List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[Brian Oblivion]

Im tipping itll be a 20 team comp pretty quickly at which point they should do 2 conferences of 10 with every team playing every other team twice (once home and once away).

Do 2 or 3 bye weeks, 4 weeks final series (top 6) with the Grand Final being the two conference champs playing.

What happens if one conference is a lot strong than the other though ?

You get a better team missing out and a weaker one making it.

 

[phantom13]

What happens if one conference is a lot strong than the other though ?

You get a better team missing out and a weaker one making it.

I was half joking, i dont think well do conferences here. I do think well have a 20 team comp sooner than later though

 

[The Punter]

Why didnt GWS nom him at 2 then? Adelaide the year before nominated JUH when they couldnt get him?

If hes worth pick 1 then nominate him, as it stands he was drafted at pick 4.

My point is really that the difference between picks 1 and 5 is generally pretty small, right about that discounted amount. You wanna turf the whole thing so in reality we are not arguing anything equivalent. I wouldnt be anti them scrapping it (although i like it for purely romantic reasons) im just saying if they keep it its actually very very easily fixed.

The aim of the draft is distributive - to ensure the worst teams get access to the best talent so the cycle goes all the way around. If North Melbourne (or any other club, I think GWS just wanted Callaghan) can't be bothered with going through the charade for a player they cannot get, then it just adds to the ridiculousness of the rule. The Father-Son rule is in direct contravention of the aims of the draft.

And the reason I keep going on about it is this: the hope that the rule encapsulates is designed to keep people like St Kilda supporters happy with less, safe in the never-to-be-cashed-in promise of a day when dumb luck (and managing to sire a son is only that) smiles on us. The three Riewoldt boys don't even live in Australia. Meanwhile teams like Collingwood keep cashing in.

I know I won't be even happier with a St Kilda flag if it contains the son of a former player. Local footy has romance in spades. I just want a fair shake, and the Father-Son rule stands in the way of that fair shake.

I think I'm done explaining my position.

 

[phantom13]

The aim of the draft is distributive - to ensure the worst teams get access to the best talent so the cycle goes all the way around. If North Melbourne (or any other club, I think GWS just wanted Callaghan) can't be bothered with going through the charade for a player they cannot get, then it just adds to the ridiculousness of the rule. The Father-Son rule is in direct contravention of the aims of the draft.

And the reason I keep going on about it is this: the hope that the rule encapsulates is designed to keep people like St Kilda supporters happy with less, safe in the never-to-be-cashed-in promise of a day when dumb luck (and managing to sire a son is only that) smiles on us. The three Riewoldt boys don't even live in Australia. Meanwhile teams like Collingwood keep cashing in.

I know I won't be even happier with a St Kilda flag if it contains the son of a former player. Local footy has romance in spades. I just want a fair shake, and the Father-Son rule stands in the way of that fair shake.

I think I'm done explaining my position.

I understand your position, hence my comment we are arguing different things.

If the choices are the system remains as is OR scrap it, absolutely scrap it, its a farce currently.

IMO it can easily be fixed and i would personally prefer they did that.

In reality neither of us is probably gonna get what we want.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

Im tipping itll be a 20 team comp pretty quickly at which point they should do 2 conferences of 10 with every team playing every other team twice (once home and once away).

Do 2 or 3 bye weeks, 4 weeks final series (top 6) with the Grand Final being the two conference champs playing.

I really hope they don't go down that route

 

[phantom13]

I really hope they don't go down that route

I think it would be kinda cool but i cant see it happening personally. The travel distances arent that extreme (west coast to east coast in the US is 6 hours) plus as mentioned discrepancy in quality for 20 teams could be enormous.

 

[BrutThough]

Why didnt GWS nom him at 2 then? Adelaide the year before nominated JUH when they couldnt get him?

If hes worth pick 1 then nominate him, as it stands he was drafted at pick 4.

My point is really that the difference between picks 1 and 5 is generally pretty small, right about that discounted amount. You wanna turf the whole thing so in reality we are not arguing anything equivalent. I wouldnt be anti them scrapping it (although i like it for purely romantic reasons) im just saying if they keep it its actually very very easily fixed.

GWS hate the dogs so took some joy in nominating Darcy first.

I also think there was a bit of goodwill not nominate Daicos giving it was the Pies draft pick they had and didn't want to further embarrass them while they were sticking it to the dogs.

 

[phantom13]

GWS hate the dogs so took some joy in nominating Darcy first.

I also think there was a bit of goodwill not nominate Daicos giving it was the Pies draft pick they had and didn't want to further embarrass them while they were sticking it to the dogs.

My recollection is that Naicos had an injury at some point in his 18s year and there was a big knock on his defensive work.

Could be spin or whatever but i dont think he was a shoe in for pick 1, certainly not ala Reid last year.

In any event my broader point is that the system with a re jig can work IMO. Bunching shit pics for equivalent points is stupid and should be abolished though, no argument on that.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

What about they change the draft to -

Sides outside the Finals (10 sides) get 2 picks in the draft before any of the Finals teams (8 teams)

So 18th placed team gets picks 1 & 11
17th paced team gets 2 & 12
And so on.....
9th placed side gets 10 & 20
Then...
Finals sides get there 1st pick from 21 to 28
After that it continues as a normal draft

Scrap the academies but .... keep Father-Sons however with F-S picks you can only have say ...... 2 in a 4 year period or 1 in a 3 year period...which means teams will have to do their homework if they have several players to pick from within a space of a couple of years

 

[The_Snake26]

What about they change the draft to -

Sides outside the Finals (10 sides) get 2 picks in the draft before any of the Finals teams (8 teams)

So 18th placed team gets picks 1 & 11
17th paced team gets 2 & 12
And so on.....
9th placed side gets 10 & 20
Then...
Finals sides get there 1st pick from 21 to 28
After that it continues as a normal draft

Scrap the academies but .... keep Father-Sons however with F-S picks you can only have say ...... 2 in a 4 year period or 1 in a 3 year period...which means teams will have to do their homework if they have several players to pick from within a space of a couple of years

I think you’re on the money here with the draft. 1 decent pick every year just isn’t going to make the bottom teams improve. And we can’t keep handing out concessions to North because they suck.
F-S I think needs a bit of tinkering. I like the way it is at the moment, but clubs need to pay fair value. Something like a pick within 5 spots of where they were nominated, rather than accumulating a heap of junk 30s & 40s

 

[Saintos The ITK]

The aim of the draft is distributive - to ensure the worst teams get access to the best talent so the cycle goes all the way around. If North Melbourne (or any other club, I think GWS just wanted Callaghan) can't be bothered with going through the charade for a player they cannot get, then it just adds to the ridiculousness of the rule. The Father-Son rule is in direct contravention of the aims of the draft.

And the reason I keep going on about it is this: the hope that the rule encapsulates is designed to keep people like St Kilda supporters happy with less, safe in the never-to-be-cashed-in promise of a day when dumb luck (and managing to sire a son is only that) smiles on us. The three Riewoldt boys don't even live in Australia. Meanwhile teams like Collingwood keep cashing in.

I know I won't be even happier with a St Kilda flag if it contains the son of a former player. Local footy has romance in spades. I just want a fair shake, and the Father-Son rule stands in the way of that fair shake.

I think I'm done explaining my position.

With you all the way in this Punter. We got Darcy Wilson for pick 18 last year. I don’t remember winning the 2023 premiership.

 

[ScrappyDo]

Just get rid of the flipping academies .... its a nationwide sport played now in all states with an established national U18 comp

Also North should have been pushed to Tassie (to keep it at 18 teams) and the fixture could then be 17 games + Finals ..... all play each other once (home one year / away the next)

Or make it a 18 game fixture comp with the extra game being a Derby game... ie- Adelaide v Port / Freo v Eagles / Brions v Suns / Swans v GWS / Melbourne teams can swap who they play each year depending on ladder positions (top teams play each other .... bottom sides play each other) .... this extra game can be fixtured as a mid year game .... each team gets 2 byes ... one after 6th round and one after 12th round

Unfortunately North won't be going to Tassie ... but in a 19 Team comp the AFL should still revert back to an 18 game fixture where all teams play each other once ..... but money rules so it probably won't happen

No club should be involuntarily moved or shut down(except carlton). All clubs should be provided the means to develop money making facilities and business models that support 2nd tier comps and local footy development.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

No club should be involuntarily moved or shut down(except carlton). All clubs should be provided the means to develop money making facilities and business models that support 2nd tier comps and local footy development.

I think we are all in agreeance about the Bluescum but personally I wouldn't lose any sleep about North becoming the Tassie Kangaroos .... which is unlikely anyway ..... for their sake I hope they can turnaround their current predicament but if they can't then I fear for their future

 

[BigMonty]

Keep the first round clean. Every club gets a pick. Then the free agent comp.Then bottom 3 get the next 3 2rdp then club by club. Then 12 to 15 get the start of the 3rd pick then club by club.

No more priority handouts like Norf last year.

Reduce the salary cap proportionally to where you finish on the ladder. Teams having a salary cap for finishing last as the same as winning the flag is just plain stupid. Thanks Vlad you ****w#t.

Finish 18th only have to pay a minimum of 82% of the cap. Then allows you to use the shortfall to buy picks and move up the draft....or use it to pay down debt...gee that's a good idea when membership is low and Marvel Stadium deal stinks....inhibiting us to manage our debt and club responsibly.





On SM-S916B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[phantom13]

Keep the first round clean. Every club gets a pick. Then the free agent comp.Then bottom 3 get the next 3 2rdp then club by club. Then 12 to 15 get the start of the 3rd pick then club by club.

No more priority handouts like Norf last year.

Reduce the salary cap proportionally to where you finish on the ladder. Teams having a salary cap for finishing last as the same as winning the flag is just plain stupid. Thanks Vlad you ****w#t.

Finish 18th only have to pay a minimum of 82% of the cap. Then allows you to use the shortfall to buy picks and move up the draft....or use it to pay down debt...gee that's a good idea when membership is low and Marvel Stadium deal stinks....inhibiting us to manage our debt and club responsibly.





On SM-S916B using BigFooty.com mobile app

I think the cap one is tough cause teams might wanna take a big swing at an FA or whatever but they definitely shouldn’t be forced to pay 95%. I can’t even fathom how they would be

 

[Saints43]

Hawks and Tigers both loaded up to have one last crack at a flag and set themselves back further. We threw away a decade with terrible drafting.

And development.
Newnes was a good player. Could've been a really good player I reckon.
That he played 700 consecutive games as his form declined across the years was ridiculous.

I know I'm being captain obvs but we need to get all aspects right when bringing players in.

 

[stavro#4]

Get Max signed up.

Shake Battles hand. He is the one walking and not us selling him off. Take our 2 top 5 picks.

The rest of the 20 OOC can work on our draft hand.

Then it’s about buying those Suns and Lions picks before the tigers

 

[Diehard Saint]

Yes you can . And they are. It's not the black and white world that people try to paint it as sometimes.

Continuing on from my chat with Punter yesterday, yeah I agree that the other million ways in which things are unfair should be addressed one by one.

But firstly, some advantages are unfixable - for example Geelong having a home ground advantage and the lure of the surf coast lifestyle while the other Melbourne teams (especially those based at the docklands) have practically no home ground advantage, and have to outbid each other and beg players to come.

Secondly, there are unfair aspects of the game that have no benefit whatsoever. Those are the ones that should be addressed first IMO. So long as clubs pay a fair price, the F-S unquestionably adds interest and emotion to the game. And I think if players have a strong family connection to a club they should be helped to get there.

Stripping it out for the sake of fairness, when there is so much else that is incredibly unfair, is losing something lots of people consider to be valuable (even if you and Punter don't) while taking a p!55 in the ocean when it comes to addressing fairness in the comp for mine.

I'll happily reconsider my opinion when most of the other big issues have been addressed, and this one rule is making a big difference between a fair comp and an unfair comp. Which it was for a long time due to the unfairly cheap price clubs were having to pay.

You have to start somewhere and I’m pretty sure the AFL can walk and chew gum at the same time! They can look at more than one thing at a time.

They have no hesitation changing the rules and interpretations at the drop of a hat, sometimes mid-season.

If there are a few things that can be altered, consider them all. The fact is this competition is so unequal as to be laughable. Yes, you can’t change home ground advantage, but you can give better stadium deals. You can allow the smaller games at the G. You want to keep F/S, ok, but put a cost on it. Same with the academies. No one, except for Tassie should be getting handouts anymore.

 

[gy027]

Bottom 9 teams can choose anyone in the draft including all academy players.If they select another teams f/s then the other team pays a fair compensation. The top 9 then pick same rules apply for f/s.
Academy players can only go to their club they are linked to after the end of this round.

 

[Diehard Saint]

I see Cal Twomey has effectively just put Battle on band 1 compensation watch…

And again linked him to Hawthorn.

So, let him go to a club that probably going to be challenging around the time we could be?
Still, band 1 is very tempting.

 

[stavro#4]

So, let him go to a club that probably going to be challenging around the time we could be?

What part of… We don’t have a choice
Do you & others not understand ?

No one is letting him go. If he goes…. Which is most likely. It’s because it Is Battles decision.

He is an unrestricted free agent. Clubs will pay OVERS to land free agents.

 

[Miha]

What part of… We don’t have a choice
Do you & others not understand ?

No one is letting him go. If he goes…. Which is most likely. It’s because it Is Battles decision.

He is an unrestricted free agent. Clubs will pay OVERS to land free agents.

FWIW, I’ve always understood

 

[hayes]

So, let him go to a club that probably going to be challenging around the time we could be?

If it gets us a pick after ours I’d drive him to the airport. Which would be a waste of time cause it’s only down the road but the point stands.

 

[Diehard Saint]

What part of… We don’t have a choice
Do you & others not understand ?

No one is letting him go. If he goes…. Which is most likely. It’s because it Is Battles decision.

He is an unrestricted free agent. Clubs will pay OVERS to land free agents.

Well actually, I DO get it. I know how free agency works. No need to get snarky!
We have a choice to offer him more to stay.

But as I edited my post, obviously after you read it, it’s very, very tempting not to, if it does in fact land up being band 1.

 

[stavro#4]

Well actually, I DO get it. I know how free agency works. No need to get snarky!
We have a choice to offer him more to stay.

But as I edited my post, obviously after you read it, it’s very, very tempting not to, if it does in fact land up being band 1.

What’s the point of setting and managing your salary cap if you are going to crumble because you are losing a good … not great player?

How about you answer this question.


If you were offered a top 5 pick for Battle would you trade him?