List Mgmt. 2024 List Management thread - Trade Targets Part 2

[Cobbler]

It is funny watching people lose it over the idea of trading for a future pick. Yet it’s the exact reason we have so many picks this year.

Maybe we didn’t do the trade last year with one single player in mind. But it was clearly done so we could be active and target players - whether it was McDonald, Warner, Pickett or Bolton. It’s easier to lay the groundwork when a manager knows you can get the trade done.

Agree.
Imagine grabbing some kid at pick 11 that will play next to no AFL next year.

Then, Warner and Pickett ask for trades. Or Warner and Hill. Or any 2 guys really.

I’m ok at moving one pick into next year, BUT if it becomes a hypothetical pick ~3 we must split it instantly. No just handing it over for Chad.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

I don't see how you can simultaneously hold the position that picks into next year will go to Warner and that worse picks are also enough to get it done.

Because there's a big difference having the pick for fair value, trading it and saying this is what we have, take it or leave it and offering what we have in the first place, which starts at unders. Bad faith is bad faith

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

How can you hold these 2 viewpoints simultaneously?

We get pick 3 and break it up and suddenly the Warner deal is off. However the other scenario - Sydney are resigned to their fate and don't demand we trade out players for picks or give Future picks?

One is bad faith negotiating, one is trading the cards we have

 

[Lach72]

No we didnt, Bolton wasnt on the agenda yet. We saw a chance to get better value and took it. Same as Port.

Additionally, Chad being uncontracted next year is the reason we shouldnt be moving value.

Bolton wasn’t on the agenda yet? Snuff…

 

[Moo]

It is funny watching people lose it over the idea of trading for a future pick. Yet it’s the exact reason we have so many picks this year.

Maybe we didn’t do the trade last year with one single player in mind. But it was clearly done so we could be active and target players - whether it was McDonald, Warner, Pickett or Bolton. It’s easier to lay the groundwork when a manager knows you can get the trade done.

100% agree.

If it's a good deal - you take it.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

It is funny watching people lose it over the idea of trading for a future pick. Yet it’s the exact reason we have so many picks this year.

Maybe we didn’t do the trade last year with one single player in mind. But it was clearly done so we could be active and target players - whether it was McDonald, Warner, Pickett or Bolton. It’s easier to lay the groundwork when a manager knows you can get the trade done.

We flat out do not have the cap space for Bolton, Pickett and Warner. There is no extra targets next year unless we push out a very good player - and then we have the picks anyway. Once Bolton is sorted, pick one of the others, that's it.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Bolton wasn’t on the agenda yet? Snuff…

At last trade period? I promise you he started it this year at the start of this year and he started it, not us

 

[Andyy]

You blokes will accept 10 + 18. Only the blind can’t see Bolton wants out. You really want to be like Melbourne. You will accept it and get two quality players in this stacked draft. 10+11 is too much.

Yeah you may be right. I dunno.

Time will tell.

We can all pretend we know what each other's clubs will do but we don't know.

Everything else is just opinion lol.

RFC will want 10+11. Freo will want 10 + 17.


meh

 

[Chris25]

We flat out do not have the cap space for Bolton, Pickett and Warner. There is no extra targets next year unless we push out a very good player - and then we have the picks anyway. Once Bolton is sorted, pick one of the others, that's it.

A lot can happen in 12 months.

If there’s a good value trade, you look at it.

 

[Moo]

One is bad faith negotiating, one is trading the cards we have

If they lose Warner for a late first ....they'll go gee whizz OK but are happy cos it is all we have.

If we play silly buggers ...suddenly they find a way to make it hard.

Me thinks - they will make it just as hard if we only have a late first rounder.

No we didnt, Bolton wasnt on the agenda yet. We saw a chance to get better value and took it. Same as Port.

Additionally, Chad being uncontracted next year is the reason we shouldnt be moving value.

Logan McDonald was - might be a lesson there that you give yourself the best hand as this is fluid.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

A lot can happen in 12 months.

If there’s a good value trade, you look at it.

I would look at good trade value. I am dead set against getting good trade value to look after Sydney next year.

If we do that trade with North, make it work in our favour for the Bolton trade

 

[Taylor]

Because there's a big difference having the pick for fair value, trading it and saying this is what we have, take it or leave it and offering what we have in the first place, which starts at unders. Bad faith is bad faith

Telling the Swans at the start that we have other business to do first isn't a problem for me, especially if they say they want #3 and #16 for Warner and we need to take a first round pick.

If it turns out that we trade pick #11 for pick #3 which is traded for Warner then North would be paying the difference in value of us buying Warner for #11.

 

[Moo]

We flat out do not have the cap space for Bolton, Pickett and Warner. There is no extra targets next year unless we push out a very good player - and then we have the picks anyway. Once Bolton is sorted, pick one of the others, that's it.

What if Fyfe & Walters retire, TPP rises and we trade out a piece.

Never say never - situations change fast.

Anyway let's start at getting Bolton in - we at least agree on that.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

If they lose Warner for a late first ....they'll go gee whizz OK but are happy cos it is all we have.

If we play silly buggers ...suddenly they find a way to make it hard.

Me thinks - they will make it easy if we only have a late first rounder.




Logan McDonald was - might be a lesson there that you give yourself the best hand as this is fluid.

Two late firsts, it would be our 2025 and 2026 picks. That and even some extra chucked in is unfair but what clubs risk taking a player to out of contract. I am mainly dead against trading a pick into next year to look after Sydney, which we all know is the main point of doing it.

 

[fnerd]

I think the risk is higher that Freo will lowball Sydney long enough that another club will offer Warner a deal he can't refuse and put picks on the table that Sydney like more - just like Mitch Clark.

Bingo

This is my concern. That other club obviously being WC
Sure I agree shifting into next year does seem to favour Sydney but with just HOW much more money WC will be able to offer chad plus and this is where they ll truly blow it right out of the water- outside the cap payments in terms of “opportunities” for Warner and family.
remember the same reason we are saying it doesn’t matter what Sydney want as long as Chad picks us is all true …until he doesn’t .
Similar to baker I think Chad would like to se Sydney reasonably compensated.
**** around enough and WC with Sydney pushing ridiculously hard might just sway chads mind .

it’s a genuine possibility , simply due to the compo both in terms of picks and salary WC will have over us.

Now I get people will say but WC will be rubbish for years and look whilst they may be true this the west coast football club were talking about ,historically their entire existence in fact ,they’ve been one of the AFLs best performed clubs.
It WILL turn at some stage for them , this isn’t like a north Melbourne or st kilda type organisation we ll be competing with for warners signature

My favoured position is still to take whatever capital we have this year into the draft but if north come offering their f1 and 22 for 11 and at f3 I’m taking that deal because all of a sudden we’ve opened ourselves up to some even greater options , one of which includes not having to give everything we have for Chad next year believe it or not

 

[Chris25]

I would look at good trade value. I am dead set against getting good trade value to look after Sydney next year.

If we do that trade with North, make it work in our favour for the Bolton trade

People need to forget about Warner specifically. It’s not about making things all nice and cosy for Sydney. It’s about giving ourselves flexibility.

Satisfy Sydney, yes. But then plan for NGA prospects. Go to the draft. Target other players. Don’t just be hamstrung because everything is locked into Warner.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Telling the Swans at the start that we have other business to do first isn't a problem for me, especially if they say they want #3 and #16 for Warner and we need to take a first round pick.

If it turns out that we trade pick #11 for pick #3 which is traded for Warner then North would be paying the difference in value of us buying Warner for #11.

Yes but quite frankly, the club doesn't operate the same way you do. They will give up pick 3 for him. You know it and I know it.

 

[malpaso]

I wouldn't mind Ned McHenry

25

Ned Mchenry

Age

24

Ht

179cm

Wt

81kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

9.7

2star

K

4.0

2star

HB

5.7

4star

M

2.5

3star

T

2.3

4star

G

0.0

1star

D

9.7

2star

K

4.0

1star

HB

5.7

3star

M

2.5

3star

T

2.3

3star

G

0.0

1star

D

10.0

3star

K

3.6

2star

HB

6.4

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.0

1star

on the list (delisted by Adelaide) he is a quick and annoying small forward much like Nick Watson.

 

[Moo]

I am mainly dead against trading a pick into next year to look after Sydney, which we all know is the main point of doing it.

No it is not we, it may be the majority of you all - certainly not me.

My main aim in any of these dealings is to get into a better position. Turning Schultz into a 2025 top 5 pick is bloody good.

We don't have to trade for Warner. Even if we do and let's say you're right and we have to give up a NM Future 1st - it...gets the deal done, we keep our 1st round pick, 2nd round and future picks.

If the retort is they will demand our 1st rounder also - I'll stop here because it is hurting my brain that we can say to Sydney nope this is all you get in one scenario but not in any other scenario.

 

[Moist Biscuit]

I wouldn't mind Ned McHenry on the list (delisted by Adelaide) he is a quick and annoying small forward much like Nick Watson.

I feel if we signed Mchenry, likely means Emmett wouldn't get a deal.

 

[Moo]

Yes but quite frankly, the club doesn't operate the same way you do. They will give up pick 3 for him. You know it and I know it.

So if that pick 3 was at a cost of Pick 10 this year .....who cares?

 

[arsesmart]

Lots of clubs continually trade into and out of the next draft. It's always better to ensure we maximise flexibility and are best placed to pounce on what comes, known or unknown. Also Geelong, in the past definitely, haven't been afraid of putting up a little extra to get a deal done. It hasn't harmed them one bit.

Draft picks values are always speculative and fluid.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

No it is not we, it may be the majority of you all - certainly not me.

My main aim in any of these dealings is to get into a better position. Turning Schultz into a 2025 top 5 pick is bloody good.

We don't have to trade for Warner. Even if we do and let's say you're right and we have to give up a NM Future 1st - it...gets the deal done, we keep our 1st round pick, 2nd round and future picks.

If the retort is they will demand our 1st rounder also - I'll stop here because it is hurting my brain that we can say to Sydney nope this is all you get in one scenario but not in any other scenario.

I am not against maximising value. I am against maximising value to look after another team and continue delaying the value we get. Do the trade with North but make sure it's effectively used this year.

Maybe this is all with my own rumour bias but the club seems to be very confident on Warner. If you are confident and think it's a sure thing, you don't set yourself up to pay more than you have to.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

So if that pick 3 was at a cost of Pick 10 this year .....who cares?

Because I'd rather a player this year and giving up hopefully two teens picks?

 

[Moo]

I am not against maximising value. I am against maximising value to look after another team and continue delaying the value we get. Do the trade with North but make sure it's effectively used this year.

Maybe this is all with my own rumour bias but the club seems to be very confident on Warner. If you are confident and think it's a sure thing, you don't set yourself up to pay more than you have to.

I do love you Snuff - so we'll leave it there or otherwise I may have to put you on the same list as Lach72