List Mgmt. 2019 Trade Thread

[VDS66]

Maybe, but the AFL and media are all over the talent drain now, and it wouldn't surprise me that they take all sorts of measures to try to keep players like Ben in place.

If Ben wants to come, Ben will come.

Any intervention is restraint of trade.

And BTW, Ben wants to come...

 

[jwikked]

Good luck with getting 5 years. What happens if they are no good. Even the clubs wouldn’t want 5 years

The length of time is irrelevant to the point I made. Contracts need to mean something. Also, if a player isn’t willing to play for GC or anywhere else interstate they shouldn’t enter the draft. It’s not their right to go where they want.

 

[Savage Kent]

Port have a glut of ruckmen on their list. Wonder if any of them are worth a look as a back up for us. I hear North are keen on Ladhams. Haven't seen much of him to make a judgement.

IMO saints just need a more than capable back up for Roma. Someone who will predominately play VFL but isn't out of their depth when called up to seniors when required.

 

[Yawkey way]

They have a minimum spend because of Fitzroy and the aflpa. The nfl earn enough to not need a minimum spend.

The AFL pay players not the clubs and the last rights deal was a very good one, there is no logical reason for the rule to exist.

The AFLPA love it as do the top clubs, it’s gets lousy players an inflated payday and allows top clubs to prey on the weak without fear of any disruption to the order imo.

 

[StCicatriz]

I was listening to roo and the others talking about how the first contract in the NFL is much longer blah, blah.

What always gets me is like the AFLPA they cherry pick the parts they like but don’t mention any of the rights players and teams have to offset what their talking about. You can’t tell an 18 year old kid it’s five years on the GC or you don’t play, if they want to wind up in court then just keep pushing.

Changes need to be made but properly discussed and thought out changes with all stake holders given a voice and it needs to be able to survive a legal challenge. Imo if you can’t grow the game in QLD until their producing decent numbers of players then 1 team was always enough especially given their proximity.

Participation is higher in QLD than SA and a bunch of other states combined. It'll take time for it to convert to players.

 

[StCicatriz]

The length of time is irrelevant to the point I made. Contracts need to mean something. Also, if a player isn’t willing to play for GC or anywhere else interstate they shouldn’t enter the draft. It’s not their right to go where they want.

Spot on which is why the draft hasn't been challenged.

They'll get it increased to 3 years I reckon for the first round.

What they really need is the ability to trade em where ever they want. But with some financial compensation for doing so.

 

[bergholt]

IMO saints just need a more than capable back up for Roma. Someone who will predominately play VFL but isn't out of their depth when called up to seniors when required.

I don’t really understand why a “more than capable backup” would be happy playing 20 VFL games and only a couple in the AFL, though. If they’re any good then they need to play AFL to develop; if they’re not then they’re Billy Longer.

Similar problem to goalkeepers in soccer or quarterbacks in the NFL. It’s a specialist position and you can only play one at a time.

The solution seems to always be a backup who’s a veteran for one last payday, or a rookie looking for a chance. That seems to be our Goldstein vs Draper argument in a nutshell.

 

[plugger66]

The length of time is irrelevant to the point I made. Contracts need to mean something. Also, if a player isn’t willing to play for GC or anywhere else interstate they shouldn’t enter the draft. It’s not their right to go where they want.

Cant think of many who have done that in the last 10 years so im not really understanding the point.

 

[plugger66]

The AFL pay players not the clubs and the last rights deal was a very good one, there is no logical reason for the rule to exist.

The AFLPA love it as do the top clubs, it’s gets lousy players an inflated payday and allows top clubs to prey on the weak without fear of any disruption to the order imo.

Cant confirm it because its just an opinion but without that rule we may have lost some very good players that are clearly overpaid to get to 95%. Still gives you up to close to 2 million to play less than the top clubs

 

[Yawkey way]

The length of time is irrelevant to the point I made. Contracts need to mean something. Also, if a player isn’t willing to play for GC or anywhere else interstate they shouldn’t enter the draft. It’s not their right to go where they want.

Why don’t they have the right to earn a living in their chosen profession free from unreasonable restraint?.

Who else can you tell I know there’s a job available next door and they want you and you want the job but sorry mate it’s the GC or find another line of work. I’m sorry that doesn’t sound reasonable to me, I believe in the NFL you still have to come to terms with and sign the players you draft. Drafting a player who won’t sign isn’t a great result for either party as the team has blown a draft pick and the player must go back into the draft unless of course the club trades the rights to him.

That to me passes the pub test because there’s an out for the player but the club can still salvage something. Imagine if you could trade players during the draft as well as picks, that imo would be another win for both clubs and players. Players under contract are a different story although no cut, no trade clauses are common enough which would stop a player having his life turned upside down.

I think we can come up with a system that’s fair to everyone and legal. The NRL don’t have a draft but do have a salary cap, Melbourne storm seems to do pretty well without shanghaiing 18 year olds.

 

[BrutThough]

I don’t really understand why a “more than capable backup” would be happy playing 20 VFL games and only a couple in the AFL, though. If they’re any good then they need to play AFL to develop; if they’re not then they’re Billy Longer.

Similar problem to goalkeepers in soccer or quarterbacks in the NFL. It’s a specialist position and you can only play one at a time.

The solution seems to always be a backup who’s a veteran for one last payday, or a rookie looking for a chance. That seems to be our Goldstein vs Draper argument in a nutshell.

Ask Preuss since he chose this path.

 

[Yawkey way]

Cant confirm it because its just an opinion but without that rule we may have lost some very good players that are clearly overpaid to get to 95%. Still gives you up to close to 2 million to play less than the top clubs

We wouldn’t have lost anyone we wanted it’s still the clubs choice to either pay or trade. That’s the whole point someone other than the club has artificially inflated the players contracts.

If one player is worth 2 million to a club and another 50 thousand and match payments that’s between the club and player. Not content with making sure players get a decent minimum the AFLPA have jumped in and stitched up the bottom clubs making it impossible not to overpay underperforming players.

Don’t worry the AFL have all but committed to a side in Tassie that should be very interesting indeed. We could spend the next 10 years struggling if they get GWS like draft concessions.

 

[St Neil]

If Ben wants to come, Ben will come.

Any intervention is restraint of trade.

And BTW, Ben wants to come...

I can’t like this post enough.

Maybe we can trade Gold Coast some players with development who aren’t producing but have potential. These lads may need a change.

 

[Gosaints12]

I started writingf a few threads, along the likes of Newnes and Sincs to GC... Acres to Perth... Ross to Essendon etc...

Love my club, but am lacking the energy and or inclination to speculate at this stage.

I hope Roberton comes back in next year, Steven stays and plays, Hanners comes good, King takes some of the pressure off of Bruce and Membrey, Bytel comes good, Coff and Clark continue to grow.

It's not all doom and gloom.

Sent from my H8324 using Tapatalk

Since wants to come to Hawthorn, Freo or Geel, (I think). Newnes would thrive on the Coast. Acres west would work, part of Hill or Langdon trade. Ross can play anywhere but St Kilda. Robbo has about as much chance as McCartin. Steven may as well have stayed at the Cattery. Hanners is going to be fine. King will be a gun. Bytel was top 10 before injury, I had him behind Caldwell. Coff and Clark repaying the faith. I feel like a flag is near, (5 years, we play finals in 3, this year included).


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[bergholt]

Ask Preuss since he chose this path.

Yeah, good point, interested to see how that plays out. I got the impression he was sold a two ruck setup, not sure that’s what he got though.

 

[Yawkey way]

Participation is higher in QLD than SA and a bunch of other states combined. It'll take time for it to convert to players.

Yeah I don’t buy that I’m sorry but I know a thing or two about how they come up with those figures.

Let’s just say Auskick is proving to be the biggest boon to the AFL in god knows how long. I wonder what the figures are when you break it down by age and registered players by team?.

 

[plugger66]

We wouldn’t have lost anyone we wanted it’s still the clubs choice to either pay or trade. That’s the whole point someone other than the club has artificially inflated the players contracts.

If one player is worth 2 million to a club and another 50 thousand and match payments that’s between the club and player. Not content with making sure players get a decent minimum the AFLPA have jumped in and stitched up the bottom clubs making it impossible not to overpay underperforming players.

Don’t worry the AFL have all but committed to a side in Tassie that should be very interesting indeed. We could spend the next 10 years struggling if they get GWS like draft concessions.

That's the thing though. If the club think we are years off it they may trade away the likes of Billings and Gresh and then just get great picks in the draft and pay 50%. They would be completely un competitive which the AFL don't want but it could be the best way they think to build. Surely we as supporters don't want that so they have this 95% rule as well as the 105% rule. Id be happy with 90% and 110%. Certainly don't want no minimum rule. Could be a race to the bottom.

 

[Impatient Saint]

I was listening to roo and the others talking about how the first contract in the NFL is much longer blah, blah.

What always gets me is like the AFLPA they cherry pick the parts they like but don’t mention any of the rights players and teams have to offset what their talking about. You can’t tell an 18 year old kid it’s five years on the GC or you don’t play, if they want to wind up in court then just keep pushing.

Changes need to be made but properly discussed and thought out changes with all stake holders given a voice and it needs to be able to survive a legal challenge. Imo if you can’t grow the game in QLD until their producing decent numbers of players then 1 team was always enough especially given their proximity.

Agreed Brisbane cant even support more than one NRL side and there Gold Coast side struggled for years also.

GCS are an AFL disaster and a complete waste of resources and talent. Forfeit their licence and give Tassie a go!

 

[plugger66]

Yeah, good point, interested to see how that plays out. I got the impression he was sold a two ruck setup, not sure that’s what he got though.

Im certain he was. It took our game to realise they needed their best ruck rucking 90% of the game.

 

[Browny2Carlisle]

Port have a glut of ruckmen on their list. Wonder if any of them are worth a look as a back up for us. I hear North are keen on Ladhams. Haven't seen much of him to make a judgement.

IMO saints just need a more than capable back up for Roma. Someone who will predominately play VFL but isn't out of their depth when called up to seniors when required.

ladhams and frampton can also play forward and Hayes would be good as a young developing option. Would take any of them or Draper over Goldstein.

 

[Savage Kent]

I don’t really understand why a “more than capable backup” would be happy playing 20 VFL games and only a couple in the AFL, though. If they’re any good then they need to play AFL to develop; if they’re not then they’re Billy Longer.

Similar problem to goalkeepers in soccer or quarterbacks in the NFL. It’s a specialist position and you can only play one at a time.

The solution seems to always be a backup who’s a veteran for one last payday, or a rookie looking for a chance. That seems to be our Goldstein vs Draper argument in a nutshell.

Would you prefer being 2nd choice ruck with a better chance of being called up or be 4th in the pecking order?

My rationale is that the priority should be Roma as our #1 ruck. He benefits the team being an extra big bodied mid and a marking outlet coming out of defence. If we get another gun ruck like Goldstein we lose Roma's strengths that he brings to the team. Only a select few teams can make two pure rucks work.

Going forward I would expect King to provide some ruck relief. Having two genuine rucks can make us too tall and affect team structures. We would likely play King, Bruce and Membrey in our forward line and have Roma rotate in little spurts.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Would you prefer being 2nd choice ruck with a better chance of being called up or be 4th in the pecking order?

My rationale is that the priority should be Roma as our #1 ruck. He benefits the team being an extra big bodied mid and a marking outlet coming out of defence. If we get another gun ruck like Goldstein we lose Roma's strengths that he brings to the team. Only a select few teams can make two pure rucks work.

Going forward I would expect King to provide some ruck relief. Having two genuine rucks can make us too tall and affect team structures. We would likely play King, Bruce and Membrey in our forward line and have Roma rotate in little spurts.

Sorry you've lost me completely here.

Are you saying we shouldn't sign up a particular player (lets call him player G) because he might be better in his position than someone already on our list (lets call him Player M) - I've got to say its amazing how often this piece of logic is floated!!!

I thought the whole purpose of drafting and trading is to select players who are better than our existing players and therefore make the team better.

If Player G turns out to be better than Player M is a position X then Player G gets picked. Its then up to Player M to either prove he's better player in that position or can hold down another position. Its called competition and its healthy!!!!

Its an absolute no brainer - we need immediate ruck support next year - if we can convince Player G to sign by front loading the s*** out of contract then we would be stupid not to do it.

Then its over to Player G and Player M to sort it out among themselves for position X.

 

[MOLTEN GANGLANDS]

If Ben wants to come, Ben will come.

Any intervention is restraint of trade.

And BTW, Ben wants to come...

any inside word on Ben VDS? I'm just trying to get my hopes up

 

[Diehard Saint]

Coniglio with a seemingly serious knee injury - quick sign him up Saints!
( Not making light of the injury, just the Saints’ propensity to sign injured players.)

 

[plugger66]

Sorry you've lost me completely here.

Are you saying we shouldn't sign up a particular player (lets call him player G) because he might be better in his position than someone already on our list (lets call him Player M) - I've got to say its amazing how often this piece of logic is floated!!!

I thought the whole purpose of drafting and trading is to select players who are better than our existing players and therefore make the team better.

If Player G turns out to be better than Player M is a position X then Player G gets picked. Its then up to Player M to either prove he's better player in that position or can hold down another position. Its called competition and its healthy!!!!

Its an absolute no brainer - we need immediate ruck support next year - if we can convince Player G to sign by front loading the s*** out of contract then we would be stupid not to do it.

Then its over to Player G and Player M to sort it out among themselves for position X.

Player G isn't better than player M. Player G is 32 years of age. Player M is 23 with huge improvement where as player G has very much most likely reached his best and is on the way down. We need a ruckman next year who can replace player M if injured. We don't need 2 ruckmen in the one side. We have marking forwards in player B and player M and another that will certainly be played baring injury in player K. There is no place in the side for player G. And if he is as good as you think player G isn't coming to us to play seconds and only a moron would want player M as back up when he is probably the most promising big man in the game.

The best player as back up is either a younger kid with improvement or an older guy who can pinch hit when needed. It is never an old first ruck. Anyway id be sure North see his value and keep him. Draper and an older ruck should be our options.