Official Trade Thread 2016/17

[elephants]

Surely not serious. Keep the flowering comp somewhat even please.

For me ithe problem isnt the comp uneveness. But its two established players (who score well) and a highly rated kid for three kids...

[Nige]

Surely not serious. Keep the flowering comp somewhat even please.

For me ithe problem isnt the comp uneveness. But its two established players (who score well) and a highly rated kid for three kids...

That's where it factors in though. Does Jukes need Gaff or Gibbo? Absolutely not. They're starters in every side but Jukes' really.

I've been trying to trade to be more competitive and have half a chance but when teams are hoarding established players and others are struggling to fill out their XVIII, it becomes a worry.

[powersuperkents]

Surely not serious. Keep the flowering comp somewhat even please.

For me ithe problem isnt the comp uneveness. But its two established players (who score well) and a highly rated kid for three kids...

That's where it factors in though. Does Jukes need Gaff or Gibbo? Absolutely not. They're starters in every side but Jukes' really.

I've been trying to trade to be more competitive and have half a chance but when teams are hoarding established players and others are struggling to fill out their XVIII, it becomes a worry.

Hence, my observations about bargaining power

Eventually it reaches a point where the other clubs need to give up a crucial/required player to recruit a starter, whilst the clubs who have hoarded can outbid us by sacrificing less, or to quote one of my fine works;

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

*Note; this is stated where mutually beneficial trading was, in fact, possible or when a trading relationship between the two clubs can be establish - e.g. take a loss in a position which is covered to later receive a gain in a position where recruitment is necessary.

Mac I would think long and hard about what you are losing for Gaff & Gibbo, because you could certainly obtain more with Gaff - i.e. potentially recruit a premium forward or defender - than the potential value of Garlett, Anderson, and OMac. Someone's profiting from Gaff's poor season. You could certainly acquire OMac for less...

[powersuperkents]

That being said, it's best to leave any decision to Big Mac as he is an autonomous being and, as it involves young players who are not well-established in the AFL as of yet, he could have good reason to have made this trade (he may know something about OMac, Garlett, Hipwood, or Anderson we do not know at this point).

Note;
Established Premium: Player who regularly averages +100ppg
c/f Established Player: Player in which near-perfect information about them is available

So by my definition above, Zac Dawson is an 'established player' because all coaches are aware of him and enough information is available to ascertain his spud status.

[Jay]

Another one here between Houston and Carolina! Bit more even than the above trade I think :P

Houston give: Rhys Stanley
Carolina give: Shane Edwards + N23

Giving up a R/F really hurts us, Stanley is a solid player with potential to breakout. But willing to take a punt that Edwards can get back to his last year's form.

Nas to confirm.

[nas]

Another one here between Houston and Carolina! Bit more even than the above trade I think :P

Houston give: Rhys Stanley
Carolina give: Shane Edwards + N23

Giving up a R/F really hurts us, Stanley is a solid player with potential to breakout. But willing to take a punt that Edwards can get back to his last year's form.

Nas to confirm.

Confirm. Gaining Stanley gives me the back up Ruck / Forward  required.

[Nige]

Ottawa give: Josh Hill + Jarryd Blair
Anaheim give: N31 + N34

Was looking to offload these two for the best picks possible as part of the list management strategy developed by our freshly recruited assistant.

KB to confirm.

[Big Mac]

If you want, report and reject the trade, that's what the system's there for. Haven't really had the time to read what you guys have written (sorry PSK especially, will give it a read tomorrow) but here were my thoughts on the trade while I'm on the bus:

Basically I know I can't compete for the flag, and with my aging list figured I should drop a few players while I can get something for them. So Gibson is effectively worth fairly little to me. Gaff I can understand is fairly valuable, but again I don't rate him that highly (obviously still very good depth or a utility). Finding it hard to gauge players' value in my first week in the comp though and one other offer I had involving Gaff was Gaff + Lobb for Weitering and likely someone like Weideman, and I wasn't really too keen on that, but thought O'Mac had the potential to score similarly/slightly less than Weits in the future given what he's shown this year and the faith the coaches have shown in him in not even considering Dunn/Garland for a game. Hipwood probably not ideal to give up, but again getting Garlett back (was pick 15 in both this comp and the AFL iirc), and Anderson who should get a lot more chances next year with north's retirements was something I was willing to risk. Also I still rate the talent at RD8 so that was handy to get back as well

[Pkbaldy]

So just cos you know you cant make finals. You'll help split the comp further by feeding to the strong teams. Gaff is 24. Should be the last guy you trade. The list i had 18 months ago was atrocious, and im starting to build something. And the best player i traded was Bryce Gibbs and Goddard... no need to trade an absolute gun for scrap.

[elephants]

I'm all for some hearty discussion, especially if it comes with a side of bants, but this should probably all be in the Discussion thread.

[kilbluff1985]

Ottawa give: Josh Hill + Jarryd Blair
Anaheim give: N31 + N34

Was looking to offload these two for the best picks possible as part of the list management strategy developed by our freshly recruited assistant.

KB to confirm.

confirmed

handy depth for next year

[Jukes]

So just cos you know you cant make finals. You'll help split the comp further by feeding to the strong teams. Gaff is 24. Should be the last guy you trade. The list i had 18 months ago was atrocious, and im starting to build something. And the best player i traded was Bryce Gibbs and Goddard... no need to trade an absolute gun for scrap.

I guess you won't be complaining when in 4 years' time the ladder is reversed and NBH, LVS and Quito are fighting for the flag while Anaheim and Boston are bottom 2...

Basically I don't think trades should be negged based on making one team too good or too bad now/later, but on their individual merit and player values.

I reckon OMac and Garlett are future 90-average players and Anderson 85 (Roos rate him highly, traded a first pick for him despite getting no game time at Hawthorn) and are 20, 20, and 22. Gibbo is 32 (33 by the time next season comes around), Gaff has had a terrible 2016 and I don't rate him as a blue-chip midfielder, but is a step-up from playing Swallow/Douglas as the sub. Hipwood has talent (not as much as OMac, Garlett, and Anderson though).

I've received a complaint (so nobody else send one aha), I'll send out the vote tomorrow night.

[Pkbaldy]

Yet again, there is no way you can be serious. Oscar McDonald is a key defender, the chance of a key defender becoming a premium is 1 in 100. flowering slim as mate. He's shown stuff all promise in being a high scoring key defender, I reckon he's got 2 90+ scores in 18 games? Nup. Jarrod Garlett shows promise, but yet again, not enough to warrant him a trade like this, no doubt averages under 70, for a 2nd year player, going to be a good player, but no necessarily a fantasy scorer. And Anderson is terrible, he'll be lucky to still be playing AFL in 2-3 years. Cant find the footy, and impact the game, can't score fantasy.

Now let's talk about the other end, Andrew Gaff, flowering gun. Poor year? yes. But still a gun, if you're treating these average youngsters to future value, then I can with Gaff, he's a 100+ fantasy scorer without a doubt, he collects 30+ touches with ease in games, and can assure you will be a better scorer then all 3 of the players you traded for him. And you can't go around rating those 3 saying how they have more talent then Hipwood... Once that bloke starts bulking up in muscle (Could be another Jarrod Grant, but I doubt it.) He will be an absolute star, will average 80-90 as a fwd or defender, wherever he is. He's that talented. I reckon he'd probably score better than Andersen right now.

If anyone agrees with the trade, it's just complete stupidity, might as well cut the other 8 teams out and wait 4 years, but no doubt by then you've used your buying power to reap in more players to stay alive much longer. 

[Jukes]

OMac is averaging 70 as a 20-year-old key back in his second season for a non-finals team. That's pretty damn good and he'll only get better. Garlett was taken pick 15 by GC and will also only get better than his 60-average this season at just 20. North gave up pick 15 for Ando when he'd only played 10 career games, has buckets of upside and his hammy has derailed his 2016 - Roos obviously rate him highly and there will be plenty of room for him with Boomer and NDS leaving.

RD8 can definitely pick up a great young talent - last year I snatched Papley at #15 and a guy I traded for Brad Hill at #34, while this year in addition to guys like Papley taken in the AFL Rookie Draft there's Cox, Dea, Aliir, Campbell, Castagna, Cordy, Foote, Jayden Hunt, Nev Jetta, Archie Smith, Jackson Trengove, Will Hams, and Ruggles up for grabs - 13 guys who are young, playing AFL footy, and scoring reasonably well (for the most part), and then youngsters picked up from lower levels.

So what do we rate higher - getting an 85-back, 80-mid/fwd, 80mid/fwd, and possibly somebody like Aliir as an 80-back for a decade or a 95ish-mid for maybe 8 years, 90-back for 2 years, and an 80-fwd for a decade (I'm willing to drop him from the deal because he wouldn't be too much use to me)

And rejecting the trade for comp eveness is madness. Nothing stopping you bottom/young clubs from going out on a limb and trying to challenge for a flag now. Not our fault we're flying high.

[Pkbaldy]

So did it pass?