2014 Trade/FA Discussions

[Hollow Knight]

Great post Ironmonger.

The media has helped turn trade week into a bloodsport, along with a few recruiters like Chris Bond and Chris Pelchen always looking to screw other clubs sideways.

Very few supporters look at trade week as an opportunity for mutual gain, a problem compounded on Bigfooty where there is a severe pandemic of "Overratius Yourownplayerius" where we see stuff like "Ryder is better than anyone on your list" type posts.

 

[Tairy Greene]

Hi new member just wanted to join in on convo just a quick one on Beams status as free agent as of end 2015 he will be a restricted free agent which means what ever we offer the pies have the right to counter offer to keep him.

Hi mate welcome to the board, just in case no one has mentioned it Beams won't become a restricted free agent until 2016.

 

[Skoob]

Hi mate welcome to the board, just in case no one has mentioned it Beams won't become a restricted free agent until 2016.

Where are you hearing this?

 

[Fatcat08]

Watched the movie draft day last night and while obviously a fair way from reality it did highlight the possibilities of being able to trade on draft day itself as well as being able to trade future draft picks. Just opens up a whole different world of possibilities when picks don't fall the way you expect them too and players who you may not thought were available are. Allows teams a much better chance to draft for their needs IMO. Although the less rigid positional requirements of AFL means that we probably wouldn't see the same level of trades as the NFL where needs can be pretty quickly identified as players mostly play one position, I still think its something worth looking at.

 

[Ironmonger]

Great post Ironmonger.

The media has helped turn trade week into a bloodsport, along with a few recruiters like Chris Bond and Chris Pelchen always looking to screw other clubs sideways.

View few supporters look at trade week as an opportunity for mutual gain, a problem compounded on Bigfooty where there is a severe pandemic of "Overratius Yourownplayerius" where we see stuff like "Ryder is better than anyone on your list" type posts.

Yeah, and posters like you and me aren't immune from that criticism either.

I know early in the year I made one or two mean-spirited posts about 'winning' the go-home five trades.

I'm sure I saw an argument recently between a Lions fan and an Eagles fan about who won the Yeo-pick 28 trade. But ultimately what matters is that West Coast turned pick #28 into Yeo, and we turned Yeo into Taylor. We both got more out of it than we put in. The cynical way West Coast approached that deal makes us justifiably bitter, but ultimately who cares who did better out of that deal as long as we both did well?

 

[Eons]

From the Essendon board...

Just heard a very strong rumour, from a very reliable source, that Ryder has signalled his intention to leave.

At this stage Brisbane have made a firm offer to him (contract wise) and will begin negotiations with the club as appropriate.

Source is not ruling out that there may be other interested parties. Ryder's manager has welcomed offers from three clubs only: Brisbane, GC and Sydney, Brisbane the only one to put a firm offer on the table at this stage.

Actually had been dealing with this ok.. but feel sick to my stomach. One of those 'I can't believe this is really happening' moments.

Also source is 99% sure that Ryder has no intention of even 'testing' the DFA 'clause'.. and club is adamant that they will fight any attempt to do so anyway.

 

[Kevvo]

No need to tell me twice. I fully believe that you would giggle like a school girl, POBs.

I agree that Merrett is at a stage where if he wanted to leave and someone was keen to take him we could get him to the club of his choice for a token trade, similarly to how we got West at the end of last season.

On another topic, while it's not fun to talk about trading away talented young players, the Aish > Dangerfield > Beams exchange (with draft picks and whatever thrown in as appropriate) actually makes a lot of sense. For one thing, it gives each of the Lions, Crows and Pies the opportunitiy to get full value out of a valuable player who might have itchy feet.
There are a variety of political reason why it's not likely to happen.

There's something quite broken about the AFL trading system. It doesn't seem to even occur to anyone that a trade might be done that actually benefits both clubs. We approach Collingwood about Beams, and immediately their president and fans get their backs up on the assumption that we want to screw them over, even though we appear to be prepared to offer a fair deal for a contracted player, instead of waiting until he falls out of contract and playing the PSD game.

I'm not a big fan of treating human beings like interchangable commodities that can be shifted from team to team at the whim of club owners, like we see in some American sports, but it's a shame that teams don't seem to be able to genuinely fix some problems through mutually beneficial trades.

Instead clubs try to acquire players through free agency or by manipulating themselves into a strong position ahead of trade negotiations. At the same time players seem to be finding all kinds of ways to increase their own mobility, even when under contract. This is bad news for us, particularly while we're struggling. The successful clubs in the footy heartland will always find it easier to attract player with options.

Right now, it seems exciting that we might have an opportunity to get one or two good players, but the trend of player movements over the long run should worry us.

I think this post is absolutely on the money. In support of it, I have some further meandering thoughts (none of which are new or profound):

I grew up in Hong Kong, where at least amongst my peers the most popular sport to follow was soccer, and more specifically the premier league. There, players have had more or less unlimited capacity to move or be moved for as long as I have followed it, but recently it feels like there has been an alarming further spike in the transient nature of any player/team relationship. In particular, it has become standard practice to refer to your time at a club as 'a project', and the standard of agent skulduggery is off the charts.

I've followed my club (Newcastle utd) through relative success, mediocrity, abject awfulness, relegation and promotion. In all of that time, their frustrating inconsistency and lack of growth never really bothered me to the point I lost enthusiasm. However, it's now got to the stagewhere I don't even enjoy reading about the team because of the relentless, cynical revolving door policy with players. Whether it's true or not never matters, a player signed today is next year's training holdout.

In some ways, soccer is a bad comparison because of paid transfers and the lack of a salary cap (although who knows if/when the AFLPA will take that on). Ultimately though, it's rubbish when half of your list are permanently engineering moves between lists and this dominates the public conversation.

Getting new players is exciting, and I support the ability of players to have something resembling normal work-life flexibility to try to live and work in a place you are happy in. From a fan's perspective though, as Ironmonger nailed, it is a double edged sword and the back end may even be sharper.

 

[rusty08]

From the Essendon board...

Just heard a very strong rumour, from a very reliable source, that Ryder has signalled his intention to leave.

At this stage Brisbane have made a firm offer to him (contract wise) and will begin negotiations with the club as appropriate.

Source is not ruling out that there may be other interested parties. Ryder's manager has welcomed offers from three clubs only: Brisbane, GC and Sydney, Brisbane the only one to put a firm offer on the table at this stage.

Actually had been dealing with this ok.. but feel sick to my stomach. One of those 'I can't believe this is really happening' moments.

Also source is 99% sure that Ryder has no intention of even 'testing' the DFA 'clause'.. and club is adamant that they will fight any attempt to do so anyway.

Yeah just read that. Interesting to see what sort of offerings, picks/ trades are now put on the table if this is the case.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Yeah, and posters like you and me aren't immune from that criticism either.

Absolutely, especially when your team is struggling on field, it's very easy to get caught up in the desire for a trade "win".

 

[jackess]

To get Ryder we really are relying on him nominating us. Our main advantages would be money and being located in Brisbane (if that's his desired location). We can't promise him team success like the other two teams and don't have the more suitable picks that GC have or the surplus talent Sydney have for a trade.

 

[dlanod]

On another topic, while it's not fun to talk about trading away talented young players, the Aish > Dangerfield > Beams exchange (with draft picks and whatever thrown in as appropriate) actually makes a lot of sense. For one thing, it gives each of the Lions, Crows and Pies the opportunitiy to get full value out of a valuable player who might have itchy feet.
There are a variety of political reason why it's not likely to happen.

There's something quite broken about the AFL trading system. It doesn't seem to even occur to anyone that a trade might be done that actually benefits both clubs. We approach Collingwood about Beams, and immediately their president and fans get their backs up on the assumption that we want to screw them over, even though we appear to be prepared to offer a fair deal for a contracted player, instead of waiting until he falls out of contract and playing the PSD game.

I'm not a big fan of treating human beings like interchangable commodities that can be shifted from team to team at the whim of club owners, like we see in some American sports, but it's a shame that teams don't seem to be able to genuinely fix some problems through mutually beneficial trades.

Instead clubs try to acquire players through free agency or by manipulating themselves into a strong position ahead of trade negotiations. At the same time players seem to be finding all kinds of ways to increase their own mobility, even when under contract. This is bad news for us, particularly while we're struggling. The successful clubs in the footy heartland will always find it easier to attract player with options.

Right now, it seems exciting that we might have an opportunity to get one or two good players, but the trend of player movements over the long run should worry us.

I think a large part of the problem is that the available trade assets can't fully compensate a club losing a very good player.

Many players' output warrant more than a first round pick or even a first and second round pick. However the ability for players to decline to be traded means a club cannot offer up a player to make up the difference without knowing that that player is willing to be traded, and they also will not generally be a good enough player to bridge the difference.

The mooted possibilities of trading future picks might help address some of this, but it's never really mooted outside of online forums. Beams for two first round picks seems about fair. Judd got two and a bit, Ablett generated two in compensation and that was admitted unders.

There really needs to be moves made to help grease the wheels of trades for these kinds of players if they want to leave a club. Unfortunately I doubt the AFL will ever step up. Instead it's more likely that we'll see the AFLPA use it to push FA to start earlier and earlier.

 

[Ironmonger]

Yeah just read that. Interesting to see what sort of offerings, picks/ trades are now put on the table if this is the case.

Let's assume it's true that we are genuinely into Ryder and want him at least as much as he wants to leave Essendon:

What would that mean for the likes of Leuenberger and West? I know he shows some promise as a key forward but his real value is as a ruck/forward - why would we be prepared to pay full value for him, either in trade or in salary, when we're so well stocked for ruckmen?

I'm really struggling to take this all at face value.

 

[rusty08]

Let's assume it's true that we are genuinely into Ryder and want him at least as much as he wants to leave Essendon:

What would that mean for the likes of Leuenberger and West? I know he shows some promise as a key forward but his real value is as a ruck/forward - why would we be prepared to pay full value for him, either in trade or in salary, when we're so well stocked for ruckmen?

I'm really struggling to take this all at face value.

Agree. I should have underlined interesting.

 

[Sanchez365]

I always thought that for a long time the AFL had such a difficult trading system that it rarely ever happened. Once a player got drafted, they were alwaya at the beck and call of the club even when out of contract, so it was almost easier to just stay where you were rather then risk the PSD and end up at some lowly club.

However I think over the last 5-7 years we have seen a big change in this mentality. Since trade scams like Luke Ball going to collingwood (and probably the introduction of the AFLPA) we have seen the lower shift completely to the players instead of the clubs, where they are making demands and regardless of what happens they will get to their club of choice. This was clearly highlighted when Sydney got Tippett, front load their contract, send them into the PSD and it doesn't even matter.

I don't think we will see it change until the clubs have complete control over players while they are in contract. While it may seem harsh, if the players want complete freedom to move where ever they want when they are out of contract, then the clubs should have the power to send them where ever they want when they are in contract.

The bottom line is, the loyality/one club mentality of the AFL is pretty much dead.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Let's assume it's true that we are genuinely into Ryder and want him at least as much as he wants to leave Essendon:

What would that mean for the likes of Leuenberger and West? I know he shows some promise as a key forward but his real value is as a ruck/forward - why would we be prepared to pay full value for him, either in trade or in salary, when we're so well stocked for ruckmen?

I'm really struggling to take this all at face value.

Yeah, I've been pretty convinced all week that if Ryder if here next year, Leuenberger won't be.

If he is keen for a fresh start I am comfortable (though still sad) about Leuey going.

Something rings true about 4 and Leuenberger for Beams to me... though how we keep pick 4 and get Ryder is beyond me. The "second round pick" for Ryder still seems very fanciful.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Really hope the rumour rines posted if BS just when he's about to enter his prime he's thinking of leaving even though he has 2 years left on his contract disappointing.

 

[jackess]

Let's assume it's true that we are genuinely into Ryder and want him at least as much as he wants to leave Essendon:

What would that mean for the likes of Leuenberger and West? I know he shows some promise as a key forward but his real value is as a ruck/forward - why would we be prepared to pay full value for him, either in trade or in salary, when we're so well stocked for ruckmen?

I'm really struggling to take this all at face value.

We can easily cover the salary. It's the trade where we will hopefully not pay full value. Unless we really rate him as a key forward. Or have plans for Leuey or Stef to move on.

 

[JBs shadow]

I get this feeling we might do something a little bit interesting this trade period

Aish remains non committal about signing a new deal early - Adelaide currently have pick 9, if we are unsure about the future of Aish and he is showing big signs of moving back to Adelaide post contract then trading Aish for pick 9 and Adelaide's second rd pick would allow us to offer pick 4 and 9 for Beams- now before anyone cracks it about selling the farm we would be getting a Brownlow favourite and top 10 midfielder in the comp for the next 7 seasons.

Merrett is the other interesting one- pretty sure Freo and Hawks would trade their 1st rd pick for him because of their need to replace McPharlin and Lake at season's end.

A top 20 pick or 2 picks under 30 would probably get Ryder, because the Bombers would not want any player to test the breach of contract clause!

Lucky I wasn't driving when I read that, I would've driven off the road.

You're basically saying we lose pick 4 and Aish for Beams?

Who's side are you on?

 

[Simba Moyo]

We can easily cover the salary. It's the trade where we will hopefully not pay full value. Unless we really rate him as a key forward. Or have plans for Leuey or Stef to move on.

Considering Stef just signed a new contract, you would think more pressure would be on Leuey. West to stay as back-up? Assuming we're trading in Ryder as a ruck-forward

 

[Ironmonger]

I think a large part of the problem is that the available trade assets can't fully compensate a club losing a very good player.

Many players' output warrant more than a first round pick or even a first and second round pick. However the ability for players to decline to be traded means a club cannot offer up a player to make up the difference without knowing that that player is willing to be traded, and they also will not generally be a good enough player to bridge the difference.

The mooted possibilities of trading future picks might help address some of this, but it's never really mooted outside of online forums. Beams for two first round picks seems about fair. Judd got two and a bit, Ablett generated two in compensation and that was admitted unders.

There really needs to be moves made to help grease the wheels of trades for these kinds of players if they want to leave a club. Unfortunately I doubt the AFL will ever step up. Instead it's more likely that we'll see the AFLPA use it to push FA to start earlier and earlier.

This is certainly an issue when players initiate trades, which is more and more becoming the case. When a player initiates a trade it seems like his existing club just prepares to limit the damage, like we did with the go-home five. And when a player initiates a trade then it becomes much harder for both teams to benefit from it.

Ryder is actually a pretty good example: I don't believe there is any possible trade we can make that benefits both clubs. He's simply worth more to Essendon than he is to us. In normal circumstances Essendon would baulk at taking even pick #4 for him, and we certainly wouldn't be prepared to offer it.

But there are other clubs who would value Ryder more highly who could offer more in trade. If Ryder is prepared not to go to his first choice (assuming that we genuinely are his first choice, which I doubt in truth) then Essendon can at least get closer to a mutually beneficial deal.

I think there is a basic contradiction between player mobility and a fair trading system for clubs.

 

[Eons]

Really hope the rumour rines posted if BS just when he's about to enter his prime he's thinking of leaving even though he has 2 years left on his contract disappointing.

Just as disapponting from his persepctive of what the club have put him, his fiance and undue stress on his child over the last couple of years. Stress during pregnancy can have an affect on the child, and she would have been under a LOT of stress when the players were told that what they had been given could not only affect the players, but also their unborn children. Unless you're a parent you have ZERO idea of how stressful that would be.

 

[rusty08]

Ironic that Martin has been at our club for two min and obviously showed alot this year, but a club person such as Luey keeps getting put up for possible trade. I realise Martin just signed, but Luey is also under contract and younger than Martin.

 

[Simba Moyo]

Ironic that Martin has been at our club for two min and obviously showed alot this year, but a club person such as Luey keeps getting put up for possible trade. I realise Martin just signed, but Luey is also under contract and younger than Martin.

Completely agree. I hope we get Ryder in as a full time forward and have Leuey & Martin shouldering the main ruck duties. It could work!

 

[Ironmonger]

Yeah, I've been pretty convinced all week that if Ryder if here next year, Leuenberger won't be.

If he is keen for a fresh start I am comfortable (though still sad) about Leuey going.

Something rings true about 4 and Leuenberger for Beams to me... though how we keep pick 4 and get Ryder is beyond me. The "second round pick" for Ryder still seems very fanciful.

I suppose it's possible that Leuey has indicated to the club that he'd be prepared to be traded, and that is the bit of the story that makes it all fall into place.

It's also possible that Leppa doesn't really rate Leuenberger - Leuey didn't really shine in his early games before getting injured.
But it doesn't quite feel right to me. For one thing, are we chasing Ryder before we can be confident we can fairly trade Leuey? I doubt Collingwood are committed to trading Beams. There could be another suitor, I suppose, but I'm not sure who at the moment would be prepared to pay a good price for an injury-prone ruckman.

 

[James North]

Ryder offered big bucks but told he is to develop into a full-time forward only with the provisos:

1. We won't inject you with anything
2. Leppa is an upstanding guy who doesn't groom his own hair with his hands all the time
3. The sun pretty much always shines
4. You can go to Nando's without being asked to sign an autograph