List Mgmt. 2014 list discussion - drafts, free agents, trades, retirees, delistings and more

[Cat Addict]

What do you guys think of our chances of snaring Darcy Gardner in the draft?
I heard his name come up as the best Key back of the draft and as a local boy......
I saw a bit of him through the year and he looks the goods but would he go too high?

There is a chance that he might be there at 15 but our 15 could be watered down after free agency picks. Just can't see him getting past Syd (pick 14 currently). Draft short on talks so should come at a premium. From what I have read this years draft is ok for smalls and next year has the big guys. But 2015 is a bumper crop. Not that this helps us at all this year.

 

[year of the cat]

Our chances?

Personal opinion....low in our current position.

Even harder if we do actually go after Shaw who might use up our first round pick.

I'd suggest we'd need to trade up into the top 12 to have a shot (and that is me being optimistic as I think he is a top 10'er).

Then again, I didn't think Grundy would get to us last year, let alone passed us.

Shirley you can't be serious? A first rounder for Shaw? They can trade him to someone else if that's the asking price.

 

[bulletproof]

Yeah nah. Is it just me, or is there absolutely no sense to all of this?

He is a very good player, and you can never have too many good players, that part I understand. But I am a strong believer that unless the player is the same age as Caddy was, we can't be dealing away our first round draft pick.

Trading is in vogue because Hawthorn pulled it off but they could have been in an even more powerful position if they used those draft picks well, instead of trading them.

Winners write the history and all that, but I don't think it is a method we should copy. We had our own approach that was just as successful and trading first round draft picks for 27yo's is not part of that of that method.

 

[manboob]

R.e. Chapman: I've heard this a few times. I don't really understand how a 10 game contract can work or be within the rules negotiated by the AFLPA... I understand an incentivised contract with a 10 game minimum. Ie you are on 100k and if you play more than 10 games a year that goes up to 400k or something. Like AA bonuses etc. But let's be honest for a moment 99% of what comes out of Barrett's mouth is complete and utter shit.

 

[catempire]

He is a very good player, and you can never have too many good players, that part I understand. But I am a strong believer that unless the player is the same age as Caddy was, we can't be dealing away our first round draft pick.

Trading is in vogue because Hawthorn pulled it off but they could have been in an even more powerful position if they used those draft picks well, instead of trading them.

Winners write the history and all that, but I don't think it is a method we should copy. We had our own approach that was just as successful and trading first round draft picks for 27yo's is not part of that of that method.

Also, Hawthorn traded to fill needs. At best, Shaw fills a slight need given departures of Milburn and Hunt and now Enright probably next year. We have FAR greater needs than a running back pocket.

 

[FredLeDeux]

R.e. Chapman: I've heard this a few times. I don't really understand how a 10 game contract can work or be within the rules negotiated by the AFLPA... I understand an incentivised contract with a 10 game minimum. Ie you are on 100k and if you play more than 10 games a year that goes up to 400k or something. Like AA bonuses etc. But let's be honest for a moment 99% of what comes out of Barrett's mouth is complete and utter shit.

It's possible that the club said to him that we think you'll play about 10 games, and we'll drop your pay accordingly. Which might explain why they still appear to be negotiating, from the tone of his Advertiser article.
It's equally possible that it's all a figment of Barrett's imagination, or that he's simply got the wrong end of the stick.

 

[Pivo]

Shirley you can't be serious? A first rounder for Shaw? They can trade him to someone else if that's the asking price.

Just so we're clear.

When I said "trading into the top 12 I was talking about Gardiner, not Shaw.

But I still think Collingwood will ask for our current pick (what is it, 15??). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that is what I think he is worth. Just what I suspect Collingwood will ask for.

 

[manboob]

It's possible that the club said to him that we think you'll play about 10 games, and we'll drop your pay accordingly. Which might explain why they still appear to be negotiating, from the tone of his Advertiser article.
It's equally possible that it's all a figment of Barrett's imagination, or that he's simply got the wrong end of the stick.

OK that makes more sense than a "10 game contract".

 

[FredLeDeux]

Just so we're clear.

When I said "trading into the top 12 I was talking about Gardiner, not Shaw.

But I still think Collingwood will ask for our current pick (what is it, 15??). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that is what I think he is worth. Just what I suspect Collingwood will ask for.

It's not beyond the realm of possibility that we'll give a 1st rounder in return for Shaw and some other pick, eg a 2nd rounder.

 

[manboob]

Just so we're clear.

When I said "trading into the top 12 I was talking about Gardiner, not Shaw.

But I still think Collingwood will ask for our current pick (what is it, 15??). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that is what I think he is worth. Just what I suspect Collingwood will ask for.

What if we give them pick 15 and get shaw and something in the 20/30s as well? Discuss.

 

[manboob]

FredLeDeux JINX!

 

[FredLeDeux]

OK that makes more sense than a "10 game contract".

I think so, but at this time of year unbridled rumours are the norm, so it might be complete bs ab initio.

 

[manboob]

Like Barrett's career.

 

[FredLeDeux]

FredLeDeux JINX!

JTFQ!

 

[year of the cat]

It's all about price for me. If we only part with a 3rd round pick for Shaw then fine, a 2nd rounder I'm extremely lukewarm on, a first rounder I'd be ropable.

I think he would, in the short term, possibly make us a better team. But he comes with a fair bit of baggage, hence the Pies willingness to try and trade him with 2 years remaining on his contract. We should be very wary.

 

[Pivo]

What if we give them pick 15 and get shaw and something in the 20/30s as well? Discuss.

I think, if we seriously want Shaw, I'd try and get us into the second round by absorbing the bulk of his $400,000pa contract.

Taking that money off Collingwood's books might be a way to lower the asking price as it'll free up a chunk of coin for them to pursue other FAs that take their fancy.

Pretty sure trades have been done like that before.

 

[cynical]

getting Shaw would add an old undisciplined player to an old list that needs regenerating it would be a terrible move

 

[Pivo]

It's all about price for me. If we only part with a 3rd round pick for Shaw then fine, a 2nd rounder I'm extremely lukewarm on, a first rounder I'd be ropable.

I think he would, in the short term, possibly make us a better team. But he comes with a fair bit of baggage, hence the Pies willingness to try and trade him with 2 years remaining on his contract. We should be very wary.

I don't really want him but I think he is better than a 3rd rounder.

 

[year of the cat]

Just so we're clear.

When I said "trading into the top 12 I was talking about Gardiner, not Shaw.

But I still think Collingwood will ask for our current pick (what is it, 15??). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that is what I think he is worth. Just what I suspect Collingwood will ask for.

Sorry. Misinterpreted Shaw for Gardiner. All is right with the world again (aside from Eardley's culling..).

 

[manboob]

I think so The Pivotonian - Pies supporters have been saying "oh he won't go unless we get a great deal for him". Bollocks. A great deal for the pies is the one that means they can clear him and his contract. As you stated in many ways having that 400k free for a free agent or whoever is more valuable than the pick.

 

[Pivo]

Personally, I think (perhaps hope) Shaw will end up at GWS or North Melbourne.

Smokey= Melbourne.

 

[year of the cat]

I don't really want him but I think he is better than a 3rd rounder.

On talent no doubt.

 

[Kenno27]

You are delusional if you think you will offer a third round pick Year of the Cat. You gave a second rounder for McIntosh last year, Shaw is twice the player.

Collingwood have 6 clubs chasing him. You need to understand the theory of demand/supply.

 

[manboob]

Personally, I think (perhaps hope) Shaw will end up at GWS or North Melbourne.

Smokey= Melbourne.

That's fine as long as GWS aren't stupid enough to do a direct swap for Adams.

 

[Pivo]

I think so The Pivotonian - Pies supporters have been saying "oh he won't go unless we get a great deal for him". Bollocks. A great deal for the pies is the one that means they can clear him and his contract. In many ways having that 400k free for a free agent or whoever is more valuable than the pic (take that with a grain of salt but you know what I'm getting at).

Tend to agree.

Looks like Buckley is at his wit's end with him and wants him out.

Moving Shaw on (along with the bulk of his contract) might be enough to get a deal done (with us or any other club) as long as they believed they got something that might appease the fans.