List Mgmt. 2023 Trade & List Management discussion

[StevoJenkins]

Not sure off hand how long Coleman has been on the list but I could see him taking a contract through to Free Agency and then re-assess after that.
But could see Clugga getting a 7yr deal with the way things sit currently in the AFL system.

Pretty sure that clubs need CEO approval now to have deals longer than 5 years. AFL got grumpy after the Grundy deal(s).

 

[briztoon]

Not sure off hand how long Coleman has been on the list but I could see him taking a contract through to Free Agency and then re-assess after that.
But could see Clugga getting a 7yr deal with the way things sit currently in the AFL system.

2019 draft.

Should be a free agent in 2027.

 

[SpecialBruce]

Ideally we try and lock Coleman and McCluggage on 7 year deals.

 

[Dalions]

Pretty sure that clubs need CEO approval now to have deals longer than 5 years. AFL got grumpy after the Grundy deal(s).

You don’t think Swanny would approve?

 

[Section 5]

Pretty sure that clubs need CEO approval now to have deals longer than 5 years. AFL got grumpy after the Grundy deal(s).

I still don't like deals longer than 3 years. Maybe 4 if the player has to move interstate.
Gives flexibility to both player and clubs to reassess. No reason why a player can't get more money this way.
It is not like players/their managers can't work out a way to leave if they desire.
Similarly, clubs can offload players like the Pies and Melbourne have done recently.

 

[Section 5]

You don’t think Swanny would approve?

They have to have written approval before the trade though.
I don't think Swanny would have liked the Grundy deal.

 

[StevoJenkins]

You don’t think Swanny would approve?

I'm not a fan of deals above 4 years.

A signed player can always fall of a cliff, look at Wingard, Polec or Stephensen as notable examples. All guys who were exceptional footballers at some point, but their form fell off a cliff.

I'd give Bags 4 to bring him to age 28/29, then see from there.

I still don't like deals longer than 3 years.
Gives flexibility to both player and clubs to reassess. No reason why a player can't get more money this way.
It is not like players/their managers can't work out a way to leave if they desire.
Similarly, clubs can offload players like the Pies and Melbourne have done recently.

Depends on the player when it comes to money. As I mentioned above, players can fall off a cliff in terms of form, then if they have only 2 years to run on their contract, they only have that money for 2 years.

So why wouldn't you want to sit on guaranteed money for 7/8/9 years for insurance in case you become a spud?

 

[Leuy LongerCombo]

I'm not a fan of deals above 4 years.

A signed player can always fall of a cliff, look at Wingard, Polec or Stephensen as notable examples. All guys who were exceptional footballers at some point, but their form fell off a cliff.

I'd give Bags 4 to bring him to age 28/29, then see from there.



Depends on the player when it comes to money. As I mentioned above, players can fall off a cliff in terms of form, then if they have only 2 years to run on their contract, they only have that money for 2 years.

So why wouldn't you want to sit on guaranteed money for 7/8/9 years for insurance in case you become a spud?

I’m not opposed to long term deals for the right players, but it has to be mutually beneficial. The risky one to me are the ones your paying top 20 type money (1mil +) for all 7+ years. The Grundy, Treloar, Whitefield, Kelly and Coniglio type deals. It’s very hard for players to constantly perform to that pay rate. Scale it back to top 50 type money (800k) it easier for the player to preform around that mark over that longer period. The other way I see clubs getting caught out is buying on a high, like the Wingard, Stephenson and Polec situation you described.

Personally I feel McCluggage has preformed consistently enough for long enough to warrant a 7year x800k type deal, but hasn’t really pushed into that top All Australian level just yet to warrant 1mil+

Coleman is undoubtedly deserving a pay rise, but I do find it hard to put a value on it just yet. I did have him as our best player in both our last game though, so his perceived value might be at an all time high. Happily offer him a 3 year contract on decent cash, gives both parties time to re-assess for another fair deal.

The management of contracts has been a real strength up to now, so I really have no concerns what unfolds.

 

[Gadzorks]

McCluggage and Coleman, you'd think the club would be offering 5yr deals for both. There wouldn't be too many to disagree with that. Would anyone consider a longer deal for either? I'd also think 800k a yr is a fair starting point. If they're happy, they can obviously see where the club is situated. Sponser their outside interests, hell build a school high in Nepal for Clugg. He can get some high altitude training in while he's there. Sweeten the pot in any way you can. Get the numbers right and I can't see any reason why they wouldn't re-sign.

I do wonder tho, if the Gabba shut down will be playing a part in any long term contract deals. I'd rather see money spent on upgrading Springfield to a 15-25,000 seat ground than spend it on the showgrounds. I reckon with some ANZ stadium type bench seating grandstands. The cheap seats. Put them along the wings at Springfield, bump the numbers up to 20,000 and youd have an intimidating little home ground. Anyway I'm sure there's another thread for that.

Training and playing on the exact same ground should be advantage. But aflw ...

 

[Warwick]

Been saying for a while long term deals are fraught with danger. While it’s nice to lock someone up for an extended period, it’s risky business.

While important to our team atm, having Hipwood and Payne signed up until 2029 is silliness.

 

[Viceregal]

Then there are the ones who play best when they have a challenge ... getting auto paid 800+ for 7+ years is a far cry from the folks who only play well during their contract years...

 

[lioninthesand]

Good teams are forced to do long term deals, sucks and might be bad business but it’s just a commercial reality.

Say (hypothetically) Hipwood gets offered 4 xs 800k by a club.

He comes to us wanting similar.

We say, ‘no but what about 7 xs 600k’.

Players then settle for that promised income to stay.

Teams are being forced to do it to fit players in the cap and match deals being offered and they want to take players past FA to avoid that uncertainty.

Also, you lock that good player in till 2029 and by then, 600k might be close to minimum wage, so it’s risk vs reward.

Risky for the club but also for the player. What if Hipwood goes to another level at 27/28 he might be worth $1.5m a year by then, look at ratugolea this year.

Even McKay on that 8 year deal, might be on 800k in the last 2 years of that contract, chances are the average power forward is worth 1.5-1.7m by then.

Not saying it’s good business, but I get it under the current rules and with forwards/backs being overvalued.

 

[Elixuh]

I have no issue with long-term deals. You can't expect to take on zero risk to retain talent. People using the Hipwood and Payne deals as examples, i'd be really interested to know where their pay sits towards the end of their deals relative to the significant increases in the CBA, eg if Hippy is 600k a year then in a few years he will be being paid slightly under AFL average pay. I think it has probably been really prudent negotiating by our team and all parties have walked away happy.

 

[mpal6]

I have no issue with long-term deals. You can't expect to take on zero risk to retain talent. People using the Hipwood and Payne deals as examples, i'd be really interested to know where their pay sits towards the end of their deals relative to the significant increases in the CBA, eg if Hippy is 600k a year then in a few years he will be being paid slightly under AFL average pay. I think it has probably been really prudent negotiating by our team and all parties have walked away happy.

Yep, either invest early and rely on opening the cap up later or pay to market value and risk the player kicking on to a big season / big pay rise.
I think sticking to first strategy sounds more beneficial even though it comes at the risk of player breaking down and becoming a liability.

 

[rye]

is doedee supercoach relevant big j?

 

[Section 5]

is doedee supercoach relevant big j?

A little up and down but that 3 will reduce his price. Below from footywire

 

[Dalions]

Inside McKay chase, Lion set to re-sign, bidding under review

LION HEADING TO NEW DEAL​

BRISBANE star Keidean Coleman is closing in on a contract extension with the Lions after a starring finals series.

Coleman was close to best afield in the Lions' preliminary final win over Carlton and gathered 26 disposals in the Grand Final defeat to Collingwood, coming second in the Norm Smith Medal behind Magpie Bobby Hill.

He is due to come out of contract at the end of 2024, however, talks have been progressing on an extension. A three-year extension would take Coleman to his free agency year at the end of 2027.

Coleman played 23 games for the Lions this season and became a key player off half-back in his fourth season at the club. He was an Academy graduate for the Lions who arrived as a pick no.37 in the 2019 draft, having been overlooked the previous year when he was first eligible. – Callum Twomey

 

[Viceregal]

So MacKay choosing to go to Essendon over the Hawks ... we now know that not all players are motivated by the prospect of future success!

 

[briztoon]

So MacKay choosing to go to Essendon over the Hawks ... we now know that not all players are motivated by the prospect of future success!

If you had said Sydney.

Greater trade movement was supposed to help even the competition out, with rebuilding clubs, who have greater cap room, able to pull quality players out of higher ranked clubs.

Instead we generally see the opposite happen, which doesn’t balance the competition.

Good for us, but works against the AFL’s off stated aims of helping rebuilding clubs climb faster.

 

[McIvor]

If you had said Sydney.

Greater trade movement was supposed to help even the competition out, with rebuilding clubs, who have greater cap room, able to pull quality players out of higher ranked clubs.

Instead we generally see the opposite happen, which doesn’t balance the competition.

Good for us, but works against the AFL’s off stated aims of helping rebuilding clubs climb faster.

I’m not sure I agree. For a period between 2010 - 2016 I’d have agreed with you, but we were still a bottom four team when, through the right people at the club, we started attracting the right people such as Linc and Lachie, Charlie etc (Joe obviously came afterwards) and then nailed one or two drafts (there are others that were just plain ordinary too) and got a good DFA (JL) and then bombed on others (CEY), but I don’t see how bottom four clubs can’t trade well and improve quickly (the Lions are proof).

 

[Tom14]

I’m not sure I agree. For a period between 2010 - 2016 I’d have agreed with you, but we were still a bottom four team when, through the right people at the club, we started attracting the right people such as Linc and Lachie, Charlie etc (Joe obviously came afterwards) and then nailed one or two drafts (there are others that were just plain ordinary too) and got a good DFA (JL) and then bombed on others (CEY), but I don’t see how bottom four clubs can’t trade well and improve quickly (the Lions are proof).

Yeah I do think if you get your act together as a club and lean in to your selling point, you can definitely attract players. You have to start showing something on field as we did in 2018 to pull in guys who don't have a connection to qld, but it is doable.

Fremantle is the tough one for this line of thinking though, as they did improve but lost a lot of players, however I think last year a lot of that was them mucking around on offering contracts to fringe/depth players like Acres because they knew they were going to be spending big on Jackson.

I think the advantage that the big vic clubs have is that they can suck and be a mess of field and yet rarely have retention problems with young players and still attract talented players to their club. Not true for a club like norf of course.

 

[JasRulz63]

Rookie revamp: Up to 12 clubs to shuffle lists ahead of draft

The majority of clubs are set to move rookies to their senior lists as part of their national draft stategy

www.afl.com.au

Richmond's Ben Miller and Brisbane's Carter Michael will be the same at their clubs, while Ace Hewago-Oea will be upgraded from the category B rookie list at Gold Coast.

Carter Michael to be upgraded it seems.

 

[Section 5]

Rookie revamp: Up to 12 clubs to shuffle lists ahead of draft

The majority of clubs are set to move rookies to their senior lists as part of their national draft stategy

www.afl.com.au

Carter Michael to be upgraded it seems.

The club must think he can produce something if they do decide to upgrade him.
No games in AFL or VFL in 2023 due to injury.

Good VFL form in 2021 & 2022 and played just that one AFL R 17 game in 2022.

 

[Viceregal]

If you had said Sydney.

Greater trade movement was supposed to help even the competition out, with rebuilding clubs, who have greater cap room, able to pull quality players out of higher ranked clubs.

Instead we generally see the opposite happen, which doesn’t balance the competition.

Good for us, but works against the AFL’s off stated aims of helping rebuilding clubs climb faster.

The guy wanted to stay in Melb and leave the Kangas ... he got to choose between the Dons and the Hawks and to my admittedly un-expert eye the Bombers seem destined to bounce around and mediocrity for the foreseable future and the Hawks to be on a mission.

 

[Nathan Barley]

The guy wanted to stay in Melb and leave the Kangas ... he got to choose between the Dons and the Hawks and to my admittedly un-expert eye the Bombers seem destined to bounce around and mediocrity for the foreseable future and the Hawks to be on a mission.

Any club that's willing the pay the salary he wants is an issue