VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

7/10/25 1:01pm [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, [6], 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 28/05/21 4:14pm
Author: John
Subject: My 2 Cents on Have's and Have Not's and all in between.
In reply to: Maxwell 's message, "Have and Have nots....................why has this occurred?" on 27/05/21 10:58am

The response to D9 has been nothing by pure rubbish from some Mods and if it keeps up, I'm out. He makes a very valid statement but also one I can see from Max.

I was once told that you go best available with your first pick and then fill needs later on. I don't agree with this, but have seen it happen. Would a club who held onto pick 1 and needed a ruck/KPF/KPD, legit take one and miss out on a Rowell, Welsh, Rozee type player who went #1 in the AFL draft? No and lets not kid they would. They will take the next best ruck/tall if the best isn't available in the second round of the SL draft.

But what we are seeing and you cannot deny this, is the stock piling and then wanting a premium for one. We also have coaches who are just flat out refusing to trade their depth as they know how hard it is to get one that is playing, let alone a best 22 for their club. I know because I have been trying to find a young developing KPF and no one is trading theirs. Should a coach be penalised because they can't get one? Should a club be penalised because they aren't prepared to pay a 2nd rounder for an older player? Possibly, but this is where it is a gray area. I wanted a 2nd or 3rd rounder for Sinclair, no bites. Took a future 2nd and a 4th rounder for Phillips and Sinclair to help a coach.

But I agree with D9's premise on salary cap to stop hoarding. I think some coaches have purposefully done this as we have a huge team list. It needs reviewing as clubs barely play 2 rucks unless one can play forward nowadays. I get when you have 2 rucks and 1 to 2 developers but no club should have 4 rucks plus another 4 eligible. But here we are.

I personally think we should have reviewed the list sizes or at least review how many have ruck eligible in each side and go through a fine tooth comb to cut some of those. I lost Dixon who was my last resort and he is averaging 4HO's a game this season because last season he averaged 2.9...

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Forum timezone: GMT+11
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.