List Mgmt. 2023 Trade & List Management discussion

[Nunez]

I don’t think Dev would have left last year in a mst.
He was balls deep in a Premiership push and if we had have won the Premiership he may no longer be here, but I think he was fully invested in the middle of the year.
Kai on the other hand??

Yeah actually scratch Dev I forgot how terrible the Eagles were last year.

In the same token, imagine if Freo were keen, Dev was open to the move and we thought we could get good value for him? We trade him while he was still playing VFL and would have missed out on having a very important role player come finals.

 

[McIvor]

It’s a big advantage for Victorian club’s enticing a kid back “home” from interstate.

Yep without clubs being able to adequately have a review of a player like they did at end of season. I think Fages example of Kai’s end of season meeting with him and his manager at his house is a perfect example of why and how he re-commits. If it was mid season trade time and the Dogs are blowing smoke that he won’t play ressies then of course players in a Kai’s position leave using Fages example in the pod cast.

Also using this example of a ruckman, and perhaps I’m wrong here, but I recall Stef Martin couldn’t get a game behind Leuey and then Leuey getting injured about round 13 or 14 after what would have been MST time, now maybe Stef leaves but that injury to Leuey became the making of Stef career in that back end of year and perhaps if a MST period was available we may have recruited a ruck and Stef never gets that opportunity or he leaves. Again as I always say, start the year with a list and end it with the same list and fill your list accordingly so you can get through a season. Hell Darryl White, Dan McStay and Jared Brennan Rucked at times and sure they may have got exposed but I’d take them rucking than simply bringing in some player in.

 

[briztoon]

I grew up following the Premier League and the NBA. I'm quite used to mid season trade periods, free agency, etc.

And I hate the idea of a mid season trade period for the AFL for one simple reason.

We're not a true National competition. We're a competition designed to keep the VFL clubs from going bankrupt. Us northern clubs are considered 3rd rate members and very few list management tools introduced by the league benefit all clubs equally.

A mid season trade period will benefit the "big" Vic clubs the most, SA and WA clubs second most, the poorer/weaker Vic clubs next, and the Northern clubs the least.

 

[martinson]

I grew up following the Premier League and the NBA. I'm quite used to mid season trade periods, free agency, etc.

And I hate the idea of a mid season trade period for the AFL for one simple reason.

We're not a true National competition. We're a competition designed to keep the VFL clubs from going bankrupt. Us northern clubs are considered 3rd rate members and very few list management tools introduced by the league benefit all clubs equally.

A mid season trade period will benefit the "big" Vic clubs the most, SA and WA clubs second most, the poorer/weaker Vic clubs next, and the Northern clubs the least.

Sadly that's why it's going to happen. Like all things AFL they're starting to warm everyone up over the next year or two. Fancy asking coaches of big Clubs with unlimited resources what they think. Of course they want it. The media boffin suckholes are already pitching for it.

 

[Mr Ripper]

Never, EVER follow the whims of coaches when it comes to the rules of the game - on field or off.

 

[Grasshopper17]

My own personal opinion is that it will not only help the bigger Victorian Clubs but also be helpful to clubs towards the top of the ladder and who are in a window but short a particular type of player, either through injury or just a missing piece.
It is not going to help clubs like West Coast, Hawks or North Melbourne get better.

Yep. It'll be just like free agency.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Clubs will have to pay serious overs. The club can always say no.

Unfortunately this is simply a fallacy, that gets proved wrong at basically every trade period. Even if the player in question is still contracted, the script is utterly predictable.

Player announces he wants to be traded, his club digs its heels in and says they're a required player, there's a few days of to-ing and fro-ing and in the end the deal gets done. The fact the player has already basically done the deal with another club removes any bargaining power the player's original club has.

Regardless of what anyone says, the original club is essentially powerless. The only other alternative they have is holding that player to his contract for his final season when they already don't want to be there.

And this process has only been exacerbated by free agency.

 

[Dalions]

Yep. It'll be just like free agency.

Yep, teams at the bottom of the ladder will still have to do it the hard way.

 

[Grasshopper17]

If the MST existed last year, there is every chance both Lohmann and Robertson would have left.

Both were as good as gone, but opted to sign very late in the piece.

Yes, in the scenario you've mentioned we could have said no, but it isn't always that easy. Say you're Moyle, you've come out and publically asked to leave (via your manager/the media) to join the Pies as you know they'll play you and you could win a flag. The Suns say to Moyle they don't want him to go and decline his request. I guarantee we'd then see many managers in this situation try and apply pressure on the club to reconsider. The Suns aren't playing finals, he's going to leave anyway, take a good offer or lose him for less in 3 months etc etc etc.

The Suns then cave and trade him.

This scenario already plays out with guys who have a year left on their contract and in most circumstances it almost always favours the player, not the club.

This will be a very common theme for clubs outside the 8.

Sorry Nunez I wrote the below without realising you had summed up my thoughts already, only far more eloquently

Unfortunately this is simply a fallacy, that gets proved wrong at basically every trade period. Even if the player in question is still contracted, the script is utterly predictable.

Player announces he wants to be traded, his club digs its heels in and says they're a required player, there's a few days of to-ing and fro-ing and in the end the deal gets done. The fact the player has already basically done the deal with another club removes any bargaining power the player's original club has.

Regardless of what anyone says, the original club is essentially powerless. The only other alternative they have is holding that player to his contract for his final season when they already don't want to be there.

And this process has only been exacerbated by free agency.

 

[Jirik13]

Unfortunately this is simply a fallacy, that gets proved wrong at basically every trade period. Even if the player in question is still contracted, the script is utterly predictable.

Player announces he wants to be traded, his club digs its heels in and says they're a required player, there's a few days of to-ing and fro-ing and in the end the deal gets done. The fact the player has already basically done the deal with another club removes any bargaining power the player's original club has.

Regardless of what anyone says, the original club is essentially powerless. The only other alternative they have is holding that player to his contract for his final season when they already don't want to be there.

And this process has only been exacerbated by free agency.

So you don’t think that Lions would pay overs if they needed a ruck (or season is over)?

 

[Grasshopper17]

So you don’t think that Lions would pay overs if they needed a ruck (or season is over)?

Certainly not if they were towards the bottom of the ladder. And/or if Dom Ambrogio had already spent 4-6 weeks in the ear of an opposition ruckman and he was already out the door as a result.

 

[Jirik13]

Certainly not if they were towards the bottom of the ladder. And/or if Dom Ambrogio had already spent 4-6 weeks in the ear of an opposition ruckman and he was already out the door as a result.

Then you don’t get the ruck for finals.

 

[Grasshopper17]

Then you don’t get the ruck for finals.

Oh I reckon we'd get him. We just wouldn't pay overs for him.

 

[Elixuh]

Then you don’t get the ruck for finals.

Goldstein last year. Norf wanting to play a younger ruck, and Goldstein will retire at the end of the year or go to a desperate club. We offer a f3; another vic club in the same situation offers the same. What do you think will happen?

 

[Dalions]

Then you don’t get the ruck for finals.

When it just becomes another mechanism in the system there will be no need to pay massive overs. It will just be another way for players to move clubs.

 

[Jirik13]

Goldstein last year. Norf wanting to play a younger ruck, and Goldstein will retire at the end of the year or go to a desperate club. We offer a f3; another vic club in the same situation offers the same. What do you think will happen?

If I go back to middle of 2023, I would say there would be only one Vic club which could compete with Lions - Collingwood, maybe Melbourne too. Chance of that scenario (Lions vs Collingwood fighting for a ruck) happening is pretty low.

The chance to win premiership would be, my guess, the most important factor for Goldstein. If Lions would offer more money, longer contract, who knows you could even beat Collingwood.

You did attract some good players. I am pretty sure Daniher had interest from other (Vic) clubs too.

 

[Jirik13]

When it just becomes another mechanism in the system there will be no need to pay massive overs. It will just be another way for players to move clubs.

The difference is that clubs will want a player to help them to win it now. E.g., not sure why Suns would give up Moyle for peanuts to have another team a chance to win it all.

Even for Suns in the year when they lost Witts and all 3 other rucks I bet they would pay extra for a ruck (playing in VFL) despite not playing finals. Season was basically over after round 4.

Grundy would be another interesting case last year. I would say Sydney would be a good chance getting him during MST despite being interstate club.

 

[Elixuh]

If I go back to middle of 2023, I would say there would be only one Vic club which could compete with Lions - Collingwood, maybe Melbourne too. Chance of that scenario (Lions vs Collingwood fighting for a ruck) happening is pretty low.

The chance to win premiership would be, my guess, the most important factor for Goldstein. If Lions would offer more money, longer contract, who knows you could even beat Collingwood.

You did attract some good players. I am pretty sure Daniher had interest from other (Vic) clubs too.

You're very naïve as to how this will work.

 

[Jirik13]

You're very naïve as to how this will work.

You're sure entitled for an opinion. I have no idea how it will work. Nobody does. We just speculate. I can definitely see how top interstate teams can also benefit.

Are you telling me that Lions are not attractive destination including for Vic players?

 

[Grasshopper17]

You're sure entitled for an opinion. I have no idea how it will work. Nobody does. We just speculate. I can definitely see how top interstate teams can also benefit.

Are you telling me that Lions are not attractive destination including for Vic players?

I think it will be very challenging for players to move interstate during a season and not miss any games. I've moved interstate twice (I'm sure I'm not on my own in this regard on this forum), it's quite a procedure. And both times I was single with no kids, so relatively straightforward.

Different at the end of a season when players aren't even training let alone playing every weekend.

It's not like Europe or America where players (in any sport) are paid so exorbitantly that everything is arranged for them or they can afford to have it arranged for them. Our guys are well paid but it's certainly not stratospheric.

This is why it's a(nother) massive leg-up for Victorian teams, and no wonder they are all in favour of it.

 

[braddsey]

We're not a true National competition. We're a competition designed to keep the VFL clubs from going bankrupt. Us northern clubs are considered 3rd rate members and very few list management tools introduced by the league benefit all clubs equally.

You think Brisbane have been financially viable for most of our existence? Thankfully the time of allowing any club to go bankrupt is in the past.

 

[Elixuh]

You're sure entitled for an opinion. I have no idea how it will work. Nobody does. We just speculate. I can definitely see how top interstate teams can also benefit.

Are you telling me that Lions are not attractive destination including for Vic players?

Not if the option is to remain in Victoria. Especially if they're from Victoria as many AFL players are.

The example I gave on another board, the Lions and Carlton are both at the pointy end of the table. Both teams lose two players from the same area of the field. Carlton is able to trade in two replacements from other Vic sides. Brisbane can't get anyone to come up here. Carlton beat Brisbane using those two top ups in a big final. That is what will happen.

My argument isn't that a club like Brisbane will never attract a player from interstate during a mid-season trade period. It is that the mid-season trade period will overwhelmingly advantage Vic sides and make it more difficult for non-Vic teams to win flags.

List attrition is a good thing, not a bad thing.

 

[Jirik13]

I think it will be very challenging for players to move interstate during a season and not miss any games. I've moved interstate twice (I'm sure I'm not on my own in this regard on this forum), it's quite a procedure. And both times I was single with no kids, so relatively straightforward.

Different at the end of a season when players aren't even training let alone playing every weekend.

It's not like Europe or America where players (in any sport) are paid so exorbitantly that everything is arranged for them or they can afford to have it arranged for them. Our guys are well paid but it's certainly not stratospheric.

This is why it's a(nother) massive leg-up for Victorian teams, and no wonder they are all in favour of it.

Fair argument. For sure it's advantage for Vic teams. But I don't see it as a huge problem for a player to move interstate and family to follow him in 3 months. Every second weekend players can basically see the family. Obviously, nobody would move for 3 months. I bet Goldstein would move for a chance to win it all.

 

[briztoon]

Fair argument. For sure it's advantage for Vic teams. But I don't see it as a huge problem for a player to move interstate and family to follow him in 3 months. Every second weekend players can basically see the family. Obviously, nobody would move for 3 months. I bet Goldstein would move for a chance to win it all.

You don't have young kids do you?

 

[Jirik13]

You don't have young kids do you?

Easy, Mr briztoon. I had 2 kids born in two different countries and raised them in 3 countries without any family support, just me and my wife. While moving between countries I spent months alone, arranging moves.

Does my answer fit your narrative?