BigFooty Dynasty (Ultimate Footy)

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Everyone has planned around two ruckmen. Everyone has made their recruiting decisions on that basis. Everyone would have made different decisions if they knew we were going to change the setup. No one is unique on this.

It'd be great if, for the moment, we can restrict the discussion to what is best for the league, and worry about individual coaches later.

From my perspective, everyone loses out under the current system, because we're all one or two injuries away from not being to field a full team.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
Everyone has planned around two ruckmen. Everyone has made their recruiting decisions on that basis. Everyone would have made different decisions if they knew we were going to change the setup. No one is unique on this.

It'd be great if, for the moment, we can restrict the discussion to what is best for the league, and worry about individual coaches later.

From my perspective, everyone loses out under the current system, because we're all one or two injuries away from not being to field a full team.
It's a shocking idea, not everyone has had the same strategy. I think it would effect tenderwarrior more than anyone. The teams really going for it have all got back ups bar Jimmy's Junk (Lowden) isnt really going to play is he? But is a great prospect!

Definitely wouldnt be fair to mrpez to give up Golby and Stevens and have the values of rucks cut in half!
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
Lets stop talking about all this and put bloody something to vote. May as well get it over with. If people want the rule then so be it. I DISAPPROVE of the change in ruck.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
1,267
Likes
1,199
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
New York Knicks
Thread starter #2,256
The trade may be delayed or cancelled if we have a decision on the one ruck rule or if mrpez wants out of the deal. I think right now the Witts trade is 3-2 to veto.
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
The trade may be delayed or cancelled if we have a decision on the one ruck rule or if mrpez wants out of the deal. I think right now the Witts trade is 3-2 to veto.
I think we should try and get all 14 teams to vote in the ruck decision as it is quiet important.
 

tenderwarrior

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
4,406
Likes
3,454
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
Everyone has planned around two ruckmen. Everyone has made their recruiting decisions on that basis. Everyone would have made different decisions if they knew we were going to change the setup. No one is unique on this.
Not really. I saw an opportunity to heavily invest in a commodity that was rare, and that others would need in the future. I have planned around EVERYBODY needing at least two ruckmen, not just me.
 

tenderwarrior

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
4,406
Likes
3,454
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
Well I vote to keep it as is.

If it does change, I would expect some form of compensation is warranted in the way of some early draft picks in next years draft.

I also expect that I can delist some unneeded rucks and select free agents outside of my '5 for the season'. I would also expect that the one I used on Nicholls last week would be given back.

I think that is the least that should be done...
 

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't know why we're putting such a major rule change to a vote, I'm surprised we're even discussing it. We all joined this league, drafted and traded with certain parameters in effect and I don't see why those parameters should change now. As far as I'm concerned this isn't a majority rules vote, it's an all or nothing vote, and if any of the players aren't happy with the rule change then it shouldn't happen.
 

tenderwarrior

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
4,406
Likes
3,454
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
I don't know why we're putting such a major rule change to a vote, I'm surprised we're even discussing it. We all joined this league, drafted and traded with certain parameters in effect and I don't see why those parameters should change now. As far as I'm concerned this isn't a majority rules vote, it's an all or nothing vote, and if any of the players aren't happy with the rule change then it shouldn't happen.
Wise wise words.

It is one thing to veto a trade, another thing completely to change the parameters of the game!

I would be interested to know what has changed for UC to go back on his stance last year when this was raised?
 

(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
I don't know why we're putting such a major rule change to a vote, I'm surprised we're even discussing it. We all joined this league, drafted and traded with certain parameters in effect and I don't see why those parameters should change now. As far as I'm concerned this isn't a majority rules vote, it's an all or nothing vote, and if any of the players aren't happy with the rule change then it shouldn't happen.
I'd suggest we'd need a 2/3rds majority for this kind of change.

I don't think we'll get it. Which is a terrible shame. I can't believe people can look at a trade like this one and not see that there's a big problem.
 

Drew23

Premiership Player
Joined
May 12, 2011
Posts
3,843
Likes
982
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Well I have 6 of them, sinclair I picked up in the draft because of his ruck status. I traded bailey in for pettard so if this rubbish rule change took place I would expect to be able to trade back pettard and get a pick to compensate sinclair for next years Draft. I then picked up goldy before cotchin and dangerfield who I was considering in the initial Draft. So I can exchange him too?

Seriously what a bad idea. It will not work because there are some teams with two elite ruckmen I.e. richcogs and others with no good ruckmen and a lot of young currently average ruckmen I.e. lwp.

Would be to the detriment of the league ro make a change like this
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
1,267
Likes
1,199
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
New York Knicks
Thread starter #2,264
Wise wise words.

It is one thing to veto a trade, another thing completely to change the parameters of the game!

I would be interested to know what has changed for UC to go back on his stance last year when this was raised?
This trade was pretty much the tipping point. Last year, I still thought ruckman were overvalued, but I didn't think it'd get to the point where two young guns would be trade for an unproven ruckman who only Collingwood supporters seem to be raving about.
 

tenderwarrior

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
4,406
Likes
3,454
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
I can't believe people can look at a trade like this one and not see that there's a big problem.
I can't believe that people don't understand and accept that price/value is determined by quality, rarity and need.

It is a big price, but that is the nature of a free market - where if something is in demand it rises in cost. And I have more 'right' than anybody else to be annoyed as I had asked Mr Pez for those exact two players in exchange for another player who is a proven UF gun! but though he was a vastly higher quality player, there are more of his position available, and Mr Pez had others - not as higher qualitity, but others none the less - who could take his place - so no deal.

And I was very quick to let Mr Pez know that I thought he did the right thing for his squad. I was also very quick to let Rockford know that I thought he had done well out of the trade.
 

Drew23

Premiership Player
Joined
May 12, 2011
Posts
3,843
Likes
982
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
North Melbourne
I'd suggest we need a 2/3rds majority for this kind of change.

I don't think we'll get it. Which is a terrible shame. I can't believe people can look at a trade like this one and not see that there's a big problem.
You only say this now? These one sided trades have not been Isolated to ruckmen. They have been to stars of the fame midfielders for young players people hope will come on. We cannot look at ruclmen and say that they are the sole problem with trading. Because lets be honest they aren't. The problem has been that the interpretation s of what is a fair trade has been warped so much over the stretch that any player under 20 is considered a future star of the game....well maybe one out of 50 will get to the level of a jobe watson or a scott pendlebury. But who aee we to know which ones they will be. Because recriiters dont even know that
 

tenderwarrior

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 26, 2003
Posts
4,406
Likes
3,454
Location
Launceston
AFL Club
Geelong
This trade was pretty much the tipping point. Last year, I still thought ruckman were overvalued, but I didn't think it'd get to the point where two young guns would be trade for an unproven ruckman who only Collingwood supporters seem to be raving about.
But isn't that why we have the veto system?

If it is vetoed, the process has done it's job and it is back to the drawing board - like what happened with my attempted Ruck trade with Angels last year involving Wood/McCauley for Rance/Jack.

However, if the majority think it is fair, than that is it. Deal accepted.

An individual may feel that a certain player was 'over valued' (or under valued) in the trade, but if the majority feel it is fair - doesn't that suggest that their ideals of 'value' may be wrong?
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
Seriously what a bad idea. It will not work because there are some teams with two elite ruckmen I.e. richcogs and others with no good ruckmen and a lot of young currently average ruckmen I.e. lwp.

Would be to the detriment of the league ro make a change like this
Could you elaborate on this, Drew? I'm not sure what you're saying.

I can't believe that people don't understand and accept that price/value is determined by quality, rarity and need.
Of course I understand that TW. I'm saying because we all have to field two ruckmen each week, the 'need' is artificially high. That's the whole basis of my argument.



It is a big price, but that is the nature of a free market - where if something is in demand it rises in cost.
But this isn't a free market. Demand for ruckmen has been artificially stimulated, leading to inflation.
 

Ironmonger

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Posts
10,014
Likes
15,856
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Other Teams
Melbourne Victory
You only say this now? These one sided trades have not been Isolated to ruckmen. They have been to stars of the fame midfielders for young players people hope will come on. We cannot look at ruclmen and say that they are the sole problem with trading. Because lets be honest they aren't. The problem has been that the interpretation s of what is a fair trade has been warped so much over the stretch that any player under 20 is considered a future star of the game....well maybe one out of 50 will get to the level of a jobe watson or a scott pendlebury. But who aee we to know which ones they will be. Because recriiters dont even know that
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.
 
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Posts
1,267
Likes
1,199
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
New York Knicks
Thread starter #2,271
But isn't that why we have the veto system?

If it is vetoed, the process has done it's job and it is back to the drawing board - like what happened with my attempted Ruck trade with Angels last year involving Wood/McCauley for Rance/Jack.

However, if the majority think it is fair, than that is it. Deal accepted.

An individual may feel that a certain player was 'over valued' (or under valued) in the trade, but if the majority feel it is fair - doesn't that suggest that their ideals of 'value' may be wrong?
Why do they think it is fair though? Because of the overly excessive demand for ruckman and the relative scarcity. The aim of the new rule is to curb this excess demand and their willingness to pay these inflated prices so that coaches aren't destroying their teams just to satisfy the requirement for two starting ruckman. That way, there wouldn't be these exorbitant premiums on ruckman and their value would be more in line with other positions.
 

Rockford

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Aug 22, 2006
Posts
8,913
Likes
3,080
Location
Halls Head
AFL Club
Geelong
An individual may feel that a certain player was 'over valued' (or under valued) in the trade, but if the majority feel it is fair - doesn't that suggest that their ideals of 'value' may be wrong?
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.
 

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins

richcogs

Premiership Player
Joined
Oct 8, 2004
Posts
4,440
Likes
1,718
Location
Wodonga
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Pittsburgh Penguins
This trade was pretty much the tipping point. Last year, I still thought ruckman were overvalued, but I didn't think it'd get to the point where two young guns would be trade for an unproven ruckman who only Collingwood supporters seem to be raving about.
I am getting 'i dont know' with this call that this is the value of ruckman it simply is not. If MrPez would have approached more teams there is no way it would of happened.

I agree with tom that if 9 of the players thought it best then I would just accept it I guess.
 
Top Bottom