List Mgmt. 2015 LIST Discussion - trades, free agency etc

[Matty411]

I wouldn't be against that suggestion ABB but still can't see AFL granting PPs at all, and we wouldn't know until after trade period based on recent news, so couldn't use it directly (or indirectly) in any trades.

My best guess as to what will happen:

We re-sign Kreuz
Cats hand over 9 and a later pick (perhaps 46) for Hendo and 20
We offer something like Warnock and pick 46 to * - not giving up 9 after paying so much to get it
Trade negs fall through with both Saints and us (with *) and he walks to us in the PSD to the anger of all at *
We engineer a few sneaky trades to pull back into the 2nd round, as well as snagging Richmond's first on the last day

We head to the draft with 1, 9, 11 and a few picks to secure Rice and SOSOS

We also gain Carlisle for nix (PSD) and 3 x gun kids from the draft e.g. Weitering, Curnow and Gresham.

Not bad if you ask me.

 

[Broadside]

Carlisle isn't in the All Australian squad.

 

[bluerooster]

Carlisle isn't in the All Australian squad.

I said at the same age as Cripps when he was 20 or 21...adds even more to what I'm saying.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Just curious. If we got an AA for pick 9, I am tipping we would take that every day of the week, even say a Victorian rep as in the old days. Well guess what Carlisle is about to enter the peak of his career at the same age ad Cripps he made the AA squad which Cripps hasn't, now do you think Carlisle is worth pick 9??? Even if he copped 10 weeks I would take him, at the most Carlisle and drugs players would get is 3-4 weeks otherwise WADA will wreck comp. Which they will not want.

What makes you think WADA gives two shits about "wrecking" our comp?

If CAS decides that Essendon implemented an illegal and dangerous doping regime, then covered it up by destroying records, they'll set fire to the whole AFL if that's what it takes to set an example.

Option A) Insufficient evidence, no sanctions.
Option B) Club at fault, players misled and mistreated but should have known better, reduced sanctions (probably 6 months to a year).
Option C) Club and players guilty of all charges, no excuses, 2 year bans.

Would you be happy paying pick 9 for a bloke who then gets rubbed out for two years, comes back woefully unfit and decides he's lost his passion for the game?

 

[BluesRule]

Yep, any situation that causes a lower ranked club to give up more than a higher ranked one if they were recruiting the same player is counter-intuitive.

I still think the best approach is to base it solely on the age of the player. Losing a guy in his prime gets you better compensation than a bloke moving to a new club at 32 for a big retirement package.

Age 26-28 = Band 1 (end of 1st round)
Age 29-31 = Band 2 (end of 2nd round)
Age 32+ = Band 3 (end of 3rd round)

Nobody has their first rounders effected, no real incentive to push good players out, but definite benefit to encouraging youngish fringe players to look for greater opportunity elsewhere.

Isn't that what Free Agency was supposed to do? Enable mid-tier players to move clubs freely for more game-time, better pay etc, rather than giving top clubs access to even more elite talent at no cost?

Wouldn't this give the better clubs more ability to poach developed players from the weak clubs? i.e.. Hawks recruit the best players aged 26-28 to replace aged stars (holes) for another shot at a Flag. No thanks! Would have to be a limit on how many FA deals you can do.

Still not really sure why we need FA. It has not really added a lot to the equality of the competition, or helped too many players move clubs to get fair pay (some take a pay cut FFS).

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Please can one of us land Carlisle for what he's worth and not for the rediculousness touted at sashland.

What ? Are you saying Stevens, Billings and your next two #1 draft picks is too much? You must be delusional

 

[rampar]

Wouldn't this give the better clubs more ability to poach developed players from the weak clubs? i.e.. Hawks recruit the best players aged 26-28 to replace aged stars (holes) for another shot at a Flag. No thanks! Would have to be a limit on how many FA deals you can do.

Still not really sure why we need FA. It has not really added a lot to the equality of the competition, or helped too many players move clubs to get fair pay (some take a pay cut FFS).

That's how Carlton used to operate... Supposedly it's old fashioned!

 

[Blue__Balls]

Wouldn't this give the better clubs more ability to poach developed players from the weak clubs? i.e.. Hawks recruit the best players aged 26-28 to replace aged stars (holes) for another shot at a Flag. No thanks! Would have to be a limit on how many FA deals you can do.

Still not really sure why we need FA. It has not really added a lot to the equality of the competition, or helped too many players move clubs to get fair pay (some take a pay cut FFS).

That's always going to be the case though - unless you ban the top clubs from recruiting via FA, which means it's no longer Free Agency.

Half the battle is in making it unattractive for lower clubs to offload their better players (eg. Kreuzer for pick 2, Frawley for pick 3). If the club is getting pick 19 as compensation, they're more likely to either try and retain those sorts of players, or engineer a trade.

An alternative would be to have a broader sliding scale, factoring in contract lengths, values, age etc. but have adjustments made based on ladder position.

Band 1 = mid 1st round
Band 2 = end of 1st round
Band 3 = mid 2nd round
Band 4 = end of 2nd round
Band 5 = mid 3rd round
Band 6 = end of third round

If a club that finishes 1-6 on the ladder loses a player to free agency, they move back one band.
Clubs 7-12 are not moved at all.
Clubs 13-18 move up one band.

Examples:
Kreuzer leaves Carlton in 2015, accepts a contract valued at Band 2. Because Carlton finished in the bottom 6, their compensation is upgraded to Band 1.
Jarrad Grant leaves WB in 2015, accepts a contract valued at Band 2. Because WB finished in the middle 6, their compensation remains at Band 2.
Scott Selwood leaves WC in 2015, accepts a contract valued at Band 2. Because WC finished in the top 6, their compensation is downgraded to Band 3.

No "start of round 1" compensation, lower clubs get better compensation, higher clubs get less compensation.

Ultimately though, even that doesn't limit the top clubs from recruiting players - because you can't do that without restricting what is supposed to be Free Agency.

 

[Azul]

Would you be happy paying pick 9 for a bloke who then gets rubbed out for two years, comes back woefully unfit and decides he's lost his passion for the game?

Priority for * is to delist, retire or trade as many of the 34 guilty players as they can.

Fletcher, Winderlich gone. Monfries, Crameri, Ryder traded. Melksham and Carlisle on the way out. Top up on mature players from other clubs - chapman, guilt, cooney, goddard.

They'd be chortling if they had 2 picks in the top 10. Don't make it happen.

 

[fnm_just a man]

Here's hoping the Tigers get involved and try and make a move for Hendo as well. I really think they should be adding a few players this trade period -- they're a few quality players short of being genuine threats imo .... A glaring weakness for mine are two of the players we're losing, a quality KPD to help Rance and quality, creative ball-users coming out of defence. Houli is talked up, but I personally don't rate his disposal -- stylish, but short on substance...Creates a lot of turnovers (bit like Suckling!!)

I feel like Hendo and #20 for #9 and #28 is slightly in Geelong's favour, and for #9 & #46 is heavily in Geelong's favour. If anything, we should have a slightly favourable outcome and if the Tigers enter the race, it should be achievable one way or the other.

 

[Magruder]

Offering way too much for Carlisle.

Carlisle is likely to cop a ban from WADA that will mean some? time out. He was not top 10 in *B&F.

He can play, but has been playing in a strong and experienced back 6 at * with players Hooker, Hibberd, Fletcher and Hurley which allows him to avoid key match ups. We have a developing back 6 in 2015 so we will be relying on him much more.

The $$$ being offered and #9 draft pick you are suggesting could really hurt our list rebuild.

Prefer we take #9 to the draft and find an A grade quality player for a lot less cash that allows us to get a FA next year.

If we get Carlisle in PSD and it only costs us $$$ at a time when we have to make 95% minimum player payments, then I am OK with that (front load?). Should not offer * more than the 4th round pick they offered us for Campo (and then we can call it even).

Which part of #28 is too much?
Even if tied in #9 with #23 coming back our way this values JC at #15ish

Frankly it's a fair offer for a proven KPD with at least 8 years left.

If that's unacceptable to them no-one could blame us for saying **** you PSD it is. No reputational damage for future trading.

 

[#1_pigeonracer]

What ? Are you saying Stevens, Billings and your next two #1 draft picks is too much? You must be delusional

They're also hoping to sneak in Richo.

 

[kingkingston]

should be no compensation

 

[Gavstar]

What makes you think WADA gives two shits about "wrecking" our comp?

If CAS decides that Essendon implemented an illegal and dangerous doping regime, then covered it up by destroying records, they'll set fire to the whole AFL if that's what it takes to set an example.

Option A) Insufficient evidence, no sanctions.
Option B) Club at fault, players misled and mistreated but should have known better, reduced sanctions (probably 6 months to a year).
Option C) Club and players guilty of all charges, no excuses, 2 year bans.

Would you be happy paying pick 9 for a bloke who then gets rubbed out for two years, comes back woefully unfit and decides he's lost his passion for the game?

"WADA revealed in a brief of evidence provided to players and other parties that re-testing at a lab in Cologne found abnormal* amounts of Thymosin Beta 4 in the frozen urine samples of two players"

Hopefully it would be asked in any due diligence for recruiting him whether he is one of these two players. These two players could eventually be hit with "presence" cases (providing the test is validated in two independent labs) and onus of proof will then switch to the players. This could happen even after the WADA case in November (have until 2020 to bring a case).

Caveat emptor, SOS!

*In my view the abnormal may refer to the detection of the acetate form of TB4 which is artificial and therefore proves external administration, it can be done in horses so why not humans!

 

[Stamos]

Which part of #28 is too much?

The part where we have #1 in the PSD

 

[Lace_Out]

No to Carlisle. CAS will go through bombers* big time. They wouldn't have bothered chasing them this far to let them off lightly ; )

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

 

[Magruder]

I wouldn't be against that suggestion ABB but still can't see AFL granting PPs at all, and we wouldn't know until after trade period based on recent news, so couldn't use it directly (or indirectly) in any trades.

My best guess as to what will happen:

We re-sign Kreuz
Cats hand over 9 and a later pick (perhaps 46) for Hendo and 20
We offer something like Warnock and pick 46 to * - not giving up 9 after paying so much to get it
Trade negs fall through with both Saints and us (with *) and he walks to us in the PSD to the anger of all at *
We engineer a few sneaky trades to pull back into the 2nd round, as well as snagging Richmond's first on the last day

We head to the draft with 1, 9, 11 and a few picks to secure Rice and SOSOS

We also gain Carlisle for nix (PSD) and 3 x gun kids from the draft e.g. Weitering, Curnow and Gresham.

Not bad if you ask me.

Pretty good actually and plausible.

Even if we offered #9 for Carlisle & #23 negotiations would probably break down as * demand that they only give up Carlisle and we chuck in #1 to go with #9. Hello PSD

 

[bluerooster]

What makes you think WADA gives two shits about "wrecking" our comp?

If CAS decides that Essendon implemented an illegal and dangerous doping regime, then covered it up by destroying records, they'll set fire to the whole AFL if that's what it takes to set an example.

Option A) Insufficient evidence, no sanctions.
Option B) Club at fault, players misled and mistreated but should have known better, reduced sanctions (probably 6 months to a year).
Option C) Club and players guilty of all charges, no excuses, 2 year bans.

Would you be happy paying pick 9 for a bloke who then gets rubbed out for two years, comes back woefully unfit and decides he's lost his passion for the game?

No Chance in hell that woukd happen. That would go to appeal after appeal by AFL they cannot have a club out. By the time it got to court Carlisle contract woukd be finished.

 

[bluerooster]

Priority for * is to delist, retire or trade as many of the 34 guilty players as they can.

Fletcher, Winderlich gone. Monfries, Crameri, Ryder traded. Melksham and Carlisle on the way out. Top up on mature players from other clubs - chapman, guilt, cooney, goddard.

They'd be chortling if they had 2 picks in the top 10. Don't make it happen.

Fletcher is 89yo always going to retire, winderlichs back is stuffed, Carlisle, Ryder and Crameri wanted out and Melksham is shyte. None of those were told to leave.

 

[ajb72]

Fletcher is 89yo always going to retire, winderlichs back is stuffed, Carlisle, Ryder and Crameri wanted out and Melksham is shyte. None of those were told to leave.

You have to give some credit to Winderlich for trolling EFC* though.

Retire, then withdraw your retirement and get a full years pay for 1 game.

 

[Blue__Balls]

No Chance in hell that woukd happen. That would go to appeal after appeal by AFL they cannot have a club out. By the time it got to court Carlisle contract woukd be finished.

Firstly - appeal to who? CAS is the final frontier.

Secondly - how many of the 34 are at the club next year? I've got it at 13 assuming Melksham and Carlisle are out, and a few of those 13 weren't getting games anyway. Could be less than 13 if a few of those 13 get delisted/traded.

They won't be missing their entire list, they'll be afforded the opportunity to top up with delisted players again, and will finish in the bottom 6 for a couple of years (banking some decent draft picks along the way) and will be in a similar rebuild situation as us - a couple of old blokes and a bunch of kids, not a lot in between.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care about WADA and Jake? If it means we get him cheaply, I am more than happy to take the risk....He won't change our fortunes next year, that's for sure

 

[ShanDog]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care about WADA and Jake? If it means we get him cheaply, I am more than happy to take the risk....He won't change our fortunes next year, that's for sure

Pretty much where I stand on the issue too.

 

[FlowersByIrene]

Apparently Essendon will be asking for Jeremy Howe and the Dee's first for Melksham

So we should prepare for them to ask for the No.1 for Carlilse hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

**** I despise that awful, drug cheating, salary cap cheating, sashed bunch of campaigners they call a football club.

 

[mickelboy182]

Am I the only one who doesn't really care about WADA and Jake? If it means we get him cheaply, I am more than happy to take the risk....He won't change our fortunes next year, that's for sure

Yeah the risk is over the next couple of years, neither of which we will be challenging in. Definitely overblown.