List Mgmt. 2017 Trade & FA Targets Part 2

[gringo2011]

Obviously hasn't yet, but I'd imagine somewhere around the bye.

I mean articles don't come out to state you're no longer interested in a player unless there's an extremely good reason.

Possible reasons in order:
1) Fyfes management have told Saints he's close to signing with Freo
2) Saints have a strong verbal on another target, like Kelly.
3) Saints have simply gone cold and feel the need to release this information
4) Suban has chosen Saints and Saints can only afford one gun
5) The article is just click-bait and has no substance... possibly should be number 1 reason

Or they have run a form line over Fyfe and he's not playing the kind of football he was when he was a Brownlow medalist, big risk if he's going to cost $1.6 mill a year.

Also said in the article we are after midfielders which Fyfe is kind of a utility rather than your pure mid. Same with Dusty really, both can play anywhere but neither are full time pure mids even if they could be. I think Kelly suits our needs a lot better, he's inside and outside and he is 100% midfield.

 

[gringo2011]

While I'm not jumping to conclusions, I feel a little flat after hearing that we've ruled ourselves out of Dusty & Fyfe, even if it's unfounded media clickbait. I highly doubt we get Kelly either, which again leaves us without this 'gun' that we've said we've been setting ourselves up for for the last 4-5yrs.

Back in 2013-2014, the goal was to create a model to jag exactly this type of player by 2016-2017.

While I'm happy to be taking our picks to the draft & taking 2 gun top 12 kids, it doesn't solve the current lack of midfield class problem that we have for the short term future, as these kids will take 3-4 years to find their feet, because let's face it, none of our kids seem to be the 'gun from the get go' types.

I wonder if the tact he changed due to the current depth that we're seeing in the GWS list. There really is no point trying to compete with that, so maybe we've changed the goal posts to aim for a peak in the 2021-2024 period, after GWS have their predicted domination through 2017-2020.

Again, while I look forward to this, I just want to see my team that promises so much, rise & contend sooner rather than later.

Anyways, these are just my melancholy thoughts on this Saturday.

I'm not that upset, I don't really need a messiah. If we put $9 million dollars into one player it could really limit our future. Sydney lost Mitchell because of Buddy and Tippett and the Dogs could lose JJ because of Boyd. It's great to have a win off field but really we need to maximise investment for on field success not have a feel good story to get a few more memberships.

 

[hayes]

Don't expect much do we. Have to finish top 4, we MUST sign a big name free agent and both have to happen in 2017!

Worst case is we try again next year after using two first rounders this year, how good is that. They'll come eventually not sure why everyone's putting all their FA eggs into this years basket.

 

[aussierulesrules]

Rules out of Fyfe as of last night.
Dusty too? Wait, wot?

There have been plenty of reports in the media at times this year that have said we're not into Dusty.

That's prolly what they're referring to there.

 

[cooperrules]

Jack steven to gws for taranto and there first rounder

 

[Sir Skid]

There have been plenty of reports in the media at times this year that have said we're not into Dusty.

That's prolly what they're referring to there.

Ah, no worries. Thought there was some new rumour news.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Why would the club not be keen on Dusty? I mean I get that he's known as a bad boy but he's really only had the chopsticks thing. Him and Dangerfield are the two most explosive mids in the comp and he's an FA. Why would we not go for him?

 

[JG22]

Jack steven to gws for taranto and there first rounder

Nonsense talker

 

[goodie23]

So say we did convince Jelly to come to us, would we prefer a first rounder this year and a first rounder next year or both this year's? Bit wary of parting with both this year's as that would leave us out to the third round, would rather not do what the Hawks did last year and what we did a lot in the mid 00's, trade out until deep in the draft and have to pick up Sweeneys, Raymonds, Begleys, Johnsons, Pattisons, Eljays, etc.

 

[Sir Skid]

Can we spend 1.5M/Yr of our SC each year and buy a top 3 draft pick for the next 9 years?

Now that I would do

 

[StCicatriz]

Rules out of Fyfe as of last night.
Dusty too? Wait, wot?

we ruled him out ages back

 

[Sir Skid]

Jack steven to gws for taranto and there first rounder

 

[PaddysurDaddy]

Jack steven to gws for taranto and there first rounder

so that would be Tarranto and pick 16 or something, what do people think about this? I think Tarranto will be a very good player, and pick 16 isn't nothing, but we're entering 'The Window'..


obviously just a hypothetical

 

[StCicatriz]

Don't expect much do we. Have to finish top 4, we MUST sign a big name free agent and both have to happen in 2017!

Worst case is we try again next year after using two first rounders this year, how good is that. They'll come eventually not sure why everyone's putting all their FA eggs into this years basket.

the problem is the two first rounders are going to take time to come on, whilst our best is in his prime at 27. so you're in this tough position of having to replace your best mid and find more

roberton, carlisle 26

plus the free agency pool next year is absolute shizen

the art of list management is to build a side that will peak at the same time, not scatter in players over a long period

 

[Rors]

I'm not that upset, I don't really need a messiah. If we put $9 million dollars into one player it could really limit our future. Sydney lost Mitchell because of Buddy and Tippett and the Dogs could lose JJ because of Boyd. It's great to have a win off field but really we need to maximise investment for on field success not have a feel good story to get a few more memberships.

Surely you jest.

Dogs just won a premiership with Boyd playing a key role, and while we like to pot him as being as being an overpaid inconsistent spud, he was epic in that GF & will only get better (a bit like the way we bang on about Jack Billings).

Swans have just played in 2 GFs in 3 years with Buddy & id argue that it's Tippett the absolute cat on $850k that is what forced Titch out. Buddy for $1.1mil is an absolute bargain iMHo. Buddy also drags 35k+ through the gates every week....

 

[StCicatriz]

I'm not that upset, I don't really need a messiah. If we put $9 million dollars into one player it could really limit our future. Sydney lost Mitchell because of Buddy and Tippett and the Dogs could lose JJ because of Boyd. It's great to have a win off field but really we need to maximise investment for on field success not have a feel good story to get a few more memberships.

sydney lost players because their entire list strategy was built on having a salary cap that was larger than the rest of the comp. the AFL changed that overnight so of course their TPP planning was thrown out the window. they also were banned from trading etc.

 

[The Jack]

Pretty flat really. Been exciing being linked to so many guns. We have been patiently waiting for our master plan to come together. This trede period was going to be the telling one. Hopefully there's still a few surprises to come because with the latest news on top of our current form, footy as a saints fan is pretty boring atm.

Sent from my SM-T210 using Tapatalk

 

[The_Steadier]

Yes, but if it's mostly about money then the club that they currently play for doesn't usually have to match an offer, they usually just have to get close enough (unless they specifically want out of that club, or to go to yours), and this extra 20% would make that easier than ever for them to achieve.

Can you imagine how much we'll have up our sleeves for next year tho if we don't land any "big fish" this year and have to do something with our 20% extra- within our salary cap- and possibly also have to pay 105% of the cap, because we've paid just 95% for the last 3 years!?

We'd surely have to front-end just about every contract we have, just to get to the 105% (including the extra 20%) which could leave us with gazillions free next year. That we would just have to find someone to spend it on from outside our club.

Could offer someone like Sloane (who is eligible for FA) something like $1.5mil PA and Adelaide might not be able to get within $500K of it, if their cap's as tight this year as it's meant to be.

In the long run it could be a much better result to take our two firsts to the draft this year (or take the Hawks one to the draft and trade our one for a Hopper/Jones) and then land Sloane for "free" next year and also have a 2018 first rounder to play with, than to land Fyfe this year for $1.5mil AND cough up two of those 3 first rounders for him.

Could end up being Fyfe and Z Jones v Sloane and Z Jones PLUS top 5 in the draft jet and another from the 2018 first round, for the same amount of money and picks.

We don't HAVE to pay 105% of the cap, we just CAN.

 

[Keg on legs]

Can we spend 1.5M/Yr of our SC each year and buy a top 3 draft pick for the next 9 years?

Now that I would do

No need to spend the money. Let's just wait till the hawks identify the broken down hack they want every year then pop in to offer them some help with that

 

[Rors]

We don't HAVE to pay 105% of the cap, we just CAN.

No we HAVE to next year and the following 2yrs. It's a 7 year cycle. You must have equilibrium to meet 100% of the cap over 7 years.

We've gone:
2014 - 95%
2015 - 95%
2016 - 95%
2017 - 100%

which now means that 2018-2020, we must pay 105%

 

[The_Steadier]

While I'm not jumping to conclusions, I feel a little flat after hearing that we've ruled ourselves out of Dusty & Fyfe, even if it's unfounded media clickbait. I highly doubt we get Kelly either, which again leaves us without this 'gun' that we've said we've been setting ourselves up for for the last 4-5yrs.

Back in 2013-2014, the goal was to create a model to jag exactly this type of player by 2016-2017.

While I'm happy to be taking our picks to the draft & taking 2 gun top 12 kids, it doesn't solve the current lack of midfield class problem that we have for the short term future, as these kids will take 3-4 years to find their feet, because let's face it, none of our kids seem to be the 'gun from the get go' types.

I wonder if the tact he changed due to the current depth that we're seeing in the GWS list. There really is no point trying to compete with that, so maybe we've changed the goal posts to aim for a peak in the 2021-2024 period, after GWS have their predicted domination through 2017-2020.

Again, while I look forward to this, I just want to see my team that promises so much, rise & contend sooner rather than later.

Anyways, these are just my melancholy thoughts on this Saturday.

Great post.
I hope we have decent prospects with plan b targets.
Something like:

Plan A: fyfe kelly dusty level guys
Plan B: whitfield hopper level guys
Plan C: take our picks to the draft

I really hope our strategy isnt straight to the draft if we miss kelly and co

 

[Kilroy]

I'm not that upset, I don't really need a messiah.

 

[Rors]

View attachment 377484

He's just a very naughty boy.....

That's it! We're getting Steven May!!!!!

 

[The_Steadier]

Jack steven to gws for taranto and there first rounder

Yuk

why?

 

[The_Steadier]

No we HAVE to next year and the following 2yrs. It's a 7 year cycle. You must have equilibrium to meet 100% of the cap over 7 years.

We've gone:
2014 - 95%
2015 - 95%
2016 - 95%
2017 - 100%

which now means that 2018-2020, we must pay 105%

Got a link?

All I've ever seen is this kind of stuff:
http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-06-04/afl-statement-competitive-balance-policy

NEW TPP BANKING MECHANISM
• Introduce a new TPP banking mechanism that allows Clubs to spend over 100% of the TPP and ASA limits (combined limit), if in any of the preceding two years the Club spent below 100% of the combined limit
• The permitted amount of overspend is commensurate with the level of underspend in the relevant preceding period - for instance, if a Club was $500k below the combined limit in 2015, they can spend up to $500k over the combined limits across 2016 and 2017
• The overspend amount in any given year permits a Club to spend up to a maximum of 105% of the combined limit in that year
• This mechanism is effective from season 2015 (as such any underspends in 2013 and/or 2014 can be recovered in 2015)