List Mgmt. 2023 Draft & Trade Hypotheticals

[Ticky009]

Key Dates:

Trade Period, October 6–18

• Restricted & Unrestricted Free Agency Period: Friday, October 6, 9am – Friday October 13, 5pm (bid matching ends Monday October 16, 5pm)
• Trade Period (1), picks & players: Monday, October 9, 9am – Wednesday October 18, 7.30pm

Quiet Period, October 19–November 20

• Trade Period (2), picks only: Monday, October 23, 9am – Friday November 10, 5pm
• List Lodgement 1*: Tuesday, October 31, 2pm
• Delisted Free Agency Period (1): Wednesday, November 1, 9am – Wednesday November 8, 5pm
• Delisted Free Agency Period (2): Friday, November 10, 9am–5pm
• List Lodgement 2*: Tuesday, November 14, 2pm

Draft Period, November 20–22

• Round 1 of the National Draft: Monday, November 20, time and venue TBA
• Trade Period (3), picks only: Tuesday, November 21, 5.45pm–6.30pm
• Round 2–end of the National Draft: Tuesday, November 21, 7pm until completion
• Rookie Promotions: Tuesday, November 21, after the National Draft
• Delisted Free Agency Period (3): Tuesday, November 21, after the National Draft
• List Lodgement 3*: Wednesday, November 22, 10am (optional; required for those participating in the PSD)
• Pre-Season Draft: Wednesday, November 22, 3pm
• Rookie Draft: Wednesday, November 22, 3.20pm
• Final List Lodgement*: Thursday, November 23, 4pm

* List lodgement dates are yet to be made public, so are approximate based on past history and the requirements of the AFL Rules. When lists are lodged, the number of players on the list must not exceed maximum list sizes. At the same time, clubs must provide the AFL with estimates of total player payments in the current and following year, which must prove the club is not and will not exceed the salary cap. (AFL Rules 5.3, 6.1, 6.8, 7.2, 7.9)

 

[The King!]

We would be mad to offer pick 12 for Grundy.

Makes no sense in a trade.

why?

I'd offer pick 12 in a heartbeat personally

 

[TheMase]

Well for what it's worth, the Hsun rich list had Rampe on 800-900k a year this year.

If true, that would make him one of the most overpaid players in the entire league.

Only valuable information in context of his total contract really.

 

[ErrolisGoldun]

We would be mad to offer pick 12 for Grundy.

Makes no sense in a trade.

Pick 28/9 whichever one we have is fair value and represents what Melbourne paid for him.

That’s enough for an almost 30yr old big fella.

Also considering Melbourne have shafted him, they need to do the right thing.

 

[Slingshot Footy]

Well for what it's worth, the Hsun rich list had Rampe on 800-900k a year this year.

If true, that would make him one of the most overpaid players in the entire league.

He very well could have and I'd believe it but sometimes that's misleading information as the life of the deal could have the player earning peanuts in other years to balance out the cap.

All I can do is pass on what I've been told.

 

[tombomb]

why?

I'd offer pick 12 in a heartbeat personally

I just don't get this.

Why would you pay significantly more than you need to for something?

'How much is this house?'

'$1 million'.

'Okay, we will give you $2 million. We really want it'.

 

[Edmund hunt]

Kane Cornes said the word out of Adelaide is that they have missed out on Grundy on the Sunday footy show. Multiple reports are coming out saying Sydney is his destination.

On SM-A515F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Adnico26Parker]

Only valuable information in context of his total contract really.

His money would have been moved around/back to accommodate other player's contracts, and maybe the $800-900k is the end result of the final year of the deal. Maybe the next 2 are $500k per year? Maybe 2025 will be more about coaching than playing?

 

[tombomb]

Pick 28/9 whichever one we have is fair value and represents what Melbourne paid for him.

That’s enough for an almost 30yr old big fella.

Also considering Melbourne have shafted him, they need to do the right thing.

We are absolute mugs if we even consider offering pick 12 as a straight swap.

 

[Slingshot Footy]

I just don't get this.

Why would you pay significantly more than you need to for something?

'How much is this house?'

'$1 million'.

'Okay, we will give you $2 million. We really want it'.

Well a fair talking point of the Grundy negotiations is that Melbourne can actually absorb the cost of the contract for next year as there aren't many free agents they can get this late in the year anyway. The deal then becomes a matter of which club can offer Melbourne the most attractive package. Remember, Melbourne are in their premiership window and they have the right to be picky with who they trade their top 10 ruckman to. If it doesn't suit their interests why would they let him go for a poor return and potentially to a rival contender that can thwart their premiership ambitions.

 

[The King!]

I just don't get this.

Why would you pay significantly more than you need to for something?

'How much is this house?'

'$1 million'.

'Okay, we will give you $2 million. We really want it'.

I didn't say i'd pay pick 12 if the Dees afl asked for 47 did I.

Pick 12 is the million in your scenario, it's just a chance on a kid.

Grundy isn't a dud they will just let go for nothing

 

[Kiama Chris]

Given Grundy is still contracted for some time and Melbourne have multiple suitors, this may be a rare case where the current club can determine the destination club.

Why would Melbourne agree to trade Grundy to Port for a second rounder when they could trade Grundy to Sydney for a first?

I think our better draft picks are what will help us come out on top. I’m sure Kinnear and team are also working quietly behind the scenes with Grundy to sell the opportunity.

I think it goes more like:
Grundy: "I wanna be a Swan"
Dee's: "Sure, if they pay enough"
Swans: "Here, have Pick 32"
Dees: "Kidding right? He stays"
Swans: "Pick 25?"
Dees: "Closer"
Swans: "Pick 15??"
Dee's: "Done"
Of course 25 might get it done but the principle is first convince Grundy, then Melbourne, not vv.

 

[Dan87]

Giving up a good pick for Grundy to get his salary paid by Melbourne feels like a Swans move

 

[The King!]

It's more

Swans fans: get us a star

Opposition team : ok give us a good pick

swans fans: no way

Opposition teams k give us a good player

swans fans: no we need those you can have Pick 60

Opposition Fans : have sam grey then and **** off

 

[tombomb]

Well a fair talking point of the Grundy negotiations is that Melbourne can actually absorb the cost of the contract for next year as there aren't many free agents they can get this late in the year anyway. The deal then becomes a matter of which club can offer Melbourne the most attractive package. Remember, Melbourne are in their premiership window and they have the right to be picky with who they trade their top 10 ruckman to. If it doesn't suit their interests why would they let him go for a poor return and potentially to a rival contender that can thwart their premiership ambitions.

But pick 30 isn't a poor return.

It's a perfectly fair offer for a player who they don't even want to play, is on a bad long term contract and is nearly 30.

Melbourne will accept that deal, or something similar to it. We don't need to give them pick 12 as a straight swap.

 

[Parky79]

Seems a bit steep. Perhaps 22. Reality it we need a ruck desperately…no ruck no premiership - Melbourne know this and will drive hard price

We are absolute mugs if we even consider offering pick 12 as a straight swap.

 

[RedBloodBlackSwan]

Well a fair talking point of the Grundy negotiations is that Melbourne can actually absorb the cost of the contract for next year as there aren't many free agents they can get this late in the year anyway. The deal then becomes a matter of which club can offer Melbourne the most attractive package. Remember, Melbourne are in their premiership window and they have the right to be picky with who they trade their top 10 ruckman to. If it doesn't suit their interests why would they let him go for a poor return and potentially to a rival contender that can thwart their premiership ambitions.

People also need to remember that Melbourne got Grundy in a fire sale by Collingwood. Good on them for taking the opportunity. Now it’s not a fire sale so you would expect Melbourne to get a better pick than they gave.

Which is not to say that we should accept overs, of course we should go for the best deal possible. Hiwever, I’d prefer we err by offering too much and securing Grundy’s services than offering too little and missing out.

I feel like Sydney has more to gain by getting Grundy than Melbourne has to gain by getting rid of him - I think the trade will reflect that.

 

[The King!]

But pick 30 isn't a poor return.

It's a perfectly fair offer for a player who they don't even want to play, is on a bad long term contract and is nearly 30.

Melbourne will accept that deal, or something similar to it. We don't need to give them pick 12 as a straight swap.

Melbourne may want him though in case Gawn goes down.

They also have him and need him less than us and others .

 

[mtooler]

Constable has failed at two clubs now so it's a big no from me. I don't hate the idea of adding Brodie if not entirely for depth but also think at 25 he's given his best shots already.

Failure may be role dependent, GC used him as a rebound defender. He's an inside mid.

 

[Swans22]

Well a fair talking point of the Grundy negotiations is that Melbourne can actually absorb the cost of the contract for next year as there aren't many free agents they can get this late in the year anyway. The deal then becomes a matter of which club can offer Melbourne the most attractive package. Remember, Melbourne are in their premiership window and they have the right to be picky with who they trade their top 10 ruckman to. If it doesn't suit their interests why would they let him go for a poor return and potentially to a rival contender that can thwart their premiership ambitions.

Dees coughed up pick 27. Melbourne don’t want to be paying 650k for someone languishing in reserves so I would argue that both parties (dees and Grundy) want to work out something respectfully. If for arguments sake the Dees only want to trade with a club that grundy doesn’t like he can dig his heels in and threaten to stay. A pick in the 20s would be more than sufficient.

 

[tombomb]

Melbourne may want him though in case Gawn goes down.

They also have him and need him less than us and others .

They also probably don't want $2.8million tied up in a player who just an injury back up.

Anyways.

Melbourne pay pick 27 for a player. We pay pick 12 for the exact same player a year later.

Seems about right.

 

[The King!]

They also probably don't want $2.8million tied up in a player who just an injury back up.

Anyways.

Melbourne pay pick 27 for a player. We pay pick 12 for the exact same player a year later.

Seems about right.

Don't get me wrong play hardball, but ultimately get it done

probably if it happens will be pick swaps and so on in it.

 

[ErrolisGoldun]

I didn't say i'd pay pick 12 if the Dees afl asked for 47 did I.

Pick 12 is the million in your scenario, it's just a chance on a kid.

Grundy isn't a dud they will just let go for nothing

He cost Melbourne pick 29 or thereabouts last year, doesn’t make sense that this would change significantly either way.

 

[The King!]

He cost Melbourne pick 29 or thereabouts last year, doesn’t make sense that this would change significantly either way.

Ok well just tell Melbourne that and he is ours I guess....

 

[Dan87]

They pay his salary next year we give up our first seems plausible

 

[Slingshot Footy]

But pick 30 isn't a poor return.

It's a perfectly fair offer for a player who they don't even want to play, is on a bad long term contract and is nearly 30.

Melbourne will accept that deal, or something similar to it. We don't need to give them pick 12 as a straight swap.

I'm not saying that it isn't but there's no such thing as fair anyway.

Dawson being out of contract and seeking a trade to a club that finished below us on the ladder gave both of those parties leverage against us.

Heeney being paid about $900K despite not living up to his output also wasn't about fairness, it was about leverage. McKay is in the exact same boat right now with rival suitors circling him.

Melbourne having a number of desperate clubs eager for their contracted ruckman gives them leverage.

AFL players having the right to refuse a trade gives them leverage.

It's about getting the deal done and sometimes you get fleeced at the negotiation table to get it done. I don't want to trade our first round pick for Grundy either, and neither do the Swans I'm sure.

But I do want a premiership, however, and so do the Swans. A top quality ruckman that doesn't break the bank supports that endeavour but sometimes you do have to pay in other ways.

Let's see what happens.