2016 Trade Hypotheticals (Opposition supporters post here)

[Rear Admiral]

I'm a Crows supporter, and the reason I'm making a comment here is not to dish out cr*p to Brisbane Lions supporters - not at all. Not meaning to offend anyone at all.

From an outsider's perspective, in my opinion the reason Brisbane are struggling at the moment is clearly the result of Vlad Demtriou's decision to introduce the two expansion teams into the AFL:

Greater Western Sydney and Goldcoast

Given the opportunity, I would like to have Vlad dragged back to Australia by his ankles and face the AFL media as to why the teams at the bottom of the ladder are being repeatedly belted. While many people may argue, I'm of the opinion that there just isn't enough elite talent to fill 18 Clubs. Added to that, QLD is a predominantly NRL state, where most players want to head south. The answer to this problem is simple:
Either reduce the number of clubs, or bring about forced trading. One or the other.

Since nobody wants to choose option 1, then option 2 is the only viable option. If that doesn't happen, it's only a matter of time until some of the less successful clubs either fold or merge, and that is devastating for supporters. At the moment, most AFL players want to make a beeline for just a handful of clubs, where the rest are just making up the numbers.

What I can't understand is why many of the struggling clubs don't get on board with what Damien Hardwick proposed below and present a united case to the AFL. What Hardwick says describes these issues perfectly:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-21/clubs-deserve-power-dimma​

Now that Free Trading has been brought about, the clubs have every right to present this case to the AFL. Instead, what we're seeing is more and more coaches of struggling clubs being hired-and-fired like a revolving door, when they're mostly powerless to retain their best talent. I want the AFL to reach a stage where there's barely one or two wins separating the top side from the bottom side, where every game is a cliffhanger. What we're getting now is the absolute opposite.

 

[lionsbest]

Richmond has currently pick 6 .
So Rockliff and green and 1st second rounder for Richmond pick 6 ,Richmond 's 1st second rounder and Rioli

 

[Big Sauce 21]

Richmond want Prestia remember. They'll need to send their 1st and 2017 1st to get him most likely

 

[pulpdriver]

Richmond want Prestia remember. They'll need to send their 1st and 2017 1st to get him most likely

Prestia's a gun but is he really worth that much?

 

[ImAFreeMan]

Prestia's a gun but is he really worth that much?

1st rounder and future second in my opinion


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[JTW3553]

I'm a Crows supporter, and the reason I'm making a comment here is not to dish out cr*p to Brisbane Lions supporters - not at all. Not meaning to offend anyone at all.

From an outsider's perspective, in my opinion the reason Brisbane are struggling at the moment is clearly the result of Vlad Demtriou's decision to introduce the two expansion teams into the AFL:

Greater Western Sydney and Goldcoast

Given the opportunity, I would like to have Vlad dragged back to Australia by his ankles and face the AFL media as to why the teams at the bottom of the ladder are being repeatedly belted. While many people may argue, I'm of the opinion that there just isn't enough elite talent to fill 18 Clubs. Added to that, QLD is a predominantly NRL state, where most players want to head south. The answer to this problem is simple:
Either reduce the number of clubs, or bring about forced trading. One or the other.

Since nobody wants to choose option 1, then option 2 is the only viable option. If that doesn't happen, it's only a matter of time until some of the less successful clubs either fold or merge, and that is devastating for supporters. At the moment, most AFL players want to make a beeline for just a handful of clubs, where the rest are just making up the numbers.

What I can't understand is why many of the struggling clubs don't get on board with what Damien Hardwick proposed below and present a united case to the AFL. What Hardwick says describes these issues perfectly:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-21/clubs-deserve-power-dimma​

Now that Free Trading has been brought about, the clubs have every right to present this case to the AFL. Instead, what we're seeing is more and more coaches of struggling clubs being hired-and-fired like a revolving door, when they're mostly powerless to retain their best talent. I want the AFL to reach a stage where there's barely one or two wins separating the top side from the bottom side, where every game is a cliffhanger. What we're getting now is the absolute opposite.

Thanks for the post. I remember that Hardwick article and at the time thought he was spot on. Still do.
Also think all 1st and 2nd round draftees should be given 4 year mandatory contracts, allowing clubs better chances of retaining talent and building successful lists. 3 years for all others.

 

[Gadzorks]

I'm a Crows supporter, and the reason I'm making a comment here is not to dish out cr*p to Brisbane Lions supporters - not at all. Not meaning to offend anyone at all.

From an outsider's perspective, in my opinion the reason Brisbane are struggling at the moment is clearly the result of Vlad Demtriou's decision to introduce the two expansion teams into the AFL:

Greater Western Sydney and Goldcoast

Given the opportunity, I would like to have Vlad dragged back to Australia by his ankles and face the AFL media as to why the teams at the bottom of the ladder are being repeatedly belted. While many people may argue, I'm of the opinion that there just isn't enough elite talent to fill 18 Clubs. Added to that, QLD is a predominantly NRL state, where most players want to head south. The answer to this problem is simple:
Either reduce the number of clubs, or bring about forced trading. One or the other.

Since nobody wants to choose option 1, then option 2 is the only viable option. If that doesn't happen, it's only a matter of time until some of the less successful clubs either fold or merge, and that is devastating for supporters. At the moment, most AFL players want to make a beeline for just a handful of clubs, where the rest are just making up the numbers.

What I can't understand is why many of the struggling clubs don't get on board with what Damien Hardwick proposed below and present a united case to the AFL. What Hardwick says describes these issues perfectly:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-02-21/clubs-deserve-power-dimma​

Now that Free Trading has been brought about, the clubs have every right to present this case to the AFL. Instead, what we're seeing is more and more coaches of struggling clubs being hired-and-fired like a revolving door, when they're mostly powerless to retain their best talent. I want the AFL to reach a stage where there's barely one or two wins separating the top side from the bottom side, where every game is a cliffhanger. What we're getting now is the absolute opposite.

Would love for every game every weekend to be a cliff hanger.

Can't see the players association agreeing to what would essentially be a watering down of players rights re being a club commodity to trade.

One thing that would really make a difference is raising the drafting age - drafting becomes less of a guess and more of a science. The change would be a major disruption that has winners and losers so will never happen.

I'd like a mid season draft of over 21s from the lower leagues. Keeps the incentive for non drafted kids to keep improving, creates interest in the lower leagues, and allows late developers a real crack. The late developers will actually increase the pool of talent available cause it is rare for these guys to get noticed and drafted under the current system.

 

[Rear Admiral]

Thanks for the post. I remember that Hardwick article and at the time thought he was spot on. Still do.
Also think all 1st and 2nd round draftees should be given 4 year mandatory contracts, allowing clubs better chances of retaining talent and building successful lists. 3 years for all others.

Would love for every game every weekend to be a cliff hanger.

Can't see the players association agreeing to what would essentially be a watering down of players rights re being a club commodity to trade.

One thing that would really make a difference is raising the drafting age - drafting becomes less of a guess and more of a science. The change would be a major disruption that has winners and losers so will never happen.

Interesting points.
The two expansion clubs and the AFL Players Association are two of the major factors contributing to this whole dilemma. The problem is, the Players Association is not helping, because unless lower clubs can retain top level talent, eventually a number of clubs will fold. I'm all for compensation systems that are supposed to help equalise the competition, but the problem is, they're not working. These various plans and programs implemented by the AFL have helped struggling clubs stay afloat financially, but they've done absolutely nothing to help improve onfield performance. So all the AFL is doing is providing "cannon fodder" (for want of a better term) for the top few clubs in the AFL.
All the bells and whistles in world won't help the competition one iota if most players want to make beeline for just a handful of clubs. And the AFL is not addressing this issue. A lot of clubs have been affected by this, but I don't think any have been shafted as thoroughly as The Crows.

This is what I'd suggest:

• Firstly, bring about forced trading, just like Dimma suggested. And make a strong pitch to the Players Association that unless this is done to bring about a more even spread of talent, numerous clubs will fold, resulting in many players being without a club to play for. Simple.
• And with forced trading, destination clubs can cover the cost of the move (outside the salary cap) so it doesn't hurt the player financially.
• Have a Draft Lottery for the bottom 4 or 5 sides as to who gets first picks.
• Shorten the number of years until players reach Free Agency. I am a big supporter of this idea, as it gives players more choice on their life decisions earlier in their career. And pitch this to the Players Association.
• Raise the minimum player wage. What this does is reduce the ridiculous payments paid to the upper level players, so there will be a much more equity between players' wages which encourages more club loyalty. Players like Buddy and Ablett might start screaming and turning purple, but the vast majority of players would jump at the idea. I'm not saying all payments should be the same - far from it. But what's happening now is ridculous.
• Roo's suggestion is brilliant - http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...o/news-story/c26192481a6f5bfc696f547b0df7a081

And some suggestions I've heard from many supporters who talk about teams struggling to retain talent.
When looking at the Draft, almost exclusively pick homegrown players from your own state, as they are less likely to want to leave. Then target interstate talent via Trade Week, as these guys have to want to join your club, so you're almost guaranteed to retain them. If you're club is regularly drafting interstate players - sure, some will want to stay, but many won't - just look at Dangerfield. For this reason, drafting local talent is much more likely to result in retention of talent.

Also, when Trading to get talent, far and away what is most important is needs-based talent, rather than simply the best players available, where I'm of the firm belief that the Trade period, overall, is where you seriously set up your club - not the Draft. Why? In Draft week, you might secure one, maybe two, true gun players. But that's it. In Trade week, you can secure many more players, and this is what The Crows have finally managed to do, and look at the results. Individually, most of them probably aren't Brownlow Medalists, but look at their overall impact. We haven't relied on getting one absolute young gun in Draft week to set up our season.

To make all this work, what you need are absolute razor sharp, eagle-eyed talent scouts....in all the states. These are the nameless, faceless people behind the scenes that can make or break your club. And if they fail to deliver on their tips, you turf them out.

These are just my opinions, but I can assure you that the Crows have been through the ringer in recent years, and what I said above is based on what we've experienced. And if the expansion clubs ever experience hard times and ask for concessions....raise living Hell in the media and get other clubs on board. No offence to the players, but I think the introduction of the two expansion clubs was a disaster, and I do not wish them any success, so Vlad Demetriou can be shown up for the ruin he has brought on many other AFL clubs.

I'd like a mid season draft of over 21s from the lower leagues. Keeps the incentive for non drafted kids to keep improving, creates interest in the lower leagues, and allows late developers a real crack. The late developers will actually increase the pool of talent available cause it is rare for these guys to get noticed and drafted under the current system.

This concept has been discussed previously, but just cannot ever see it gaining approval. Where the investment needs to be made is in the quantity and quality of talent scouts that venture far and wide; these are the personnel that make or break your club.

 

[Melbourne Giant]

Power, Cornes, Brogan and McDonald did wonders for us.

Any player who is being forced out of their club as 'too old' should get a look.

Glad there's a GWS fan here;

Ian, thoughts on the Lamberts getting in the ears of the likes of Stewart, Finlayson and in particularly Steele to head north?

Stewart's the only Victorian of the three but I'd say that we'd take Brisbane's 2017 first for all three and maybe something else coming back their way in the third of 2017?

 

[Milk Steak]

Glad there's a GWS fan here;

Ian, thoughts on the Lamberts getting in the ears of the likes of Stewart, Finlayson and in particularly Steele to head north?

Stewart's the only Victorian of the three but I'd say that we'd take Brisbane's 2017 first for all three and maybe something else coming back their way in the third of 2017?

Yeah it'd need to be something good coming back the other way. No way you'd trade a pick 2 for that trio. They'd be handy,but nowhere near good enough for a pick that high.

 

[Melbourne Giant]

Yeah it'd need to be something good coming back the other way. No way you'd trade a pick 2 for that trio. They'd be handy,but nowhere near good enough for a pick that high.

Reckon you'll be second last next year?

Surely your injuries next year can't be as bad as this years?

 

[Milk Steak]

Reckon you'll be second last next year?

Surely your injuries next year can't be as bad as this years?

Apologies, I thought that was for this years first. My bad. In fairness though, can't see us finishing much higher than 2nd last if this year is any indication. Who's likely to finish lower? I hope not obviously and there's a chance with a healthier list we could see a spike,but yeah.

 

[Melbourne Giant]

Apologies, I thought that was for this years first. My bad. In fairness though, can't see us finishing much higher than 2nd last if this year is any indication. Who's likely to finish lower? I hope not obviously and there's a chance with a healthier list we could see a spike,but yeah.

What's your 2017 academy crop looking like?

 

[POBT]

With available list space a likely constraint, three for one deals (ie we take three players for one draft pick) are highly unlikely to eventuate. We just don't have the spots on the list to do that and use our early draft picks and take one or two Academy boys.

 

[WA Lion]

What's your 2017 academy crop looking like?

Have a young key forward called Connor ballenden who depending on who you ask could fall anywhere in the top 15, plus another promising kid in jack Clayton, but I think he will fall a bit later

 

[jjami15]

Reckon you'll be second last next year?

Surely your injuries next year can't be as bad as this years?

How does last suit you? So I regards to trading next years first rounder, no thanks.

 

[Ruse]

With available list space a likely constraint, three for one deals (ie we take three players for one draft pick) are highly unlikely to eventuate. We just don't have the spots on the list to do that and use our early draft picks and take one or two Academy boys.

Won't be hard to cull the list at the end of the season.

 

[dlanod]

Won't be hard to cull the list at the end of the season.

Given we could be taking up to three live picks plus three academy kids and maybe an upgrade of Archie, where are we going to find another three or four list spots beyond the likes of uncontracted players in Clarke, Watts, McGuinness, West, Merrett and Green?

 

[IanW]

Yeah it'd need to be something good coming back the other way. No way you'd trade a pick 2 for that trio. They'd be handy,but nowhere near good enough for a pick that high.

GWS has trade currency beyond those - there's the Collingwood, Geelong and GWS first picks, and then you have WHE and Tomlinson.

 

[M Malice]

GWS has trade currency beyond those - there's the Collingwood, Geelong and GWS first picks, and then you have WHE and Tomlinson.

i wouldn't be against giving up our PP (beginning of first round). i would want to keep a pick in the top 3 so i wouldn't trade it if we only had 1 to trade.

what would you say to a deal like this one?

our picks 1 and 20 for your 7, 14, 15 and one of steele/marchbank/barrett.

 

[IanW]

i wouldn't be against giving up our PP (beginning of first round). i would want to keep a pick in the top 3 so i wouldn't trade it if we only had 1 to trade.

what would you say to a deal like this one?

our picks 1 and 20 for your 7, 14, 15 and one of steele/marchbank/barrett.

I wouldnt be assuming Brisbane will get a start of first round priority pick - Brisbane will get help, but that level of priority picks will reignite a tanking debate that AFL House doesnt want to go back to.

In any case, the AFL's Roos-led intervention to Melbourne worked way better than priority picks in resuscitating the Dees.

I also think the deal you are proposing is a shit deal for GWS, and I'd be turning it down. There simply isnt a clear-cut number one that GWS wants.

 

[M Malice]

I wouldnt be assuming Brisbane will get a start of first round priority pick - Brisbane will get help, but that level of priority picks will reignite a tanking debate that AFL House doesnt want to go back to.

In any case, the AFL's Roos-led intervention to Melbourne worked way better than priority picks in resuscitating the Dees.

I also think the deal you are proposing is a shit deal for GWS, and I'd be turning it down. There simply isnt a clear-cut number one that GWS wants.

yep, know it's unlikely, purely hypothetical as is most trade talk, will leave the merits of us getting a PP to the numerous other threads that exist to discuss the issue.

IMO pick 1 could be very valuable to you if one of your academy boys ie. setterfield, perryman is bid on before your first pick. one of McGluggage, SPS or Brodie would come in very handy? in that scenario you get one of those 3 + your academy boys, the status quo you maybe just get the academy boys.

 

[Melbourne Giant]

How does last suit you? So I regards to trading next years first rounder, no thanks.

You think you'll come last next year?

I hope you guys don't.

 

[IanW]

yep, know it's unlikely, purely hypothetical as is most trade talk, will leave the merits of us getting a PP to the numerous other threads that exist to discuss the issue.

IMO pick 1 could be very valuable to you if one of your academy boys ie. setterfield, perryman is bid on before your first pick. one of McGluggage, SPS or Brodie would come in very handy? in that scenario you get one of those 3 + your academy boys, the status quo you maybe just get the academy boys.

Regrettably, you're proposing GWS trade away all the points we'd need for our academy kids ... it's a shit deal.

 

[M Malice]

Regrettably, you're proposing GWS trade away all the points we'd need for our academy kids ... it's a shit deal.

ok, i shall leave it at that then.