BigFooty Dynasty (Ultimate Footy)

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
Guys, I'm pretty sure all we were doing was providing veto or approve votes from now on with the idea being holding off on our commentary and opinions (like it being so clear a veto its not funny) so as to avoid arguments in the thread. I've got no issue with the veto votes as they stand, this could easily be a veto/trade we look back on if Witts reaches Sandi proportions (not physically obviously, he'd need another 3cm) and wonder why. I am trying to rebuild through trading and vetoes after spending time sourcing a suitable trade don't make life any easier (especially given the amount of time I already spend on this game). I'll respect whatever decision is made but would appreciate if we could keep our arguments for/against out of it.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
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..
You look at a trade that is essentially Steven and Golby for Witts and you don't understand the problem?

We have rampant, runaway inflation for ruckmen.

Sure, we shouldn't reward teams for drafting badly, but teams who draft bad ruckmen will get penalised anyway. Under the current rules they get crucified.

I say veto this trade pending a serious discussion about the structure of the teams.
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
You look at a trade that is essentially Steven and Golby for Witts and you don't understand the problem?

We have rampant, runaway inflation for ruckmen.

Sure, we shouldn't reward teams for drafting badly, but teams who draft bad ruckmen will get penalised anyway. Under the current rules they get crucified.

I say veto this trade pending a serious discussion about the structure of the teams.
This is not the price of ruckman though TomFC. If I had know this was the price I would off loaded Gawn ages ago and there is no way Hannath or Currie would of lasted till pick 50. I would love to know the discussion Rockford had with MrPez went and how he convinced him of doing the trade.

I am still a little annoyed about the ones he did with LWP and this just tops it off.
 

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
I am still a little annoyed about the ones he did with LWP and this just tops it off.
Still not a reason to veto, and still above the guidelines on vetoes :( It doesn't really matter why you guys think it's a veto, and it's not your job to convince others to vote the way you do. Just vote like everyone else, and wait for the result, I thought that was what we'd all agreed?
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
This is not the price of ruckman though TomFC. If I had know this was the price I would off loaded Gawn ages ago and there is no way Hannath or Currie would of lasted till pick 50. I would love to know the discussion Rockford had with MrPez went and how he convinced him of doing the trade.

I am still a little annoyed about the ones he did with LWP and this just tops it off.
That was mrpez's justification.
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Still not a reason to veto, and still above the guidelines on vetoes :( It doesn't really matter why you guys think it's a veto, and it's not your job to convince others to vote the way you do. Just vote like everyone else, and wait for the result, I thought that was what we'd all agreed?

I absolutely disagree.

I certainly never agreed to that, at least not intentionally.

But I'm more worried about the crazy value of ruckmen in this league than I am about the trade itself.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
1,267
Likes
1,199
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
New York Knicks
Thread starter #2,234
2 points.

Definite veto. Not even close. If we were talking about a ruckman who was in or at least on the fringes of his team's 22, then fine. But if Witts is so far away from playing that Collingwood are elevating Ben Hudson rather than rely on him to back up Jolly, then that's a signal that he's a fair way off.

If this trade does get up, or even if it doesn't, then we need to start talking about changing the rules on ruckman. Very few other UF leagues require 28 ruckman to be selected each week, and the UF positions are allocated accordingly.

As of next season I reckon we should go to one ruckman and four utilities. Teams who have multiple ruckman can still play them, and still use them to win the HO category.
I agree with this. Would mrpez still value Witts as highly as he does if teams only had to play one ruckman?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
We have rampant, runaway inflation for ruckmen.
Not really, we don't even have a market for ruck men. Most teams just reject offers for rucks out of hand and aren't willing to make a counter at any price. At least I made Pez an offer. Witts and Young for Stevens and Golby will seem like a bargain when Sandi, Cox, Jamar, Hille, Jolly (Hudson is as good as retired already) and Hale have all retired.

Anyway, this response isn't about the trade, it's about the idea of changing the structure to only field 1 ruck. Would I love to see it happen? Sure, it'd suit my team. Would I support changing the structure: No. We all drafted under the same conditions, we've all traded under the same conditions and dropping the ruck position so that only 1 needs to be fielded isn't fair on the likes of TW who has stock-piled a number of young rucks to take advantage of a shortage in 2-3 years (or other players that can play 2 rucks a round). The fact is, rucks are that valuable when you're staring down the barrel of a 0 in that position.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
1,267
Likes
1,199
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
New York Knicks
Thread starter #2,239
Of course not but people drafted and recruited around 2 ruckman. You cannot just change that.

What is your vote on the trade Unknown Caller?
They can still play them if they wish. Any ruckman worth playing would still fill a utility spot. It's probably more of a disadvantage to me than most others as I have four ruckman and possibly five if you include Setanta who play every week.
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
They can still play them if they wish. Any ruckman worth playing would still fill a utility spot. It's probably more of a disadvantage to me than most others as I have four ruckman and possibly five if you include Setanta who play every week.
yea but then instead of having to play a weaker ruckman they can transfer that to any utility. Those with strong ruck lose out. Reason I went for Jacobs so early.

...trade panel.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
1,267
Likes
1,199
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
New York Knicks
Thread starter #2,242
yea but then instead of having to play a weaker ruckman they can transfer that to any utility. Those with strong ruck lose out. Reason I went for Jacobs so early.



...trade panel.
Seeing this trade tells me that your corncerns is only a minor inconvenience compared to the greater problem of the mass overvaluing of ruckman.
 

mrpez

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Posts
1,006
Likes
683
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne
It would be just my luck to pay a record price for a ruckman, only to have the rule change. Would be a good change though (without taking into account the practicality and fairness of it)
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
Seeing this trade tells me that your corncerns is only a minor inconvenience compared to the greater problem of the mass overvaluing of ruckman.
Ok then lets veto this, now that is brought up. He can shoot offers around to everyone and we will find the market price of a ruckman. Even if there are only two sellers and I am sure there will be now that everyone has seen what he has put up simply for Witts. Then it will drive the price of the ruckman way down. Then when it goes through we can discuss! Yes?

This is not the price of a ruckman. How many different discussions did you have regarding this and what you were willing to give up for a ruckman mrpez ?
 

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
Ok then lets veto this, now that is brought up. He can shoot offers around to everyone and we will find the market price of a ruckman. Even if there are only two sellers and I am sure there will be now that everyone has seen what he has put up simply for Witts. Then it will drive the price of the ruckman way down. Then when it goes through we can discuss! Yes?
Or, just let them vote, and see if it gets vetoed. Your insistence on badgering people to veto is more than a little aggravating.
 

mrpez

Club Legend
Joined
Oct 9, 2004
Posts
1,006
Likes
683
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Melbourne
This is not the price of a ruckman. How many different discussions did you have regarding this and what you were willing to give up for a ruckman mrpez ?
I'd rather not go into private details of discussions. I don't think thats really fair to myself or the other coaches involved.
 

tenderwarrior

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
4,406
Likes
3,454
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
I think it is grossly unfair to change it to one ruck and four utilities. I have 7 rucks on my list and have planned for the need to have at least two, potentially three each week depending on match ups. I see this as an advantage I have, which i deserve to have as I have sacrificed other players to get those rucks - Would I have traded O'Meara for Vardy/Armitage if we only needed one ruck? Hell no! Would I have traded Wingard and Atley as part of a trade to get Gorringe? Hell no!

We had this discussion last year, and we decided that it couldn't be changed. Mr Pez should have selected Currie, and should have had a better ruck depth - but he didn't - so why shouldn't he have to pay the price?

I feel that this isn't about the price of Ruckman, but more about that Rockford got an awesome deal.

Question: If Mr Pez wasn't willing to pay the price for a ruck, what good is Stevens and Golby to him when he is playing one or two men down each week and has already lost one category?

If it is changed, I would hope some kind of compensation could be given to each team that has ruckman that is now worth nothing.. Would I get compensation draft picks? Serious Question

PS - while we are at it, premium backs are more expensive than Centres and Forwards - should we only play with 4 backs to make it more fair, so there is enough to go around?
 
Top Bottom