deal. There is only one way a deal can go down and that is the perceived winning trader does not add enough to make the trade valid. Both teams most confirm if the winning player removes or change a asset, or if the losing player has to add or change a asset.
Essentially it comes down to this.
If both teams agree that
Team A gives
Team B gives Y
and they agree X = Y
then if it turns into X + Z for Y then I will involve Team B in the negotiations but Team B is not in a position to say i dont confirm receiving X + Z as they have already confirmed to receiving X. That is exactly the same as confirming a trade and then 1 day later changing your mind before it goes to vote and pulling out. That precedence is not being set. Once a deal is confirmed it is confirmed.
As i said i will send a message to both parties.
No. The issue as I see it is that when a trade becomes 'rejected' it then needs to be re-visited by both coaches. Not one coach and the admin. This is not appropriate as neither of these people should have the final say on what and in what direction the other team should take.
The coaches should then deem what additional picks/players are required for the trade to be passed. Whether that is giving a better player or pick. But the important thing is that BOTH coaches are involved in this process and BOTH coaches agree and confirm the trade.
Why have grey when there is no need for it? Make it simple. Rejected means the 2 coaches further discuss and hopefully come to an agreement. If not then the trade remains rejected. If they do then it gets confirmed by both and passed.
As for this part of your comment:
Both coaches agreed to a straight swap. Isn't the issue making sure that it is deemed a fair trade in the approval process. Essentially the way it comes down to is if you agree to Player X and then get offered Player X + Pick Y. You cant then go i dont agree to that deal. There are only a few possible reasons why you would.
1. Another coach has offered you a better deal which is a huge no no.
2. The fact you get told you are losing makes you rethink your value of the players. Not a valid reason
3. You have done more research into the players post trade - not a valid reason as should have been done before.
4. Someone gets injured, plays a good or bad game, player movements in the players team all post confirmation - this is not valid as the trade is looked at at the point of confirmation.
I don't see any of the points being valid in this scenario. The fact of the matter is a coach had agreed to a trade in the first instance then it was rejected. Then this coach had no input into what additional picks or players would need to be added and then to compound the issue even more, the coach did not sign off of the renegotiated trade. This is just wrong and if I was the coach involved I would be very annoyed at this situation.
Maybe the coach didn't want to use another rookie pick. Maybe the coach wanted a better nat pick instead of the rook pick that was added. Maybe the coach agreed with the rejection and decided that they had originally underestimated the 'market value' of the player/s involved and has decided to use a player with 'less value' in the direct swap. These are decisions that the coach should make. Not the admin.
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 10:50:09 AM
1. Maybe the coach didn't want to use another rookie pick.
2. Maybe the coach wanted a better nat pick instead of the rook pick that was added.
3. Maybe the coach agreed with the rejection and decided that they had originally underestimated the 'market value' of the player/s involved and has decided to use a player with 'less value' in the direct swap.
These are decisions that the coach should make. Not the admin.
to answer those 3 questions.
1. Ok if they didn't want to use a rookie they dont have to use it and they are in the same position as the deal they agreed to.
2. Again they agreed to just getting the player.
3. That is why you ask around the value of the player (BEFORE YOU CONFIRM). The only post about Hopper leading up to the confirmation was that he was in the hard to get tier. There was no mention that he was being traded, no PMs that I was aware of him being shopped around.
In regards to the admin making the decision the two coaches involved made the decision to straight swap. If i hand't of stepped in then all he would have got is Lycett. I stepped in and got him Lycett + Rookie 9. I have put the coach in a better postion. If people are unhappy with a external party being involved then the orginal deal can stand as both coaches wanted it to when they agreed.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 11:01:47 AM
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 10:50:09 AM
1. Maybe the coach didn't want to use another rookie pick.
2. Maybe the coach wanted a better nat pick instead of the rook pick that was added.
3. Maybe the coach agreed with the rejection and decided that they had originally underestimated the 'market value' of the player/s involved and has decided to use a player with 'less value' in the direct swap.
These are decisions that the coach should make. Not the admin.
to answer those 3 questions.
1. Ok if they didn't want to use a rookie they dont have to use it and they are in the same position as the deal they agreed to.
2. Again they agreed to just getting the player.
3. That is why you ask around the value of the player (BEFORE YOU CONFIRM). The only post about Hopper leading up to the confirmation was that he was in the hard to get tier. There was no mention that he was being traded, no PMs that I was aware of him being shopped around.
In regards to the admin making the decision the two coaches involved made the decision to straight swap. If i hand't of stepped in then all he would have got is Lycett. I stepped in and got him Lycett + Rookie 9. I have put the coach in a better postion. If people are unhappy with a external party being involved then the orginal deal can stand as both coaches wanted it to when they agreed.
At the end of the day, I would be filthy if this occurred to me. People have every right to change their mind when a trade is in a stalled status. Anyways, I have shared my thoughts. This seems wrong to me on every level.
Once a trade is rejected, it is up to the coaches involved to decide if they want to renegotiate or not. At that point, they can scrap the trade, or modify it pending who is deemed as 'winning' the trade. If Atto decides he wants to scrap it, then he can. You can't force him to renegotiate if he doesn't want to, even if it sees him getting more in return than he originally was. That's just a stupid way to admin this situation.
In BXVs we had a trade where one side was deemed to be losing too much and should have gotten more in return. They thought it was even and didn't want more in return, and decided to scrap the trade eventually as the original trade had received too many complaints and was going to be rejected. This is a similar situation, and imo should be treated in the same way, where the coaches get to decide what happens after the initial rejection, not yourself.
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 11:15:17 AM
Once a trade is rejected, it is up to the coaches involved to decide if they want to renegotiate or not. At that point, they can scrap the trade, or modify it pending who is deemed as 'winning' the trade. If Atto decides he wants to scrap it, then he can. You can't force him to renegotiate if he doesn't want to, even if it sees him getting more in return than he originally was. That's just a stupid way to admin this situation.
In BXVs we had a trade where one side was deemed to be losing too much and should have gotten more in return. They thought it was even and didn't want more in return, and decided to scrap the trade eventually as the original trade had received too many complaints and was going to be rejected. This is a similar situation, and imo should be treated in the same way, where the coaches get to decide what happens after the initial rejection, not yourself.
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 11:07:56 AM
At the end of the day, I would be filthy if this occurred to me. People have every right to change their mind when a trade is in a stalled status. Anyways, I have shared my thoughts. This seems wrong to me on every level.
Fair enough and noted, I guess i take a very different approach, when I agree to a deal that is my giving my word that i will do it. If i got told i was losing, then i dont mind as i do my research ask other coaches before i confirm my deal. Under no circumstance would i back out the deal especially if im getting extra for free, even if it is allowed (which it isnt). I would be furious if I was in Spinkings situation.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 11:24:01 AM
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 11:07:56 AM
At the end of the day, I would be filthy if this occurred to me. People have every right to change their mind when a trade is in a stalled status. Anyways, I have shared my thoughts. This seems wrong to me on every level.
Fair enough and noted, I guess i take a very different approach, when I agree to a deal that is my giving my word that i will do it. If i got told i was losing, then i dont mind as i do my research ask other coaches before i confirm my deal. Under no circumstance would i back out the deal especially if im getting extra for free, even if it is allowed (which it isnt). I would be furious if I was in Spinkings situation.
Maybe Atto would have preferred to do another player swap to balance it out? Maybe he didn't feel comfortable accepting more than he originally was? And considering how things have been handled, he has every right to not want to go through with the trade anymore.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 11:24:01 AM
I would be furious if I was in Spinkings situation.
Agreed, I'd be very unhappy if someone backed out of a deal because they were told they were losing by the rest of the comp. Unless significant change happens (ie, a player suffers an LTI) I'm of the belief that a trade should be carried through.
What happens if Atto decides he will trade Neal-Bulleen for Lycett instead of Hopper because their values were closer and the trade would be passed?
Atto might have no interest in national picks or rookie picks.
He deserves the right to renegotiate it the way he sees fit.
The real question here,
Do we refer to this as Hopper-Gate, Lycett-Gate, Hopcett-Gate or Lypper-Gate
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 11:39:59 AM
What happens if Atto decides he will trade Neal-Bulleen for Lycett instead of Hopper because their values were closer and the trade would be passed?
Atto might have no interest in national picks or rookie picks.
He deserves the right to renegotiate it the way he sees fit.
then that is an option if the original deal can not be sorted, and it was sorted. So it didn't have to come to that.
Considering I was actually the coach who had an issue with the deal and it got no other major comments. Then the easiest and most fair thing to do is instead just pass the trade as it stood, if thats what Atto wants.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 11:39:59 AM
What happens if Atto decides he will trade Neal-Bulleen for Lycett instead of Hopper because their values were closer and the trade would be passed?
Atto might have no interest in national picks or rookie picks.
He deserves the right to renegotiate it the way he sees fit.
then that is an option if the original deal can not be sorted, and it was sorted. So it didn't have to come to that.
Considering I was actually the coach who had an issue with the deal and it got no other major comments. Then the easiest and most fair thing to do is instead just pass the trade as it stood, if thats what Atto wants.
How can you say it was sorted when Atto never agreed to it? All that happened was that you made a recommendation to balance out the trade, Spink agreed it was fine, Atto did not. So the trade should still either be in renegotiation, or scrapped if that's what Atto wants to do. I honestly don't get how you can be arguing in favour of passing a trade that hasn't been confirmed by all coaches involved.
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 11:54:40 AM
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 11:46:26 AM
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 11:39:59 AM
What happens if Atto decides he will trade Neal-Bulleen for Lycett instead of Hopper because their values were closer and the trade would be passed?
Atto might have no interest in national picks or rookie picks.
He deserves the right to renegotiate it the way he sees fit.
then that is an option if the original deal can not be sorted, and it was sorted. So it didn't have to come to that.
Considering I was actually the coach who had an issue with the deal and it got no other major comments. Then the easiest and most fair thing to do is instead just pass the trade as it stood, if thats what Atto wants.
How can you say it was sorted when Atto never agreed to it? All that happened was that you made a recommendation to balance out the trade, Spink agreed it was fine, Atto did not. So the trade should still either be in renegotiation, or scrapped if that's what Atto wants to do. I honestly don't get how you can be arguing in favour of passing a trade that hasn't been confirmed by all coaches involved.
I was the only coach he actually even had an issue with it.
So realistically i can solve this all with this.
Trade 12:
Stallions give: Scott Lycett
Metal give: Jacob Hopper
Passed.
I just cant understand how this logic breaks down.
If i agree to a deal that gets me lycett am i not be default agreeing to a deal for Lycett + Rookie 9.
Ele made it even clearer.
Hopper for Lycett was agreed upon.
Spink has offered to give up Rookie 9 for Nothing.
Essentially this is Atto's decision.
Does he reject or approve Rookie 9 for Nothing.
If he wants to reject that then he by all means can.
I think this is beomcing a bigger deal then it has to be. Im waiting on a response from Atto in PMs so we can sort this.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 12:10:48 PM
Im waiting on a response from Atto half the competition in PMs so we can sort this.
Sounds like me trying to trade!
Hopper for Lycett is an awful trade and it should have been rejected. There is no way Lycett is worth a top 5 pick in any draft especially with Vardy now competing for that pinch hit ruck spot at the Eagles.
You were not the only coach with an objection to this trade.
The rejection was 100% correct. It is now up to Atto and Spink to sort out the next steps as they see fit.
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 12:35:57 PM
Hopper for Lycett is an awful trade and it should have been rejected. There is no way Lycett is worth a top 5 pick in any draft especially with Vardy now competing for that pinch hit ruck spot at the Eagles.
You were not the only coach with an objection to this trade.
The rejection was 100% correct. It is now up to Atto and Spink to sort out the next steps as they see fit.
If thats peoples opinions then im more then happy to reject the trade as it stands. But if Spinking ads stuff that makes it deemed a valid trade, then as we have always done Atto should not be able to back out of the deal. I will make this more formal though.
This will be put to a vote to formalise the rule that has been happening for years.
Option 1: If a deal is agreed to but under review then it it to be dealt as two separate deals. example
1. Player X + Player Y is locked in
2. Player/Pick Z for 0 the person getting the things for free can accept or reject the deal.
then we see if it passes.
Option 2:
If a deal is agreed upon and it goes under review then either player can back out without any explanation.
Thats me talking as Admin.
Now me talking as a coach. If any Coach agrees to a deal then backs out of it when they are getting more then the agreed upon deal then thats pretty much me done as dealing with you. I cant think of many things more wrong then that. There is no valid reason to ever pull out of a deal you agreed upon, you either didn't do your research, you didn't ask around enough. You do that stuff before you agree to a trade and not after. You will instantly lose all credibility in my books.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 01:13:16 PM
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 12:35:57 PM
Hopper for Lycett is an awful trade and it should have been rejected. There is no way Lycett is worth a top 5 pick in any draft especially with Vardy now competing for that pinch hit ruck spot at the Eagles.
You were not the only coach with an objection to this trade.
The rejection was 100% correct. It is now up to Atto and Spink to sort out the next steps as they see fit.
If thats peoples opinions then im more then happy to reject the trade as it stands. But if Spinking ads stuff that makes it deemed a valid trade, then as we have always done Atto should not be able to back out of the deal. I will make this more formal though.
This will be put to a vote to formalise the rule that has been happening for years.
Option 1: If a deal is agreed to but under review then it it to be dealt as two separate deals. example
1. Player X + Player Y is locked in
2. Player/Pick Z for 0 the person getting the things for free can accept or reject the deal.
then we see if it passes.
Option 2:
If a deal is agreed upon and it goes under review then either player can back out without any explanation.
Thats me talking as Admin.
Now me talking as a coach. If any Coach agrees to a deal then backs out of it when they are getting more then the agreed upon deal then thats pretty much me done as dealing with you. I cant think of many things more wrong then that. There is no valid reason to ever pull out of a deal you agreed upon, you either didn't do your research, you didn't ask around enough. You do that stuff before you agree to a trade and not after. You will instantly lose all credibility in my books.
I do not want that as a rule sorry. And if it is a rule and it affects me then I will step away from EXV.
Every coach should determine the outcome of any trade they are a part of. Changing your mind in a renegotiation should be allowed. Using different players to the initial rejected trade should also be a viable outcome if BOTH coaches agree to it.
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 01:15:56 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 01:13:16 PM
Quote from: Rids on September 08, 2017, 12:35:57 PM
Hopper for Lycett is an awful trade and it should have been rejected. There is no way Lycett is worth a top 5 pick in any draft especially with Vardy now competing for that pinch hit ruck spot at the Eagles.
You were not the only coach with an objection to this trade.
The rejection was 100% correct. It is now up to Atto and Spink to sort out the next steps as they see fit.
If thats peoples opinions then im more then happy to reject the trade as it stands. But if Spinking ads stuff that makes it deemed a valid trade, then as we have always done Atto should not be able to back out of the deal. I will make this more formal though.
This will be put to a vote to formalise the rule that has been happening for years.
Option 1: If a deal is agreed to but under review then it it to be dealt as two separate deals. example
1. Player X + Player Y is locked in
2. Player/Pick Z for 0 the person getting the things for free can accept or reject the deal.
then we see if it passes.
Option 2:
If a deal is agreed upon and it goes under review then either player can back out without any explanation.
Thats me talking as Admin.
Now me talking as a coach. If any Coach agrees to a deal then backs out of it when they are getting more then the agreed upon deal then thats pretty much me done as dealing with you. I cant think of many things more wrong then that. There is no valid reason to ever pull out of a deal you agreed upon, you either didn't do your research, you didn't ask around enough. You do that stuff before you agree to a trade and not after. You will instantly lose all credibility in my books.
I do not want that as a rule sorry. And if it is a rule and it affects me then I will step away from EXV.
Every coach should determine the outcome of any trade they are a part of. Changing your mind in a renegotiation should be allowed. Using different players to the initial rejected trade should also be a viable outcome if BOTH coaches agree to it.
Thats fine, it looks like people want the rule changed to Option 2.
The deal is getting renegotiated and we are going with option 2 at the moment for Hopper Gate.
As a coach though for me its an unwritten rule that you stick by your word. Jumping in to snipe a player after a deal is being negotiated it just as bad. I personally will not be talking to either coach about their players until this is finalized.
The rule was designed to stop these two things from happening which are in my opinion far worse things then not letting people get out of a deal they agreed upon.
l don't remember seeing this vote.
Anyway, our choice is option 2 .........we in Russia vote for democracy :P
The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.
I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.
This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:34:02 PM
The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.
I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.
This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made
spot on
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:34:02 PM
The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.
I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.
This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made
Im not saying i wont deal with Atto, I just find it hard to deal if the other person can pull out any time and they have a history of doing so. That me as a coach.
What break done is this logic though.
If i agree that A = B and then C is > or = to B then its fair enough t assume A > or = to C is it not.
anyway its going to vote.
Are you not worried that people will influence people and vote trades down and talk down the guys they are getting soo much that people dont want to do the trade with that coach and instead deal with the coach influencing their opinion?
Its almost a disadvantage positing a trade as if i post Pick X for Pick Y. Then its free reign for coaches to talk down player Y down soo much that i pull out of the deal and trade with other coaches.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:34:02 PM
The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.
I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.
This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made
Im not saying i wont deal with Atto, I just find it hard to deal if the other person can pull out any time and they have a history of doing so. That me as a coach.
What break done is this logic though.
If i agree that A = B and then C is > or = to B then its fair enough t assume A > or = to C is it not.
anyway its going to vote.
Are you not worried that people will influence people and vote trades down and talk down the guys they are getting soo much that people dont want to do the trade with that coach and instead deal with the coach influencing their opinion?
Its almost a disadvantage positing a trade as if i post Pick X for Pick Y. Then its free reign for coaches to talk down player Y down soo much that i pull out of the deal and trade with other coaches.
To me, the reason he wanted to pull out of the trade is because you approved it without him confirming the trade himself, which is fair enough to me. The rest of what you just said just seems like a completely different issue that is unrelated to this one. Do you understand that coaches don't want trades processed when they haven't agreed to them? That is really the only problem here. It has nothing to do with other coaches saying they're losing heaps in a trade and that they'd offer more for Player X or anything like that. You approved a trade that Atto didn't agree to, and he isn't happy with it, and neither are a number of other coaches. If what you just mentioned, where a coach pulls out of a trade that they confirmed themselves, because other coaches told them that they could offer way more, then that is a completely different issue, and I hope you can see that.
Quote from: nostradamus on September 08, 2017, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:34:02 PM
The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.
I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.
This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made
spot on
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:57:24 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:34:02 PM
The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.
I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.
This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made
Im not saying i wont deal with Atto, I just find it hard to deal if the other person can pull out any time and they have a history of doing so. That me as a coach.
What break done is this logic though.
If i agree that A = B and then C is > or = to B then its fair enough t assume A > or = to C is it not.
anyway its going to vote.
Are you not worried that people will influence people and vote trades down and talk down the guys they are getting soo much that people dont want to do the trade with that coach and instead deal with the coach influencing their opinion?
Its almost a disadvantage positing a trade as if i post Pick X for Pick Y. Then its free reign for coaches to talk down player Y down soo much that i pull out of the deal and trade with other coaches.
To me, the reason he wanted to pull out of the trade is because you approved it without him confirming the trade himself, which is fair enough to me. The rest of what you just said just seems like a completely different issue that is unrelated to this one. Do you understand that coaches don't want trades processed when they haven't agreed to them? That is really the only problem here. It has nothing to do with other coaches saying they're losing heaps in a trade and that they'd offer more for Player X or anything like that. You approved a trade that Atto didn't agree to, and he isn't happy with it, and neither are a number of other coaches. If what you just mentioned, where a coach pulls out of a trade that they confirmed themselves, because other coaches told them that they could offer way more, then that is a completely different issue, and I hope you can see that.
Understand but if you agree to Player X you by default agree to Player X + Something.
I walk into a shop and go im interested in buying this Phone for $800. You pay your cash and receive the phone. The manager just announces to the The teller that they have a special promotion the teller then says good news you also receive this free gift card for $50 to this store for anything you want.
Then the person buying the phone says i didn't agree to that, I have changed my mind I dont want the phone anymore give me my $800 back.
What does the store owner tell you.
Sorry but you cant do that if you dont want the free gift card you dont have to take it but we cant give you your money back you have already bought the phone.
The person then walks out with the phone, they can use the gift card, trade it to someone else or chuck it in the bin.
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 02:04:17 PM
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:57:24 PM
Quote from: Holz on September 08, 2017, 01:50:22 PM
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:34:02 PM
The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.
I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.
This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made
Im not saying i wont deal with Atto, I just find it hard to deal if the other person can pull out any time and they have a history of doing so. That me as a coach.
What break done is this logic though.
If i agree that A = B and then C is > or = to B then its fair enough t assume A > or = to C is it not.
anyway its going to vote.
Are you not worried that people will influence people and vote trades down and talk down the guys they are getting soo much that people dont want to do the trade with that coach and instead deal with the coach influencing their opinion?
Its almost a disadvantage positing a trade as if i post Pick X for Pick Y. Then its free reign for coaches to talk down player Y down soo much that i pull out of the deal and trade with other coaches.
To me, the reason he wanted to pull out of the trade is because you approved it without him confirming the trade himself, which is fair enough to me. The rest of what you just said just seems like a completely different issue that is unrelated to this one. Do you understand that coaches don't want trades processed when they haven't agreed to them? That is really the only problem here. It has nothing to do with other coaches saying they're losing heaps in a trade and that they'd offer more for Player X or anything like that. You approved a trade that Atto didn't agree to, and he isn't happy with it, and neither are a number of other coaches. If what you just mentioned, where a coach pulls out of a trade that they confirmed themselves, because other coaches told them that they could offer way more, then that is a completely different issue, and I hope you can see that.
Understand but if you agree to Player X you by default agree to Player X + Something.
I walk into a shop and go im interested in buying this Phone for $800. You pay your cash and receive the phone. The teller then says good news you also receive this free gift card for $50 to this store for anything you want.
Then the person buying the phone says i didn't agree to that, I have changed my mind I dont want the phone anymore give me my $800 back.
What does the store owner tell you.
Sorry but you cant do that if you dont want the free gift card you dont have to take it but we cant give you your money back you have already bought the phone.
The person then walks out with the phone, they can use the gift card, trade it to someone else or chuck it in the bin.
I think a better example would be something like
Customer believes a phone is worth $800, and so offers $800 for the phone, employee agrees to accept the $800
Store manager informs them both that the phone is only worth $500, and they say that they cannot sell that phone for $800, but if the customer would like, they can accept something else as extra, such as (insert subjective gift value here)
The employee is happy to make this deal, so the manager and employee process this deal without getting the customer's opinion
The customer is not happy with this exchange being made without them having a say, and does not wish to buy the phone anymore.
Now, a better way to do this, is also getting the customer's opinion on what they would like added extra to them. If they decide that they don't like the recommendation by the manager and would like something different, then they can continue to negotiate. If they decide that they no longer want the phone, then that is also fine. If they decide that they wish to pay a different amount for the phone ($500), then they can also do that.
Quote from: nostradamus on September 08, 2017, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: GoLions on September 08, 2017, 01:34:02 PM
The whole point of this debate is that you didn't give Atto a say in the trade negotiations. Just because you think that Spink adding that pick is fair, it doesn't mean that Atto is forced to accept it. He might want a pick upgrade somewhere else. He might want a player upgrade somewhere else. Who knows. But you didn't give him that option. It's up to the coaches involved to work out how they want to balance the trade, not the admin. You can make a recommendation(s), which they can choose to use or not use. It's up to them.
I'd imagine that if you actually gave Atto a say in his own trade to begin with, then things may have worked out and he wouldn't want to back out of the trade. And saying you're done with dealing with Atto because you screwed up is just immature.
This is how the situation should be handled:
> trade gets rejected by admin, who gives reasons as to why, and makes it clear who they believe is losing out in the deal and by how much. can make a suggestion to fix trade if they wish
> coaches involved in trade can either attempt to convince the admin that original trade is fine, renegotiate and modify the trade however they like, or scrap it
> once ALL coaches confirm what they want to do, admin makes their decision. obviously if trade is scrapped, no further decision needs to be made
spot on
I think Holzs logic is pretty sound, but I dont think it's good practice. However,
Quote from: Spinking on September 03, 2017, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: Spinking on September 02, 2017, 07:11:02 PM
Quote from: Atto on September 02, 2017, 06:55:45 PM
Quote from: Spinking on September 02, 2017, 04:55:45 PM
Stallions give: Scott Lycett
Metal gives: Jacob Hopper
We are on the hunt for high quality kids. Lycett is a gun when fit, but we hope Hopper will be a jet later down the track.
Confirm. Sad to see Hopper go as the kid has loads of potential, but we have some urgent issues to fix now and Lycett is almost the perfect player to do so.
Holz has suggested this is too one sided so I'm adding my first Rookie Pick. Trade now reads:
Stallions give: Scott Lycett + R9
Metal give: Jacob Hopper
Atto to confirm
Further change to this, as I've been told it is still too one sided :/
I'm now adding my second round Nat pick (24)
Trade now reads:
Stallions give: Scott Lycett + R9 + N24
Metal give: Jacob Hopper
The fact Spink clarified the trade needed to be confirmed makes this clear cut to me that the trade should be reverse.
Quote from: Ziplock on September 08, 2017, 03:11:34 PM
I think Holzs logic is pretty sound, but I dont think it's good practice. However,
Quote from: Spinking on September 03, 2017, 04:03:45 PM
Quote from: Spinking on September 02, 2017, 07:11:02 PM
Quote from: Atto on September 02, 2017, 06:55:45 PM
Quote from: Spinking on September 02, 2017, 04:55:45 PM
Stallions give: Scott Lycett
Metal gives: Jacob Hopper
We are on the hunt for high quality kids. Lycett is a gun when fit, but we hope Hopper will be a jet later down the track.
Confirm. Sad to see Hopper go as the kid has loads of potential, but we have some urgent issues to fix now and Lycett is almost the perfect player to do so.
Holz has suggested this is too one sided so I'm adding my first Rookie Pick. Trade now reads:
Stallions give: Scott Lycett + R9
Metal give: Jacob Hopper
Atto to confirm
Further change to this, as I've been told it is still too one sided :/
I'm now adding my second round Nat pick (24)
Trade now reads:
Stallions give: Scott Lycett + R9 + N24
Metal give: Jacob Hopper
The fact Spink clarified the trade needed to be confirmed makes this clear cut to me that the trade should be reverse.
It is,
We are both waiting on Atto, Spink has been in talks with Atto and this is the first he has heard abut Atto being unhappy.
Just an FYI for all those with an interest in the Hopper / Lycett trade situation. I offered to either renegotiate or scrap it. Atto has opted to scrap it, so the deal is off.
So now chasing high quality young mids if anyone is keen on a deal.
Roulettes putting the combo of Zac Jones and Rhys Mathieson up for a mid or defender.
Message me and Nostra if they interest.
Boys I'm around today and keen to get some deals done. Have re-sent a few PMs to a few, and anyone else looking for fwds with surplus mids should hit me up!
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on August 31, 2017, 12:42:10 AM
Anyone wanna give me a forward or two
Reply to a PM then :P
Did a trade seriously get rejected because of a 5pick upgrade in the second round lol
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 11, 2017, 11:44:19 AM
Did a trade seriously get rejected because of a 5pick upgrade in the second round lol
It got renegotiated as the team winning the trade in everyone's eyes also go a pick up grade. Every single person i spoke to had Mumford over Hurn, by a little up to alot. So Mumford for Hurn + Pick upgrade made zero sense.
I would have preferred Hurn + something for Mumford, but both parties agreed to do a straight.
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 11, 2017, 11:44:19 AM
Did a trade seriously get rejected because of a 5pick upgrade in the second round lol
Yep.
Quote from: Nige on September 11, 2017, 12:30:40 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on September 11, 2017, 11:44:19 AM
Did a trade seriously get rejected because of a 5pick upgrade in the second round lol
Yep.
Doesn't matter though, its sorted now
Keen to trade guys, hit me up on here or discord or whatever and we'll get something going!
Always open for trades ;)
Anyone chasing Fwds - I've got a few potential goodies on the table at the moment:
D Lang (Geel), S Kersten (Freo), S Weideman (Melb), J Lonie (StK), M Wood (NM)
Quote from: Spinking on September 14, 2017, 12:03:26 PM
Anyone chasing Fwds - I've got a few potential goodies on the table at the moment:
D Lang (Geel), S Kersten (Freo), S Weideman (Melb), J Lonie (StK), M Wood (NM)
:( wood is great.
Going cheap at the Wolves!
Adam Saad, Corey Lyons, Chris Mayne, Dale Thomas, Paul Puopolo, James Rose, Darcy Macpherson, Aaron Black, Brett Eddy
Looking for picks or pick upgrades in either draft :)
Also open to trading Nat picks 11 + 17 for decent midfielder, feel free to offer one via pm :)
Have been pretty busy with work/TAFE & unstable the last little while, so thanks to everyone for their continued patience. Have a funeral for the mother of one of our regular youth group kids on Tuesday who’s family is very close to ours. Will be pretty in and out until after that. Its crazy how short life is sometimes. Cancer is such a horrible thing.
Getting back to offers now. Flick me a PM if I’ve missed you. :)
Not going to look to make many if any offers in Euro’s for a bit. But we are definitely still open to receive trade talks. Make sure to include both Tom & I in PM’s.
Seems to be the season for a bit of
(https://i.imgur.com/bJt3rmF.jpg)
Stay protected fellas!
Quote from: Koop on August 30, 2017, 04:15:44 AM
Tradeable: B.Sinclair, J.Wagner, T.Barrass, T.Hunt, D.Pearce, L.Jetta, S.Hampson, M.Taberner, B.Griffiths, M.Brown
50/50: C.Hooker, J.Geary, A.Rance, D.Mundy, M.Rosa, B.Stretch, D.Menzel, B.Matera, T.Colyer, Joel Smith, D. Byrne-Jones, N. Hrovat
Hard to get: T.Stewart, R.Conca, S.Grigg, D.Prestia, B.McEvoy, J.Ceglar, T.Hawkins, B. Smith, W. Snelling
Untouchable: M.Hurley, C.Oliver, O.Wines, A. Brayshaw, T. Phillips, J.Graham, B.Scheer, T.McLean, TT. Lynch, N. Vlastuin
Retiring: I.Maric, D.Petrie
Had a few good offers for guys already so if you’re after someone send Tom or I a message either here or on Discord soon! We’re mainly looking for defenders this period. :)
Updated, although as evidenced, Untouchables do have their price and always happy to hear offers. Except Oliver, keep your grubby mitts off the ginger! ;D
With Brodie Smith having done his ACL we are desperately chasing starting defenders as Hurley - Vlas - Brayshaw - DBJ is not ideal. Have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds (7, 12, 19, 23, 30, 37) which are all available for capable defenders, ideally under 26-27. As well as forward depth and other juicy things. Send us both a message if you have a starting defender for sale!
The following players from the Wolves are currently cheap on the market :)
Sam Gibson, Matthew Leuenberger, Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti, Chris Mayne, Dale Thomas, Paul Puopolo, James Rose, Darcy Macpherson, Aaron Black, Brett Eddy.
I also have the following picks:
National Draft Picks: 11, 17
Rookie Draft Picks: 8, 11, 15, 22, 39, 41, 51, 53, 67
Feel free to send through some offers!
Quote from: Holz on October 05, 2017, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: nas on October 05, 2017, 10:52:23 AM
Bears give: J Waite
Hulks give: ND #41
Holz knows the risk re Waite, but is prepared for that.
Holz to confirm.
Agreed.
old and injury prone will fit in at Hungary.
I know he's injury prone but holy crap that's a steal
Quote from: LaHug on October 05, 2017, 11:10:57 AM
Quote from: Holz on October 05, 2017, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: nas on October 05, 2017, 10:52:23 AM
Bears give: J Waite
Hulks give: ND #41
Holz knows the risk re Waite, but is prepared for that.
Holz to confirm.
Agreed.
old and injury prone will fit in at Hungary.
I know he's injury prone but holy crap that's a steal
just for the record.
North have told Waite and Gibson that they will not find out if they are given a contract for next year untill after the trade period. That leads me to believe that North are targeting guys and if they get them then they wont be offered contracts.
Given Waite is 34 if north dont offer him a contract then its likely career over.
thats why he is cheap. Old, Injury Prone and I would say a greater then 50% chance he will be forced into retirment.
Quote from: Holz on October 05, 2017, 11:22:54 AM
Quote from: LaHug on October 05, 2017, 11:10:57 AM
Quote from: Holz on October 05, 2017, 10:56:28 AM
Quote from: nas on October 05, 2017, 10:52:23 AM
Bears give: J Waite
Hulks give: ND #41
Holz knows the risk re Waite, but is prepared for that.
Holz to confirm.
Agreed.
old and injury prone will fit in at Hungary.
I know he's injury prone but holy crap that's a steal
just for the record.
North have told Waite and Gibson that they will not find out if they are given a contract for next year untill after the trade period. That leads me to believe that North are targeting guys and if they get them then they wont be offered contracts.
Given Waite is 34 if north dont offer him a contract then its likely career over.
thats why he is cheap. Old, Injury Prone and I would say a greater then 50% chance he will be forced into retirment.
Hence question raised before doing trade & if above does happen.
Lol
Oh. I didn't even think it was necessarily an unfair trade. Comes down to how you value ND picks. I was just having some discussion. Wouldn't think it'd be bad enough either way for a review.
Quote from: Holz on October 05, 2017, 02:15:34 PM
Quote from: JBs-Hawks on October 05, 2017, 02:06:39 PM
Lol
lol to what?
N41 is a nothing pick essentially.
Surely it has to be at least 10 picks higher than that.
Come on thats abit crazy,
im more then happy to pull out of the deal if you guys want to spend pick 30ish on him.
I'll give away the oldest player on my list for Pick 30!!!
Nat 41 is fine imo. Waite is crap
I should put some context to why he is crap and why people should not rate him so highly.
2016 - 14 games @ 83
2017 - 10 games @ 76
He is 35 now and only 50/50 on getting 1 more year. North wont be that competitive in 2018 so even if he does get a contract what is the best to expect from him? 70 from 10-15 games at best. Good luck to Holz if the guy goes better but no way is he worth anything more than nat 41.
Quote from: Rids on October 05, 2017, 05:06:52 PM
I should put some context to why he is crap and why people should not rate him so highly.
2016 - 14 games @ 83
2017 - 10 games @ 76
He is 35 now and only 50/50 on getting 1 more year. North wont be that competitive in 2018 so even if he does get a contract what is the best to expect from him? 70 from 10-15 games at best. Good luck to Holz if the guy goes better but no way is he worth anything more than nat 41.
look I'd see the logic ordinarily, but I personally believe the precedent this season has been to reject the trade of a player of that scoring range for that price.
Quote from: LaHug on October 05, 2017, 03:42:14 PM
I'll give away the oldest player on my list for Pick 30!!!
Im pretty sure I would as well #stevieJ
Quote from: Ziplock on October 05, 2017, 05:55:49 PM
Quote from: Rids on October 05, 2017, 05:06:52 PM
I should put some context to why he is crap and why people should not rate him so highly.
2016 - 14 games @ 83
2017 - 10 games @ 76
He is 35 now and only 50/50 on getting 1 more year. North wont be that competitive in 2018 so even if he does get a contract what is the best to expect from him? 70 from 10-15 games at best. Good luck to Holz if the guy goes better but no way is he worth anything more than nat 41.
look I'd see the logic ordinarily, but I personally believe the precedent this season has been to reject the trade of a player of that scoring range for that price.
To clarify though, I'm not overly fussed about it though.
so is anyone calling for it to get negged.
Good guy Holz agreed to give up a pick for a likely retired 35 year old then in comes the heat :P
good to see some chatter.
I would actually prefer to use the pick but i dont mind either way though.
At this stage, looks like nobody wants it rejected but the general consensus is that you've won the trade comfortably if Waite stays healthy. Take out the last injury game and he averages 80 in an injury riddled year. If healthy, he's a 90+ forward so it's an absolute steal. Of course, that's a big if, and he's old, and he's a risk of delisting so I think it's fine.
No way it should be negged ........ personally l think 41 is too much, considering age, history and there not actually being a contract on the table.
But hey, Holz knows all of this, so let it pass.
As for him being worth a 30s pick, that made me choke on my weeties.
Brendan Ah Chee and Anthony Miles on the table for a decent pick.
Message Nostra and I as always if ya interested.
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-10/old-roo-to-bounce-around-again-in-2018
Quote from: Atto on October 10, 2017, 03:12:13 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-10/old-roo-to-bounce-around-again-in-2018
got to say im shocked that Waite was given 1 more year and guys like Gibson, Mullett and Wagner werent. Doesnt make much sense as a north fan but as a waite owner the first gamble paid off.
Now the second thing is can he actually stay healthy.
Quote from: Holz on October 10, 2017, 03:27:51 PM
Quote from: Atto on October 10, 2017, 03:12:13 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-10/old-roo-to-bounce-around-again-in-2018
got to say im shocked that Waite was given 1 more year and guys like Gibson, Mullett and Wagner werent. Doesnt make much sense as a north fan but as a waite owner the first gamble paid off.
Now the second thing is can he actually stay healthy.
obviously because based on the 2017 season North's premiership window is wider open than Jake Stringer's legs.
Quote from: Ziplock on October 10, 2017, 04:04:57 PM
Quote from: Holz on October 10, 2017, 03:27:51 PM
Quote from: Atto on October 10, 2017, 03:12:13 PM
http://www.afl.com.au/news/2017-10-10/old-roo-to-bounce-around-again-in-2018
got to say im shocked that Waite was given 1 more year and guys like Gibson, Mullett and Wagner werent. Doesnt make much sense as a north fan but as a waite owner the first gamble paid off.
Now the second thing is can he actually stay healthy.
obviously because based on the 2017 season North's premiership window is wider open than Jake Stringer's legs.
Nah that joke doesn't work there zip
Waite is NM's best player. Of course he got another year since he's still gun.
Quote from: Koop on September 22, 2017, 03:33:46 AM
Quote from: Koop on August 30, 2017, 04:15:44 AM
Tradeable: B.Sinclair, J.Wagner, T.Barrass, T.Hunt, D.Pearce, L.Jetta, S.Hampson, M.Taberner, B.Griffiths, M.Brown
50/50: C.Hooker, J.Geary, A.Rance, D.Mundy, M.Rosa, B.Stretch, D.Menzel, B.Matera, T.Colyer, Joel Smith, D. Byrne-Jones, N. Hrovat
Hard to get: T.Stewart, R.Conca, S.Grigg, D.Prestia, B.McEvoy, J.Ceglar, T.Hawkins, B. Smith, W. Snelling
Untouchable: M.Hurley, C.Oliver, O.Wines, A. Brayshaw, T. Phillips, J.Graham, B.Scheer, T.McLean, TT. Lynch, N. Vlastuin
Retiring: I.Maric, D.Petrie
Had a few good offers for guys already so if you’re after someone send Tom or I a message either here or on Discord soon! We’re mainly looking for defenders this period. :)
Updated, although as evidenced, Untouchables do have their price and always happy to hear offers. Except Oliver, keep your grubby mitts off the ginger! ;D
With Brodie Smith having done his ACL we are desperately chasing starting defenders as Hurley - Vlas - Brayshaw - DBJ is not ideal. Have 6 picks in the first 3 rounds (7, 12, 19, 23, 30, 37) which are all available for capable defenders, ideally under 26-27. As well as forward depth and other juicy things. Send us both a message if you have a starting defender for sale!
Okay, so is there an official and accurate list of players and teams that they belong to? Because I searched for one guy that I want to bring in and he's nowhere to be found.
Quote from: meow meow on October 14, 2017, 09:13:27 AM
Okay, so is there an official and accurate list of players and teams that they belong to? Because I searched for one guy that I want to bring in and he's nowhere to be found.
Team list by position and check the Rookie Draft thread..
Quote from: nas on October 14, 2017, 09:56:59 AM
Quote from: meow meow on October 14, 2017, 09:13:27 AM
Okay, so is there an official and accurate list of players and teams that they belong to? Because I searched for one guy that I want to bring in and he's nowhere to be found.
Team list by position and check the Rookie Draft thread..
Still no sign of Daniel Wells...
Quote from: meow meow on October 14, 2017, 10:35:12 AM
Quote from: nas on October 14, 2017, 09:56:59 AM
Quote from: meow meow on October 14, 2017, 09:13:27 AM
Okay, so is there an official and accurate list of players and teams that they belong to? Because I searched for one guy that I want to bring in and he's nowhere to be found.
Team list by position and check the Rookie Draft thread..
Still no sign of Daniel Wells...
He's on Serbia's list. He's listed there in the old team list by position thread I had made for the 2017 season and there's been no list changes since.
Quote from: Nige on October 14, 2017, 10:40:13 AM
Quote from: meow meow on October 14, 2017, 10:35:12 AM
Quote from: nas on October 14, 2017, 09:56:59 AM
Quote from: meow meow on October 14, 2017, 09:13:27 AM
Okay, so is there an official and accurate list of players and teams that they belong to? Because I searched for one guy that I want to bring in and he's nowhere to be found.
Team list by position and check the Rookie Draft thread..
Still no sign of Daniel Wells...
He's on Serbia's list. He's listed there in the old team list by position thread I had made for the 2017 season and there's been no list changes since.
Hence the request for coaches to check the new thread. Wells is my oversight in missing him.
Thanks lads.
Some of you might not know it, but I'm a trade addict and tend to get carried away and ruin my team in the process. Take advantage of me.
Hit me up if there's anyone you want to discuss. Jenkins will be on the move hopefully.
Anyone looking for a solid 65 average depth defender? I've got Kamdyn McIntosh on the table for any half-okay pick and/or pick upgrade :)
Now that Matthew Lobbe has joined Kreuzer at Carlton, it means Kurt Tippett is available for a pick for those looking for a ruck.
Dustin Martin on the table. Would need a mid back, + extra be it a pick, player or upgrade.
After coming from WXV, which is the AFL of the XV comps, this actually feels like a competition from Europe. Does business ever pick up?
Quote from: meow meow on November 06, 2017, 11:24:22 AM
After coming from WXV, which is the AFL of the XV comps, this actually feels like a competition from Europe. Does business ever pick up?
To date:
WXV Trade Movements: 94
EXV Trade Movements: 41
Think to be fair re your comparison tho, you did arrive on the scene later.
Quote from: meow meow on October 21, 2017, 04:01:01 PM
Dustin Martin on the table. Would need a mid back, + extra be it a pick, player or upgrade.
If a comment like this doesnt get you messages flowing in i dont know what will Meow :P
Anyone in a rebuild or looking for some youth to bring through, we have most untried kids on sale for pick upgrades. Hit me up via PM and we'll get a deal done 8)
Just wondering if anyone would be interested in Nic Newman? Pm me if you are keen. Am happy to take any or a combination of pick upgrades, solid defenders and/or forwards.
Trading date.
Trading is open till rookie draft. The NAB AFL Pre-season and Rookie Drafts will be held from 5pm on Monday, November 27.
Quote from: nas on November 19, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
Trading date.
Trading is open till EXV rookie draft. The NAB AFL Pre-season and Rookie Drafts will be held from 5pm on Monday, November 27.
Nat Draft is as soon as the real Nat Draft Finishes so 25 November 11:59 Am EAST
Trade Deadline is 2 Dec 11:59pm AEST time. (unless Nat draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Delisting Deadline: is 3 Dec 11:59pm AEST time (unless Nat Draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Rookie Draft is 4 Dec 11:59 AM time (unless Nat Draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Quote from: Holz on November 20, 2017, 11:01:30 AM
Quote from: nas on November 19, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
Trading date.
Trading is open till EXV rookie draft. The NAB AFL Pre-season and Rookie Drafts will be held from 5pm on Monday, November 27.
Nat Draft is as soon as the real Nat Draft Finishes so 25 November 11:59 Am EAST
Trade Deadline is 2 Dec 11:59pm AEST time. (unless Nat draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Delisting Deadline: is 3 Dec 11:59pm AEST time (unless Nat Draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Rookie Draft is 4 Dec 11:59 AM time (unless Nat Draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
I still don't have internet at my new place. Hoping it'll be fixed soon but going to be really difficult if it's not...
Quote from: LaHug on November 22, 2017, 11:47:28 AM
Quote from: Holz on November 20, 2017, 11:01:30 AM
Quote from: nas on November 19, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
Trading date.
Trading is open till EXV rookie draft. The NAB AFL Pre-season and Rookie Drafts will be held from 5pm on Monday, November 27.
Nat Draft is as soon as the real Nat Draft Finishes so 25 November 11:59 Am EAST
Trade Deadline is 2 Dec 11:59pm AEST time. (unless Nat draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Delisting Deadline: is 3 Dec 11:59pm AEST time (unless Nat Draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Rookie Draft is 4 Dec 11:59 AM time (unless Nat Draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
I still don't have internet at my new place. Hoping it'll be fixed soon but going to be really difficult if it's not...
PM me 2 names, & that way gives you bit of space till ND #15
Quote from: nas on November 22, 2017, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: LaHug on November 22, 2017, 11:47:28 AM
Quote from: Holz on November 20, 2017, 11:01:30 AM
Quote from: nas on November 19, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
Trading date.
Trading is open till EXV rookie draft. The NAB AFL Pre-season and Rookie Drafts will be held from 5pm on Monday, November 27.
Nat Draft is as soon as the real Nat Draft Finishes so 25 November 11:59 Am EAST
Trade Deadline is 2 Dec 11:59pm AEST time. (unless Nat draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Delisting Deadline: is 3 Dec 11:59pm AEST time (unless Nat Draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
Rookie Draft is 4 Dec 11:59 AM time (unless Nat Draft taking too long - will be extended with notice)
I still don't have internet at my new place. Hoping it'll be fixed soon but going to be really difficult if it's not...
PM me 2 names, & that way gives you bit of space till ND #15
Good call. I'll make my final call and let you know.
Quote from: Scrads on November 15, 2017, 05:26:04 PM
Just wondering if anyone would be interested in Nic Newman? Pm me if you are keen. Am happy to take any or a combination of pick upgrades, solid defenders and/or forwards.
Just a reminder leading up to the draft :)
Quote from: Rids on October 19, 2017, 05:19:42 PM
Now that Matthew Lobbe has joined Kreuzer at Carlton, it means Kurt Tippett is available for a pick for those looking for a ruck.
Ryan Griffen, Anthony Miles, James Harmes, Corey Ellis, Levi Greenwood and Shaun Burgoyne all available as well
Quote from: Rids on November 24, 2017, 09:49:10 AM
Quote from: Rids on October 19, 2017, 05:19:42 PM
Now that Matthew Lobbe has joined Kreuzer at Carlton, it means Kurt Tippett is available for a pick for those looking for a ruck.
Ryan Griffen, Anthony Miles, James Harmes, Corey Ellis, Levi Greenwood and Shaun Burgoyne all available as well
Griffen gone which means Miles also now no longer available. Still got some decent depth guys available. Just looking for some pick upgrades.
HMU if you want pick 6
Looking for a pick upgrade with ND picks 23 + 37, hit us with some offers
Jack Lonie and Shane Kersten are going to be delisted - anyone want to take a punt? Would only take a rookie draft upgrade.
If anyone is interested in taking on Chris Mayne, Aaron Black or James Rose, they are going for small rookie pick upgrades :)
if anyone's keen on Bugg or Short they'll be available for small rookie pick upgrades.
If anybody would like to bolster their midfield depth a little, Koby Stevens and Higgins are both available for non mids (preferably forwards)- shoot me or nige through your offers or expressions of interest if keen!
Quote from: Ziplock on December 03, 2017, 03:39:23 PM
if anyone's keen on Bugg or Short they'll be available for small rookie pick upgrades.
If anybody would like to bolster their midfield depth a little, Koby Stevens and Higgins are both available for non mids (preferably forwards)- shoot me or nige through your offers or expressions of interest if keen!
Also R38 and 52 potentially on the table
I have picks I have picks 18,32,43,46,49
Willing to package up 18 + 32 or whatever for a higher pick
Russia will be passing on any rookie picks they have.