Keeper Lg. BigFooty Dynasty (Ultimate Footy)

[Ironmonger]

And I thought value wasn't coming in to vetoes anymore (as we were accepting that managers could manage their own squads and had their own opinion of value for the players involved) and that we were only vetoing where we suspected collusion. Every case is different obviously, but I'm not sure why anyone's opinion of the players' values matter other than mine and Pez's.

I absolutely never agreed to anything like that.

 

[Rockford]

I absolutely never agreed to anything like that.

Don't take it personally, but I guess I'll have to check with you before sending trade offers out down the track then Will save a whole lot of problems if I just get the top teams' approval first.

 

[richcogs]

If this happens my compensation should be a player of Taylor Walkers values as I would of gone him instead of Maric. I would of still gone Jacobs at 47 I would imagine though.

DD's benefits straight off in this if I am in a GF against him. He will simply play McEvoy and put Hampson to his bench, swap him with Trengove or something. That gives me the decision to risk it and only play Maric and swap out Jacobs for a possession getter. or play them both and win tapouts. Where I lose is the difference between what Trengove and Hampson get in possessions. That could be 10-15 and we all know how close our games are. 10-15 possessions is huge.

You cannot change the ruck structure now there a plenty of rucks. Now that this trade has been vetoed lets see what happens. I know the the next outcome will be more reasonable. Looking at the ruckman there will be probably 50 rucks playing this weekend (many ruck forwards). There are 76 players with ruck eligibility. We only need 28 rucks for everyone to have someone playing.

 

[flaps]

It has to stay how it is. If teams drafted badly, then they need to trade to make up for their mistake. If it costs them a few good players, that is the cost.

I don't understand what the problem is - but maybe I am a bit simple..

What about those of us that never got to draft at all? I reckon I could've killed the draft if I was involved (though I'm sure everyone else says that).

Another point - I'd love to have 1 ruck and extra util. That's obvious for me though as I have shithouse rucks. I also believe that fantasy footy squads should look similar to AFL squads, and I believe we've done everything right with categories and positions, however not many clubs will play 2 pure ruckmen anymore. Most will play 1 ruck, and 1 ruck/CHF type (eg, Cox, NicNat, Roughy, TV, Hale, Griffin, Tippett, Jenkins, etc).

In terms of the Witts trade, well I can see it a little one-sided but I know for a fact that Rocky has worked hard to try and get the value he has wanted out of him, so good on him. He was offered to me (I didn't bite) and I looked at him seriously. But in saying that, I'm not vetoing nor approving (just staying on the fence here).

But I'm more worried about the crazy value of ruckmen in this league than I am about the trade itself.

Same. I really wish people lowered their standards and let me have a good one

We cant change to one ruck. ....if it was an extra utility gained I would have much prefered ebert over kreuzer and pettard over Bailey.

Is there a possibilty we can have a vote? Obviously those in favour of having 2 rucks would usually have 2 good ruckmen. Those that have 1 decent ruckmen are obviously going to vote for the extra utility. It's not rocket science, but at the end of the day surely we want a more even league where shitty teams like I inherited have at least a chance?
*note: this is all coming from bias that I never had a chance to draft 2 good ruckmen and have had to pay a price since that*

We all joined this league, drafted and traded with certain parameters in effect and I don't see why those parameters should change now.

Not I.

But in saying this, I think we should do a North Melbourne and make it so 75% have to agree to Major Rule changes for it to be approved.

 

[Daysy_12]

I think there is no harm in changing rules, but you can't do it mid/pre season. It has to be done at the end of a season, before drafts and trading is in it's early stages.

It should also be a voting system. UC can decide on what the rules of the voting system are but as a minmimum it should be a majority to get passed. We could simply create a thread for each rule with a poll. Leave them open for a set time and must get x number of votes to approve.

There are a few other rules I think we could think about

- Getting rid of the 'create a spot' for a trade rule. Set a deadline for list submission before the draft, where you must have x number of free spots. At some point during the offseason, you may have more or less than that due to a trading and delisting, but by list submission you must make sure you have at least x number of free spots. Just like the AFL
- Change the draft to fast online. We only took about 100 picks last year, which would be a maximum I would imagine, and that should take around an hour. UC can set a date early on and if you can't make it bad luck. Possibly we could vote on a date but this would allow us to leave the draft until the last week of pre-season.
- Rockford raised the possibility of changing the free's stats. It wasn't very popular, but it is still worth formally voting on.
- Proposed Ruck changes

 

[Drew23]

I think we might be arguing at cross purposes, Drew. I'm talking about changing the structure so that there is one ruckman and four utilities, not about veto votes.

Im saying that rucks are not the only players over valued. It is all sorts of players. Getting rid pf having two ruckmen may make them less valuable to some but will not change peoples perception of their worth whem they go to trade. And if someone wants that ruckman enough they will pay the worth requested.

All that getting rid of two ruckmen will really do is disadvantage those who invested heavily in rucks

 

[Ironmonger]

Im saying that rucks are not the only players over valued. It is all sorts of players. Getting rid pf having two ruckmen may make them less valuable to some but will not change peoples perception of their worth whem they go to trade. And if someone wants that ruckman enough they will pay the worth requested.



All that getting rid of two ruckmen will really do is disadvantage those who invested heavily in rucks

I'm sorry, I just don't understand this point. How can it make them less valuable but not change the perception of their worth in a trade?

Totally agree that rucks aren't the only players over valued, but it would seem like rucks are much more overvalued than any other type of player.

 

[Drew23]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand this point. How can it make them less valuable but not change the perception of their worth in a trade?

Totally agree that rucks aren't the only players over valued, but it would seem like rucks are much more overvalued than any other type of player.

If I had say nic nat and right now someone wanted him my opnion of his worth would not change between having two ruckmen or one ruckman

 

[richcogs]

I'm sorry, I just don't understand this point. How can it make them less valuable but not change the perception of their worth in a trade?

Totally agree that rucks aren't the only players over valued, but it would seem like rucks are much more overvalued than any other type of player.

If you had a good ruck well you drafted well. I have Maric and Jacobs top 4 ruckman in the competition. When I drafted I made that my main point. Now if the rules are changed well. Who benefits the most well basically everyone because I didn't lose one ruck category. TomFC wouldn't have Taylor Walker right now!

When games are won by a kick or two changing rucks is a huge thing. Would everyone agree that if it was simply Witts for Golby they struck then this would not be being discussed?

 

[Ironmonger]

If you had a good ruck well you drafted well. I have Maric and Jacobs top 4 ruckman in the competition. When I drafted I made that my main point. Now if the rules are changed well. Who benefits the most well basically everyone because I didn't lose one ruck category. TomFC wouldn't have Taylor Walker right now!

My memory of that first draft isn't all that great, but I'm pretty sure I took Naitanui before I talk Walker, which I wouldn't have done with only one ruck. Everyone has been affected.

If I had say nic nat and right now someone wanted him my opnion of his worth would not change between having two ruckmen or one ruckman

Cheers.

For myself, it would change the value of every ruckman in the league.

 

[Rockford]

When games are won by a kick or two changing rucks is a huge thing. Would everyone agree that if it was simply Witts for Golby they struck then this would not be being discussed?

I can guarantee if it was Witts for Golby it wouldn't be being discussed, because I wouldn't have made the trade and we'd still have the same market. The market isn't the issue IMO, it is what it is and changing the rules because it's difficult to field two playing/gun rucks isn't the way to go. If you don't have two playing rucks then the advice offered to us crappier teams is worth taking: trade your way out of it (or accept it). Most of us teams at the bottom don't have any "premium" mids too, can we limit those to one per team? That'd make it fairer on the rest of us. Or is that okay that some people in the draft identified the premium mids and some of us didn't? Dropping the number of rucks would suit me as much as anyone else but I still don't think it's the answer. If some of us have to post a 0, then that's the game.

flaps, I do feel for you in your situation, but the challenge you took on when you joined the league with your team was to build it (through drafting and trading) with the given parameters.

And, for the record, not everyone agrees that the value isn't fair. mrpez and I don't agree, we made the trade. Daysy_12 and tenderwarrior don't agree and have voted as such. And although they're abstaining from the vote flaps and Drew23 don't agree. That's 6 players who don't have an issue with the trade. Potentially, given there are 6 players who aren't vetoing the trade, you could question your own infallibility in judging the value of others' trades?

 

[Rockford]

For myself, it would change the value of every ruckman in the league.

Which wouldn't effect everyone in the league evenly and, as such, wouldn't be fair.

 

[Ironmonger]

Dropping the number of rucks would suit me as much as anyone else but I still don't think it's the answer. If some of us have to post a 0, then that's the game.

So what is the answer, Rockford? Do you have another idea?

Or do you really not see this as a problem?

Which wouldn't effect everyone in the league evenly and, as such, wouldn't be fair.

I agree. It'll affect some teams more than others. It won't help me, particularly.

But I think the benefits outweigh the costs. I think we should all consider what's best for the league.

If teams are going around hoarding ruckmen so they can corner the market, as TW seems to be suggesting he's doing, then we're just going to have even more problems in the future.

 

[tenderwarrior]

If teams are going around hoarding ruckmen so they can corner the market, as TW seems to be suggesting he's doing, then we're just going to have even more problems in the future.

It has been part of my strategy, yes. Why is that a problem?

There are enough Ruck and Ruck/Forwards to go round, if coaches haven't managed their lists accordingly through drafting, then they trade - as Mr Pez has done.

Simple really..

Do you think I am being sinister in 'hoarding' rucks as you put it? Why is that viewed dimly? This is a strategic game is it not?

And to suggest (as some have) that only one Ruck and four utilities better reflects modern day AFL is kidding themselves. Most teams play two, a combination of R and R/F.

Anyway, whatever happens happens.

 

[Rockford]

So what is the answer, Rockford? Do you have another idea?

Or do you really not see this as a problem?

I genuinely don't see it as a problem. They'll be worth what they're worth at any point in time and so be it. I don't think we need to make any changes to the league.

I agree. It'll affect some teams more than others. It won't help me, particularly.

But I think the benefits outweigh the costs. I think we should all consider what's best for the league.

If teams are going around hoarding ruckmen so they can corner the market, as TW seems to be suggesting he's doing, then we're just going to have even more problems in the future.

Would've been even worse if you hadn't traded Naitanui for Ablett. I don't understand what the benefits to dropping to one ruck are... to me it's just an arbitrary change because some people aren't happy with the price of rucks. Avoiding a spike in value for rucks by dropping to one ruck position isn't of any "benefit" to anyone IMO. It's just a change. That said, dropping to one ruck position will be of detriment to players who have planned for and are able to play 2 rucks (or more).

I also don't see any issue with TW hoarding the rucks. Who are we to tell him how to play the game? If you want one of his rucks, trade with him. He's asked for some serious value for a couple of his rucks I've asked for and I haven't baulked from it, we were still in negotiations when this debate sprang up. If I'm not happy with his price then I won't trade... simple. If it makes more sense for me to post a 0 in a ruck score then I'll do that, if it makes more sense for me to offer a couple of premiums (Birchall and Watson for example) to try to land a ruck so as to not post a 0 then I'll do that too.

 

[Rockford]

Also for the record, I think suggesting that tenderwarrior is "hoarding" the rucks is a little unfair. TW and myself have discussed potential trades for both Vardy and Bellchambers with offers being made in both directions, he is open to trading his rucks. I've also attempted to discuss potential trades for Leuenberger and Z. Smith (amongst others) but either didn't get a response or was told that there was no way they would be trading them. Not that there's anything wrong with that either, if you don't like what is on offer for a player, then you won't trade. If you do (as mrpez and myself did) then you trade.

 

[Ironmonger]

Do you think I am being sinister in 'hoarding' rucks as you put it?

What? No! What on earth are you talking about?

You can exploit the rules as much as you like as far as I'm concerned. I've certainly done my best to exploit what I think are lax veto rules, and I'll continue to do so. And I've no intention of trading away ruckmen without a change to the rules.

There's so much ridiculous deflection and what I can only assume is a disingenuous lack of comprehension in this discussion.

I just cannot believe people don't see the issue with there not being enough rucks to go around.

Anyway, I'm done. If someone else wants to take up this issue, great. Otherwise we can go back to rucks to being virtually untradable and the league being held made ridiculously dependent on whether a handful of ruckman can stay fit.

 

[Rockford]

The league isn't dependant on whether a handful of ruck men stay fit though, an individual team might be dependant on it but that's the game. I genuinely don't understand the issue, its not being disingenuous, we could accuse you of the same for not understanding our argument. I'm seriously asking someone to explain the benefit of dropping to one ruck to me, just saying there'll be less demand for rucks doesn't highlight any benefit to the league to me. As it is, if we have a vote I suspect I'd abstain as I'm really not sure I understand the issue.

 

[Unknown Caller]

The benefit is that teams who have only one starting ruckman don't feel the need to pay these high prices for fear of playing a man down for the season. If the ruck spots are cut down to one, I don't think anybody would be willing to pay these inflated prices as they could just start a player who plays in a different position.

Think of it this way. With quality centres having the greatest supply, their value multiplier would probably be a 1. Forwards being the second-most common would have a value multiplier of 2. With a smaller supply, defenders would have a value multiplier of 3.5. Going by that last trade, ruckman would have a value multiplier of about 11. The aim of the new rule would to reduce this multiplier to something more reasonable so that a player's position isn't the main determinant of a player's value. Seriously, the only justification for the trade being fair is that Witts is a ruckman and the other players are not.

 

[Rockford]

The benefit is that teams who have only one starting ruckman don't feel the need to pay these high prices for fear of playing a man down for the season. If the ruck spots are cut down to one, I don't think anybody would be willing to pay these inflated prices as they could just start a player who plays in a different position.

But I still don't see how that is really a benefit? We all play under the same rules and if you've only got one starting ruck you're shot and will have to get yourself another one (and pay the going price) or post a 0. I'm not one of the players who planned well, I didn't get a good ruck in the draft and for the pretty much the whole of the first season I got 0's for one of my ruck positions (and I wasn't alone). I spent most of the season chasing a 2nd playing ruck and without fail I was asked for my best players (Buddy most of the time) and opted to post 0's instead. As a result I finished in the bottom 4. It wasn't an issue then, I don't know why it should be an issue now. It still (for me) boils down to trade if you're happy with the deal, don't if you're not. If you only have one playing ruck expect to finish further down the ladder, if you've got two or more playing then you'll win more match ups and more than likely finish up the ladder. Same as if you've got 4 or 5 gun mids you'll finish higher up the ladder, if you've got 1 gun mid and a mix of average players and spuds then you'll finish down the ladder. There's no real difference to me.

Think of it this way. With quality centres having the greatest supply, their value multiplier would probably be a 1. Forwards being the second-most common would have a value multiplier of 2. With a smaller supply, defenders would have a value multiplier of 3.5. Going by that last trade, ruckman would have a value multiplier of about 11. The aim of the new rule would to reduce this multiplier to something more reasonable so that a player's position isn't the main determinant of a player's value. Seriously, the only justification for the trade being fair is that Witts is a ruckman and the other players are not.

I still don't see why this warrants changing the rules. I agree with you that replacing Witts (a young ruck touted as the next Sandi) is still going to be more difficult than replacing both Steven and Golby who, as you've indicated with your multipliers, are effectively a dime a dozen. And I agree with you that a large reason for the difficulty in replacing a ruck is that we need to field two rucks (and players don't want to trade them), but I don't think we should just change the rules because the game is difficult. I don't see making the game easier as a benefit to the league necessarily, whereas there are clear down sides for some teams in making the rule change.

 

[Unknown Caller]

I still don't see why this warrants changing the rules. I agree with you that replacing Witts (a young ruck touted as the next Sandi) is still going to be more difficult than replacing both Steven and Golby who, as you've indicated with your multipliers, are effectively a dime a dozen. And I agree with you that a large reason for the difficulty in replacing a ruck is that we need to field two rucks (and players don't want to trade them), but I don't think we should just change the rules because the game is difficult. I don't see making the game easier as a benefit to the league necessarily, whereas there are clear down sides for some teams in making the rule change.

My main point is that the player's position shouldn't be the most significant factor in the deal which is clearly the case with the Witts deal. IMO it's pretty clear that there is something wrong if the position of the player matters more than the actual quality and performance of the player.

 

[Rockford]

My main point is that the player's position shouldn't be the most significant factor in the deal which is clearly the case with the Witts deal. IMO it's pretty clear that there is something wrong if the position of the player matters more than the actual quality and performance of the player.

At the risk of sounding like my 2 year old: Why? Why does it matter if the position has an impact on the players value? If we're going to change a ruck position to a utility position because of a ruck's high value then realistically then we need to vote to change some of the backs and forwards too, as a back has a significantly higher value than a similarly place mid (in keeping with your multipliers). Or, an even better way to ensure positions don't have an impact on the value of a player, let's just change it to 22 utilities and be done with it.

 

[flaps]

I genuinely don't see it as a problem. They'll be worth what they're worth at any point in time and so be it. I don't think we need to make any changes to the league.



Would've been even worse if you hadn't traded Naitanui for Ablett. I don't understand what the benefits to dropping to one ruck are... to me it's just an arbitrary change because some people aren't happy with the price of rucks. Avoiding a spike in value for rucks by dropping to one ruck position isn't of any "benefit" to anyone IMO. It's just a change. That said, dropping to one ruck position will be of detriment to players who have planned for and are able to play 2 rucks (or more).

I also don't see any issue with TW hoarding the rucks. Who are we to tell him how to play the game? If you want one of his rucks, trade with him. He's asked for some serious value for a couple of his rucks I've asked for and I haven't baulked from it, we were still in negotiations when this debate sprang up. If I'm not happy with his price then I won't trade... simple. If it makes more sense for me to post a 0 in a ruck score then I'll do that, if it makes more sense for me to offer a couple of premiums (Birchall and Watson for example) to try to land a ruck so as to not post a 0 then I'll do that too.

Just for the record, I'd be mildly disappointed if you traded Watson for a ruckman, given no one would offer me a decent ruck for him.

 

[richcogs]

I still don't see why this warrants changing the rules. I agree with you that replacing Witts (a young ruck touted as the next Sandi) is still going to be more difficult than replacing both Steven and Golby who, as you've indicated with your multipliers, are effectively a dime a dozen. And I agree with you that a large reason for the difficulty in replacing a ruck is that we need to field two rucks (and players don't want to trade them), but I don't think we should just change the rules because the game is difficult. I don't see making the game easier as a benefit to the league necessarily, whereas there are clear down sides for some teams in making the rule change.

This is absolute crap. They are not harder to replace than say Witts, Daw, Grimley or Gawn type player. Geez Sam Grimley got picked off waivers about 2 weeks ago for free. Lot more chance of him being played in the near future than Witts. Blivac was free as well. Currie/Hannath/Sinclair/McBean all late picks Never would you find players like Stevens or Golby and where they are at on waiver wire.

There are three arguments going on here. Unknown Caller , TomFC is arguing that there is a problem with the ruck multiplier and that this would be a multiplier of 13 or something. I am arguing that this isn't the actual price of rucks. Maybe one player but no way two. Are you Rockford are arguing that there is nothing wrong with the trade and what is happening here what so ever.

 

[StAnselm]

I think there is no harm in changing rules, but you can't do it mid/pre season. It has to be done at the end of a season, before drafts and trading is in it's early stages.

I totally disagree - if people are planning for several years in the future, it is still shifting the goal posts after the game has started.

I oppose the one ruck proposal. I think it would be much better if we only played with one ruckman, but I think it's grossly unfair to change the rules now.