BBFFL#2 2016 Discussion

Need some concensus on a rule - can we LTI list players we trade for? I think we have said no to placing players we draft straight on LTI list.

Against changing this rule. If you trade for a player on LTI, you take him knowing he has an injury.

Understand your point. My arguement against it is that allowing this to occur could mean more trades occur. My view is that more trades mean more interaction which in the end leads to more engagement of all coaches.

However as I said I am only once voice.

I have had to hold onto Swallow and Prestia for 2 years through their injuries whilst being made ridiculous offers from other coaches. It is pretty obvious this is all about the deal you are discussing with Silly Billy and not some higher issue of trying to improve the trade situation.

Need some concensus on a rule - can we LTI list players we trade for? I think we have said no to placing players we draft straight on LTI list.

I’m not sure TBH.

When would you be expecting to fill the list vacancy from moving said player from 20 into LTI slot?

Need some concensus on a rule - can we LTI list players we trade for? I think we have said no to placing players we draft straight on LTI list.

I’m not sure TBH.

When would you be expecting to fill the list vacancy from moving said player from 20 into LTI slot?

At the end of the draft. In this regard it is no different to if the coach who currently has the injured player keeps them.

Need some concensus on a rule - can we LTI list players we trade for? I think we have said no to placing players we draft straight on LTI list.

Against changing this rule. If you trade for a player on LTI, you take him knowing he has an injury.

Understand your point. My arguement against it is that allowing this to occur could mean more trades occur. My view is that more trades mean more interaction which in the end leads to more engagement of all coaches.

However as I said I am only once voice.

I have had to hold onto Swallow and Prestia for 2 years through their injuries whilst being made ridiculous offers from other coaches. It is pretty obvious this is all about the deal you are discussing with Silly Billy and not some higher issue of trying to improve the trade situation.

I am not denying there is self interest at play - but I would expect any coach to raise issues that impact them directly.

With your example and in this case we can hold the injured player and place them onto our LTI - however the new coach can’t. Therefore as you have found out it means that any trades involving these players are low ball cheap offers. I suspect that if the player remained LTI eligible the trade offers would increase to something more realistic.

Imo it’'s a complication and rule change that’s not needed and won’t generate much movement at all.

Common sense rules are the best rules and trading for a player with a LTI means you stick with him through his rehab just like in the real thing.

Imo it''s a complication and rule change that's not needed and won't generate much movement at all.

Common sense rules are the best rules and trading for a player with a LTI means you stick with him through his rehab just like in the real thing.

Concur.

Imo it''s a complication and rule change that's not needed and won't generate much movement at all.

Common sense rules are the best rules and trading for a player with a LTI means you stick with him through his rehab just like in the real thing.

Any coach would be happy to stick with them. Just don’t expect a premium offer if they miss 50-100% of a year and I think giving the coach who takes the player the ability to put that player on the LTI will allow them the ability to offer a better deal.

We are only allowing coaches to keep 20 players. That could be the difference between keeping a solid 60-70 point player for a 0 and no other compensation. By giving them a player at the end of the draft as an LTI replacement will help give them the depth. Its not permanent any.

Alright happy with consensus - mo change to the rule. Although I think if this was allowed the only change would be that a coach would be more likely to trade an injured player. The net impact on other coaches is zero other than potentially falling back a couple of placed in the LTI draft (taken with picks after 180).

Silly Billy - looks like Mitch Wallis is off the table.

Please refer to http://www.bomberblitz.com/discussion/discussion/3255/bbffl-2-trade-discussions-2016-17#latest for squads with Champion Data position allocations. This should help when considering trades.

So for this plot, the blue is your actual data, and I tried to extrapolate out for 2 years (48 rounds). It actually doesn’t really add much value for a few reasons - 1. we haven’t been going long enough to capture full wavelengths of a teams ups and downs (maybe 7-8 years?), which means that generally we only see linear trends (aka why smooth is not projected to cap out, which he totally will). 2. the cyclic ups and downs I added in is meant to emulate seasons - people make bigger shifts between seasons than any other time (draft, trades). so in summary, I just wanted to learn how to do it, and make a pretty graph, but don’t read much into it. For simplicity, I have included a standard linear regression to show teams general trends as well.

■■■■■■ around a bit more to show break down by year, and a more representative trend.

Great work Bix! Love seeing our numbers looking so pretty.

Some smart cookies in this league.

Nice work Bix.

Now that we have clarified the status of injured players in a trade, how does this relate to an injured player who is cut, and then picked up in the draft by his original team or any other team?

Any player recruited -either by trade or draft- with an existing injury is not eligible for LTI listing based on that injury.

Any player recruited -either by trade or draft- with an existing injury is not eligible for LTI listing based on that injury.

That’s what I would have thought. Thanks for confirming :slight_smile:

Any player recruited -either by trade or draft- with an existing injury is not eligible for LTI listing based on that injury.

That’s what I would have thought. Thanks for confirming :slight_smile:

Yep so Mitch Wallis would only have been LTI eligible for me - no matter what.

UF now open - http://ultimate-footy.theage.com.au/896942/invitation. I will send out invites later tonight and setup properly.

Are the positions finalised yet?