List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[gringo2011]

The AFL have to do something about these academies. It’s out of control now. It’s almost cheating within the rules.

I may be an outlier here, and I understand most people will disagree with me, but I’d scrap the draft and all the compromises attached to it. Open slather. Clubs can recruit whoever they like wherever they like.

However the salary cap is tightened and enforced with rigid zealotry by the AFL. And punitive inflexible sanctions are imposed on those clubs who exceed it with loss of Premiership points (including future points).

The salary cap is the mechanism to keep the competition even while allowing clubs who are on the bottom to quickly build and recruit their way out of it. Assuming the salary cap is at a level that is not too restrictive or too generous.

Players are free agents when uncontracted and trading would only be a means of freeing up the salary cap if it suits a club. Seems to be a fair compromise.

Sorry if everyone thinks I’m rambling. But I’m over the draft and the restrictive way clubs can regenerate their list. The dice is now loaded in favour of a select few clubs, such as those clubs who have been gifted academies or those clubs who have been the beneficiaries of genetic luck.

Remove the anomalies and simplify the system so it is fair to all clubs.

Won’t happen of course. Drafting and trading is another way the AFL can hog the limelight for longer.

The draft works if they don't have academies. They just need to make it so that clubs can't trade out of the early rounds and make up points.

Dogs got pick one in Ugle-Hagen. Even if you think that's fair despite playing finals, they got to trade out all their early picks. We couldn't get access to Treloar which would have made a difference to us without trading out of the draft.

Dogs were crazy not to pick him up because they would have binned the picks if they didn't. It literally meant they get a A grade talent and pick one for a bunch of average draft picks.

That's a system that does the absolute opposite to what they claim it is about which is allowing a level playing field.

 

[jh38]

A midfield short eh? A midfield that let's the ball flow like a river into the backline. The backline then tries to get the ball to that same midfield and actually do it at a good AFL standard. The midfield that can't then hit the proverbial barn door kicking it forward.
That short eh?

Game plan. F*ing spare me.

No game plan without a midfield!!!

The personnel isn't that bad, we're obviously crying out for a superstar mid, but they don't grow on trees. Other than that, Dow is definitely growing into the game, Clark looked good on his return, Sinclair is silky going forward and is hitting the scoreboard, Steele is great in and under but probably could do better with his disposal, Windhager is solid and could be anything. The only person that needs to be replaced is Seb.

I wonder whether Marshall has a part to play in it as he is a pretty average tap ruckman. Our mids don't often get the ball on a platter and are usually forced to defend first from the centre bounce. I think it would be remiss not to look at the ruck as part of the midfield issue.

 

[Baker_for_PM]

Can we stop with the 'shipping him off' or 'moving him on' talk if Battle leaves we aren't actively trying to get rid of him. Under normal circumstances Josh has a decent offer in front of him, It just so happens that as he enters his ufa when there are several clubs desperate for his services inflating his value. It would be a bad list management decision to for us to overpay for a player that yes would suck if he left but that I believe we have the talent coming through to fill the void.
I don't know what pick that would get us but his contract will be higher then most believe.

 

[phantom13]

The draft works if they don't have academies. They just need to make it so that clubs can't trade out of the early rounds and make up points.

Dogs got pick one in Ugle-Hagen. Even if you think that's fair despite playing finals, they got to trade out all their early picks. We couldn't get access to Treloar which would have made a difference to us without trading out of the draft.

Dogs were crazy not to pick him up because they would have binned the picks if they didn't. It literally meant they get a A grade talent and pick one for a bunch of average draft picks.

That's a system that does the absolute opposite to what they claim it is about which is allowing a level playing field.

Academies are an issue, probably just dump the priority access for academies, it might hurt GWS and the like for now but theyve had a big old swing with it so far.

I still like F/S but i also think they just need to overhaul the system. Give them a point discount but make it so you have to match with a pick within 3 or 5 live picks on any F/S and make the clubs nominate that prior to draft night so they can sort out any trades that need to be done.

Will and soon to be Levi Ashcroft along with Jasper Fletcher, Nick Daicos, Sam Darcy. If theyre going in the first round, make the pick to match them also a first rounder not a bunch of shit second and third rounders.

A midfield short eh? A midfield that let's the ball flow like a river into the backline. The backline then tries to get the ball to that same midfield and actually do it at a good AFL standard. The midfield that can't then hit the proverbial barn door kicking it forward.
That short eh?

Game plan. F*ing spare me.

No game plan without a midfield!!!

Geelong won a flag with a B grade midfield. As did West Coast in 18 and the Dogs in 16.

Im not suggesting we dont look at it but you can gameplan for an average midfield.

 

[L_W_P]

I wonder if you could flip the script on Academies and Father/SOn by holding the draft BEFORE the trade window opens.

If North draft JHF with pick 1, then they have the right to trade him to Port for whoever Port took + a future pick, or get a 3 way deal going etc.

This way you don't have a situation where the Dogs are trading their 1st + 2nd round picks for points in order to game the system. JUH goes at pick 1 and you have to use your points, as they stand, in order to match.

Then when the draft is done the Dogs are left with a bunch of nothing players taken late in the draft + JUH at 1

 

[True Believer]

I wonder if you could flip the script on Academies and Father/SOn by holding the draft BEFORE the trade window opens.

If North draft JHF with pick 1, then they have the right to trade him to Port for whoever Port took + a future pick, or get a 3 way deal going etc.

This way you don't have a situation where the Dogs are trading their 1st + 2nd round picks for points in order to game the system. JUH goes at pick 1 and you have to use your points, as they stand, in order to match.

Then when the draft is done the Dogs are left with a bunch of nothing players taken late in the draft + JUH at 1

That's actually a really good and simple idea!!

 

[The Punter]

There's no way one can make either academies or F-S fair.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

There's no way one can make either academies or F-S fair.

But they can stop them being a double dip.

F/S is player you get in the rightish part of the draft.

Trading your first round picks for good players of future drafts , so you get your F/S with junk picks is double dipping.

 

[Saintbloke]

Academies are an issue, probably just dump the priority access for academies, it might hurt GWS and the like for now but theyve had a big old swing with it so far.

I still like F/S but i also think they just need to overhaul the system. Give them a point discount but make it so you have to match with a pick within 3 or 5 live picks on any F/S and make the clubs nominate that prior to draft night so they can sort out any trades that need to be done.

Will and soon to be Levi Ashcroft along with Jasper Fletcher, Nick Daicos, Sam Darcy. If theyre going in the first round, make the pick to match them also a first rounder not a bunch of shit second and third rounders.


Geelong won a flag with a B grade midfield. As did West Coast in 18 and the Dogs in 16.

Im not suggesting we dont look at it but you can gameplan for an average midfield.

Not sure about Cats, Dogs and WCE having B grade midfields in their premiership years- they were bloody good.

 

[The Punter]

But they can stop them being a double dip.

F/S is player you get in the rightish part of the draft.

Trading your first round picks for good players of future drafts , so you get your F/S with junk picks is double dipping.

Best player in a draft should go to the worst team, regardless of parentage. It's an anachronistic rule that perfectly encapsulates the amateur, idiosyncratic nature of our league. It just wouldn't be considered seriously anywhere else in the world with good reason.

 

[Coconut_twirl]

The AFL have to do something about these academies. It’s out of control now. It’s almost cheating within the rules.

I may be an outlier here, and I understand most people will disagree with me, but I’d scrap the draft and all the compromises attached to it. Open slather. Clubs can recruit whoever they like wherever they like.

However the salary cap is tightened and enforced with rigid zealotry by the AFL. And punitive inflexible sanctions are imposed on those clubs who exceed it with loss of Premiership points (including future points).

The salary cap is the mechanism to keep the competition even while allowing clubs who are on the bottom to quickly build and recruit their way out of it. Assuming the salary cap is at a level that is not too restrictive or too generous.

Players are free agents when uncontracted and trading would only be a means of freeing up the salary cap if it suits a club. Seems to be a fair compromise.

Sorry if everyone thinks I’m rambling. But I’m over the draft and the restrictive way clubs can regenerate their list. The dice is now loaded in favour of a select few clubs, such as those clubs who have been gifted academies or those clubs who have been the beneficiaries of genetic luck.

Remove the anomalies and simplify the system so it is fair to all clubs.

Won’t happen of course. Drafting and trading is another way the AFL can hog the limelight for longer.

Basically what the NRL have always done. There is no national draft or trades.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

The 2 sides of the F/S debate will never agree and that’s fair enough.

For what it’s worth I’m on the ‘keep it’ team. Sure no other competitions may have it but who’s to say they’ve got it right. Besides in a lot of those competitions players move from team to team, competition to competition, even country to country on a regular basis. Perhaps it doesn’t have the romance of our, by comparison, relatively stable league.

I’d suggest we increase it to 200 games just to make sure it’s genuine romance of a legendary club player. But even in doing that I would suggest most of the sons we’re whinging about would still qualify.

But if it is romance then surely the access is the only thing that needs to be considered. The ability to get Darcy to the Dogs or Daicos to the Pies (or Riewoldts to the Saints).

The club should have to pay a realistic price as others suggested. Darcy, Daicos etc should cost their clubs a genuine low first round pick. If they don’t have one then trade for one. If they can’t do that; bad luck.

The access to the player as well as the ability to get them on the cheap is just too much.

 

[The Punter]

The 2 sides of the F/S debate will never agree and that’s fair enough.

For what it’s worth I’m on the ‘keep it’ team. Sure no other competitions may have it but who’s to say they’ve got it right. Besides in a lot of those competitions players move from team to team, competition to competition, even country to country on a regular basis. Perhaps it doesn’t have the romance of our, by comparison, relatively stable league.

I’d suggest we increase it to 200 games just to make sure it’s genuine romance of a legendary club player. But even in doing that I would suggest most of the sons we’re whinging about would still qualify.

But if it is romance then surely the access is the only thing that needs to be considered. The ability to get Darcy to the Dogs or Daicos to the Pies (or Riewoldts to the Saints).

The club should have to pay a realistic price as others suggested. Darcy, Daicos etc should cost their clubs a genuine low first round pick. If they don’t have one then trade for one. If they can’t do that; bad luck.

The access to the player as well as the ability to get them on the cheap is just too much.

So before the draft, the AFL (arbitrarily, there is no other way) put a draft pick price on a F-S eligible player. Suddenly the value of that pick goes through the roof because it is the only way that club can get the son of their former player. It would, at best, represent an overcorrection and F-Ss would then become too expensive (in other words, the system would become unfair on clubs with eligible players).

As I said, there is no way for it to be fair. It's impossible.

Nick's boys run around for St Kilda it will be great. But I won't barrack for them any harder because of who their dad is.

 

[Dr Spaceman]

So before the draft, the AFL (arbitrarily, there is no other way) put a draft pick price on a F-S eligible player. Suddenly the value of that pick goes through the roof because it is the only way that club can get the son of their former player. It would, at best, represent an overcorrection and F-Ss would then become too expensive (in other words, the system would become unfair on clubs with eligible players).

As I said, there is no way for it to be fair. It's impossible.

Nick's boys run around for St Kilda it will be great. But I won't barrack for them any harder because of who their dad is.

I’m not suggesting how it would work, that’s for others to sort out.

But I know many years ago we selected Arse Cordy and Footscray had to match it with a fairly close pick.

The AFL wouldn’t have to do anything other than to say you need to match with a single pick within a certain range. The club can make a calculation pre draft on where the player is likely to go and decide if they would want to match. Then make sure the have a suitable pick available. If the player goes before that then that’s just bad luck.

Anyway, as a wise man once said…

The 2 sides of the F/S debate will never agree and that’s fair enough.

 

[The Punter]

The 2 sides of the F/S debate will never agree and that’s fair enough.

I'll concede that, but the fact is that those who support the F-S rule support unfairness, and there is no denying that is the case.

That unfairness has hurt teams such as St Kilda, who have drafted 2 F-S picks in the draft era (David Sierakowski and Bailey Rice).

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I’m not suggesting how it would work, that’s for others to sort out.

But I know many years ago we selected Arse Cordy and Footscray had to match it with a fairly close pick.

The AFL wouldn’t have to do anything other than to say you need to match with a single pick within a certain range. The club can make a calculation pre draft on where the player is likely to go and decide if they would want to match. Then make sure the have a suitable pick available. If the player goes before that then that’s just bad luck.

Anyway, as a wise man once said…

Now they would have traded picks in the first two rounds for future picks, and Arse would have gone for 3 4th rounders and a 5th rounder.

No-one really got upset with F/S when they made it more realistic ( after the Gablett draft days when they got them for a late pick ).

 

[Joffaboy]

If a team wants an academy or F/S they should be made to use a top 12 pick.

If they don't have a top 12 pick, trade a good player for it, or make the decision to miss out.
They get a great young player but have to lose a player worth at least a top 12.

Allows a team to still get a F/S, or a NGA, but if not, it free these players up to be taken by another team.
Say the Saints need a midfielder that is a North NGA. We bid at pick 6 for the player, North have a million mids, they don't match, we get the mid we need, North retain a top twelve pick for their needs. Frees up unmatched bids etc.
I am sure there is a million holes in this as I haven't thought it through, but surely to get some semblance of fairness.

On SM-S908E using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[phantom13]

Not sure about Cats, Dogs and WCE having B grade midfields in their premiership years- they were bloody good.

Cats
Danger (who was in his 30's), Mark O'Connor and Cam Guthrie. Danger aside (and he was getting on) not exactly a murderers row. Rotations with Selwood (again, getting on) Atkins, Myers.

WCE
Shuey, Sheed, Yeo, Duggan and Venebles. Really, not world beaters.

Dogs
Dahlhaus, Libba (who was 25 at the time and not the Libba now) and Bont (who was 21 at the time) Picken, Roberts, Hunter and MacRae (Also 21)

Id say none of those midfields in the flag years would have been rated in the top 10 midfields in the comp at the time. Solid contributers but they had a gamestyle suited to the strengths (Geelong their intercept defenders and elite forwards, West Coast ball movement and Defence and Dogs manic pressure).

 

[Sir Owens]

The simplest way to fix the Father-Son rule and Academies is to make the first 18 picks in the draft untouchable. You can not match a bid on a first-round pick, end of story.

It's such a rort when teams trade away picks for later picks and more points, and somehow, this is paying 'fair value'.

It's just another way we get shafted.

 

[phantom13]

The simplest way to fix the Father-Son rule and Academies is to make the first 18 picks in the draft untouchable. You can not match a bid on a first-round pick, end of story.

It's such a rort when teams trade away picks for later picks and more points, and somehow, this is paying 'fair value'.

It's just another way we get shafted.

It probably is but you may as well just do away with the rule at that point.

I think if you take a Daicos as the example. Before the draft clubs have to nominate when they would take them and then the father son club (Collingwood) has to get an equivalent pick in that round to match the bid with their discount (whatever that is).

EG. The club with pick 1 nominates him, Collingwood has to get pick 3 or 4 or whatever to match it (with discount).

If they choose not to, or cant, they dont get him.

 

[luca77]

I'll concede that, but the fact is that those who support the F-S rule support unfairness

You don't have to get all David King on us all. Nobody supports unfairness or accepts mediocrity or any of that other garbage.
There are a million unfair things in the AFL, and F-S is just one of them. Fairness of the league isn't there, or not there based on this rule. It's one example of where fairness is knowingly compromised for the sake of nostalgia, emotion, and character in the game. Without these things, it's just humans running around pointlessly in different colours chasing a piece of leather with the aim of kicking it between a couple of arbitrarily positioned posts. To me Big Bash is a perfect example of a pointless exhibition of people engaging in exercise without emotion, history or meaning.

The important thing is making sure clubs pay a reasonable price for the significance factor. Doesn't matter if it's a bit less than market value. I'd prefer that academies are addressed, we get more home games at the G against big teams, somehow get some of these first round players hoarded in the 2s at GWS to be dispersed around the league, make sure that lower teams get properly compensated when players leave for the big teams or when they have to tell their #1 draft pick to retire over concussion concerns, plenty of other stuff.

 

[phantom13]

I absolutely acknowledge F/S isnt "fair" i just like it and think it can be retained pretty easily with some tweaks.

Abolishing it wouldnt really bother me either.

 

[StFly]

The simplest way to fix the Father-Son rule and Academies is to make the first 18 picks in the draft untouchable. You can not match a bid on a first-round pick, end of story.

It's such a rort when teams trade away picks for later picks and more points, and somehow, this is paying 'fair value'.

It's just another way we get shafted.

Mini draft ala GCS/GWS entry.
"I really want this kid and he'll go pick 1. So I am buying in to get this kid"
V
"You might have a fam name but I am a business, GTFO"

The pick buy situation is a half arsed version of the above where value is an arbitrarily provided points system. It needs to be an actual purchase to keep the aspect of fair play, allow the home club first choice and allow for said players to hop into the ND proper at proper values. You either do that with a trade instance for pick close enough for both sides, or straight remove them from ND (and NGA's at present) to allow for home clubs to purchase the rights to.

We already have the pre-season draft, just tack it on around this same time period to bundle the FS/NGA/ETC

 

[Parkysp]

Cats
Danger (who was in his 30's), Mark O'Connor

42

Mark O'connor

Age

27

Ht

189cm

Wt

88kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

13.2

3star

K

8.1

3star

HB

5.1

4star

M

4.4

4star

T

2.3

4star

MG

174.8

3star

D

12.4

3star

K

8.9

4star

HB

3.5

2star

M

4.5

4star

T

1.6

3star

MG

199.8

3star

D

10.4

3star

K

4.8

2star

HB

5.6

4star

M

3.8

4star

T

2.0

4star

MG

67.4

1star

and Cam Guthrie. Danger aside (and he was getting on) not exactly a murderers row. Rotations with Selwood (again, getting on) Atkins, Myers.

A bloody good forward line and backline that held up a reasonably good midfield

WCE
Shuey, Sheed, Yeo, Duggan and Venebles. Really, not world beaters.

Looking at that through a 2024 lenses not how well they were going in 2018.

Dogs
Dahlhaus, Libba (who was 25 at the time and not the Libba now) and Bont (who was 21 at the time) Picken, Roberts, Hunter and MacRae (Also 21)

Got on a run with confidence and form and beautifully ridden down the straight by the umps. Probably your closest one.

Id say none of those midfields in the flag years would have been rated in the top 10 midfields in the comp at the time. Solid contributers but they had a gamestyle suited to the strengths (Geelong their intercept defenders and elite forwards, West Coast ball movement and Defence and Dogs manic pressure).


Our midfield has been VFL level. Carry on as we know where you think the blame fully lies.

Cats
Danger (who was in his 30's), Mark O'Connor and Cam Guthrie. Danger aside (and he was getting on) not exactly a murderers row. Rotations with Selwood (again, getting on) Atkins, Myers.

WCE
Shuey, Sheed, Yeo, Duggan and Venebles. Really, not world beaters.

Dogs
Dahlhaus, Libba (who was 25 at the time and not the Libba now) and Bont (who was 21 at the time) Picken, Roberts, Hunter and MacRae (Also 21)

Id say none of those midfields in the flag years would have been rated in the top 10 midfields in the comp at the time. Solid contributers but they had a gamestyle suited to the strengths (Geelong their intercept defenders and elite forwards, West Coast ball movement and Defence and Dogs manic pressure).

Cats
Danger (who was in his 30's), Mark O'Connor and Cam Guthrie. Danger aside (and he was getting on) not exactly a murderers row. Rotations with Selwood (again, getting on) Atkins, Myers.

WCE
Shuey, Sheed, Yeo, Duggan and Venebles. Really, not world beaters.

Dogs
Dahlhaus, Libba (who was 25 at the time and not the Libba now) and Bont (who was 21 at the time) Picken, Roberts, Hunter and MacRae (Also 21)

Id say none of those midfields in the flag years would have been rated in the top 10 midfields in the comp at the time. Solid contributers but they had a gamestyle suited to the strengths (Geelong their intercept defenders and elite forwards, West Coast ball movement and Defence and Dogs manic pressure).

 

[The Punter]

You don't have to get all David King on us all. Nobody supports unfairness or accepts mediocrity or any of that other garbage.
There are a million unfair things in the AFL, and F-S is just one of them. Fairness of the league isn't there, or not there based on this rule. It's one example of where fairness is knowingly compromised for the sake of nostalgia, emotion, and character in the game. Without these things, it's just humans running around pointlessly in different colours chasing a piece of leather with the aim of kicking it between a couple of arbitrarily positioned posts. To me Big Bash is a perfect example of a pointless exhibition of people engaging in exercise without emotion, history or meaning.

The important thing is making sure clubs pay a reasonable price for the significance factor. Doesn't matter if it's a bit less than market value. I'd prefer that academies are addressed, we get more home games at the G against big teams, somehow get some of these first round players hoarded in the 2s at GWS to be dispersed around the league, make sure that lower teams get properly compensated when players leave for the big teams or when they have to tell their #1 draft pick to retire over concussion concerns, plenty of other stuff.

Fix all the other stuff too. The fixture can be fairer, the rules can be easier to adjudicate. The history is baked in already, and the shape of the ball ensures not too much sameness.

The way things are at the moment sure seem to benefit the larger clubs at our expense. We barrack for a smaller club. Evening the playing field is in our interest.