I agree with this. Would mrpez still value Witts as highly as he does if teams only had to play one ruckman?
I think even if one ruckman needs to be played there is a potential for them to be rated so highly.
1) you still need backup
2) with 14 teams there will many times be fringe players filling the last positional or utility spot where you can anticipate only a few possessions. Having a ruck in the utility spot can still give you a free pass at a category win.
i'll use tender warriors as an example. As it stands before he finalises his lineup he has jones, hrovat, wright, murdoch, butcher who either didn;t play or hardly touched the ball. A combination of 2 not so could ruckman could provide the hitouts needed and still get more over stats than those players. I've seen in many regular leagues where Hale, Ryder go early because of their DPP. And Cox has been the first ruck picked purely to play FWD for more hitouts. It can obviously work for or against but rucks are valued because only they can provide a dent in a whole category. Because the likely hood is there will be other players that stink it up and the low possessions will be equaled out.
Some people may agree, some will disagree. Some people may value a goal kicker with low stats, some might not. Someone might want to pay a hefty price for priddis or cross to get some handballs and give up a better player because they dont need so many kicks or goals. It's a matter of opinion and opinion should not dictate the way it is.
Also this is a dynasty league. Witts may be seen as way off because Hudson was elevated but regardless of that both him and Jolly are on their last legs and they will get a regular gig quicker than hannath and Currie.
And everyone for the witts trade completely dismissed Young. 11 kicks, 6 handballs and 7 marks is not a bad start for a young backman in a rebuilding side who gave up Lake and are pushing bob murphy fwd.
This whole veto process IMO is getting out of control. It's not like he gave up Mundy. Personal opinion should NOT be able to stop a trade so easily. People will say there is a voting system yet for this trade there where no tags to get a more fair vote. And if people are not aware of a vote I dont think the vote should just go ahead. There should be a minimum number of votes against like 8-9 that way its a bit more clear that its a veto. This one was not. Why don't we use the voting tool on the site? that way it needs to be vetoed properly. What's next? are we going to start vetoing players being delisted and signed from the free agent list?
I log into UF everyday, big footy I dont. Every time I do there is pages of arguments on a trade being vetoed lol. IMO a trade is always going to favour someone. It cant be equal, otherwise there is no point in trading. It seems like it would be easier to not allow in season trading. Or take the time to make some factual guidlines where opinion wont matter.
EG the ranking differnce can only be x amount. Which can be difficult with rookies so perhaps their actual draft pick in real life comes into calculation. Not purely personal opinion.
While on the topic of this particular trade I would also like some clarification on one of my earlier posts. Rockford claimed that one of the vetoing players immediately made offers for players involved. This is a little suspect and I think we need some clarification to eliminate the possibility that a trade was vetoed purely to get a crack at those players themselves. OR if it's just sour grapes from rockford.