List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[wannabewinner]

I can understand that players get drafted or forced to clubs they dont chose, hence the AFPA wanting the players paid similiarly. But the down side is that the 95% hard bar causes these same players from ever experiencing club bounce back and some never play finals. Someone smarter than myself needs to come up with a better agreement than what the AFPA / AFL currently have, to give the perenial lower clubs a fighting chance of bouncing back quicker.

Weve seen even with priority draft picks it still takes clubs years for club to recover and reap the benefits. Surely the AFL & players dont want such an unequal competition. The AFPA are a union they have a charter to get the best results for their players which I gather vote on these decisions, but other solutions to the 95% TPP simply have to be found and implemented or these cycles will be repeated.

Would you take a 5% pay cut for the “betterment of the nation fund”?

Nobody is going to sign off on cap reduction voluntarily barring a COVID like event.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Would you take a 5% pay cut for the “betterment of the nation fund”?

Nobody is going to sign off on cap reduction voluntarily barring a COVID like event.

Its not a cut to ANYONE. Its about not having to max out your cap on spuds who don't deserve it.
A GOP on a lousy club is probably better off than a GOP on a team full of stars.
The fact that they have to make the minimum means its harder to attract stars.

It's a cap that doesn't have to be filled.
Young clubs are forced to overpay players to meet the minimum requirements.
If i was running the show, i'd be giving the "surplus" money to older players with short contracts so that i can get it back at short notice if i needed it.

 

[SteeleSaints]

Would you take a 5% pay cut for the “betterment of the nation fund”?

Nobody is going to sign off on cap reduction voluntarily barring a COVID like event.

Im not suggesting that all players shouldnt be paid well - they should. I dont have the answers but surely someone could provide a solution to allow struggling clubs to not have to pay the exact same salary to their players as others. The AFL football is a commercial industry, its not like the public service where all personnel are paid the same regardless of performance. Surely someone can develop a system where clubs/players are rewarded on perfomance rather than what we have.

The clubs do it internally they pay the top tier of players huge contracts, where rookies get much less. Then the clubs have industry pressure with free agents and trades where they might be forced to pay players more. So its not like the players who perform dont get rewarded they do, at the other end clubs need some flexibility to manage their TPP, with a lessor performing list IMO.

 

[Gavinmitchell11]

Use all available draft picks, try to buy some more if possible. Offer Harley Reid $20 million over 10, in 2 years time. Live with whatever happens after that.

I can’t see any other option tbh. There’s no point bringing in players like Weitering and LDU, they’ll make us better but still miles off it. Just like what happened when we bought in Hill and Crouch, or if we got De Goey - still no flag.

 

[Brian Oblivion]

Use all available draft picks, try to buy some more if possible. Offer Harley Reid $20 million over 10, in 2 years time. Live with whatever happens after that.

I can’t see any other option tbh. There’s no point bringing in players like Weitering and LDU, they’ll make us better but still miles off it. Just like what happened when we bought in Hill and Crouch, or if we got De Goey - still no flag.

Offer it to him now and arrange highly paid fake jobs with Lindsay Fox or at Seek.com for any in his family that want them.

Get him to sign the contract in his own blood to be sure.

 

[Saintos The ITK]

AFLPA is what’s unlikely to budge from a 95% floor.

They’re rewarding mediocrity.

 

[StFly]

TPP is for players, so this can remain as is.

AFL need to do a better scope re total football spend of that department, as that is where the largest inequality is re those same players. As such, if there needs to be an incentive for those at the base to receive "something" not part of draft capital, you're instead stating something like "17 clubs spend 20m on dept, 1 club spends 40m" so they can get services in, fast track development, update what they need to to then entice and grow.

Fiddling with TPP just pisses off the AFL, AFLPA, players and clubs, fiddling with departmental spend or allocating in that sense can be beneficial to all in the end.

 

[WRFL Indentity]

My 2 cents...

Step 1 - If Battle is offered $1M+, let the bloke go, don't want him to go, but if we ended up with band 1 compo, it's a hard one to turn down.

Step 2 - Trade our 2025 1RDP and 2024 2RDP to one of the sides that has 2 x 1DPs in 2024 (GC have 3, Freo have 3 and Syd have 2).

Go into the 2024 draft with 4 x 1RDPs, 2 of which should be top 10.

Hit a FA in 2025 off-season.

 

[Parkysp]

I think my preferred draft solution would be that if you miss finals you get two cracks at the first round….

So finish last you get picks 1&11 then 2&12 ect…. Finish 8th and your first pick is 21.
This I think would work, bottom clubs could rebuild twice as fast.


I like father sons so I’d keep that the same, but academies start from 21 onwards and you need a pick within 10 to match. Time would be given to trade in if you didn’t have the pick.

I've argued for this exact same thing. Will also kill off to a degree the entrenched top 4-6 ladder. Will add volatility to what is now pretty known before the first game of the season. A decade to get enough talent on the list is just too long. It's killing my interest in the AFL.

 

[True Believer]

Would you take a 5% pay cut for the “betterment of the nation fund”?

Nobody is going to sign off on cap reduction voluntarily barring a COVID like event.

There's no-one dictating across the board 5% pay-cuts! You would still have a minimum, set amount that first year recruits have to be paid, and the minimum levels senior payers can be paid, but the extra $100,000 per year to a Billings type, because there is no-one else to give it to, would be reduced.....

 

[The Punter]

Automatic priority picks translated into every team in the noughties (2000-2009) making at least one preliminary final.

Just sayin'.

 

[Saintos The ITK]

My 2 cents...

Step 1 - If Battle is offered $1M+, let the bloke go, don't want him to go, but if we ended up with band 1 compo, it's a hard one to turn down.

Step 2 - Trade our 2025 1RDP and 2024 2RDP to one of the sides that has 2 x 1DPs in 2024 (GC have 3, Freo have 3 and Syd have 2).

Go into the 2024 draft with 4 x 1RDPs, 2 of which should be top 10.

Hit a FA in 2025 off-season.

Can see your reasoning but not worth the punt I don’t think.
I don’t like the idea of using a future first. Hope we never do it. Imagine if we had gone off all cocky and done it last year. We’d be burning the joint down.

 

[gringo2011]

Use all available draft picks, try to buy some more if possible. Offer Harley Reid $20 million over 10, in 2 years time. Live with whatever happens after that.

I can’t see any other option tbh. There’s no point bringing in players like Weitering and LDU, they’ll make us better but still miles off it. Just like what happened when we bought in Hill and Crouch, or if we got De Goey - still no flag.

LDU makes us better instantly because it addresses a major deficiency. Winning first use has been a major issue for years. Crouch did make an impact and was a great fill in while we should have developed our own.

Hill was a weird choice at the time because he was the cherry on a cake that we hadn't cooked yet. Buying up a group of GOPs then replacing the GOPs we had with them and not getting anything back was not a model that was ever going to work.

We have never had trouble attracting middlers. It's the elite players that we still lack and buying players of LDU quality who are contested and win their own footy will never be a bad investment.

 

[gringo2011]

My 2 cents...

Step 1 - If Battle is offered $1M+, let the bloke go, don't want him to go, but if we ended up with band 1 compo, it's a hard one to turn down.

Step 2 - Trade our 2025 1RDP and 2024 2RDP to one of the sides that has 2 x 1DPs in 2024 (GC have 3, Freo have 3 and Syd have 2).

Go into the 2024 draft with 4 x 1RDPs, 2 of which should be top 10.

Hit a FA in 2025 off-season.

You'd want to make sure that this isn't a worse draft than next years first. 20 picks in a shit draft are worth less than one in a super draft.

 

[luca77]

LDU makes us better instantly because it addresses a major deficiency. Winning first use has been a major issue for years. Crouch did make an impact and was a great fill in while we should have developed our own.

Hill was a weird choice at the time because he was the cherry on a cake that we hadn't cooked yet. Buying up a group of GOPs then replacing the GOPs we had with them and not getting anything back was not a model that was ever going to work.

We have never had trouble attracting middlers. It's the elite players that we still lack and buying players of LDU quality who are contested and win their own footy will never be a bad investment.

I don't think Hill was such a weird choice, in that we were desperately in need of foot skills. Hanners was our only other highly skilled option between the arcs and he couldn't get out there.
Much like Campbell raises our average age a fair bit on his own, Hill raised our average foot skills at the time significantly by just being there.
We had none, and still really struggle in that area. Because of that, instead of being a cherry/cake player we really depended on him.

Like plenty of our decisions, they might appear weird without taking into account our circumstances - which have usually been pretty dire in one way or another.

 

[saint_]

Trade all our 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks to move up late in the first round. Then use excess cash (if afl allows it) to give to clubs that don't need their late picks and need spare cash.

 

[luca77]

This year's national draft being midfield heavy (exactly what we want, and exactly what North don't need) could be a really big opportunity.
North would surely get more out of next year's draft.

Of course, they'll have pick 1 which is a known entity so if we offered next year's first for their 1st this year, we'd obviously have to sweeten it a lot - but surely there's a price at which they'd consider it.

Something like 2025 1st + 2nd + players to help get them out of their hole sooner.

Hypothetically what do you think the price would be?

We'd end up with 2 top 5 mids this year, and it would also keep our gun list age a bit closer together between King's age and the young-uns.

 

[The Punter]

This year's national draft being midfield heavy (exactly what we want, and exactly what North don't need) could be a really big opportunity.
North would surely get more out of next year's draft.

Of course, they'll have pick 1 which is a known entity so if we offered next year's first for their 1st this year, we'd obviously have to sweeten it a lot - but surely there's a price at which they'd consider it.

Something like 2025 1st + 2nd + players to help get them out of their hole sooner.

Hypothetically what do you think the price would be?

We'd end up with 2 top 5 mids this year, and it would also keep our gun list age a bit closer together between King's age and the young-uns.

Do you offer our first from this year and next for pick 1 and change?

That way we get the best mid without giving up anything we want to keep on the list.

 

[luca77]

Do you offer our first from this year and next for pick 1 and change?

That way we get the best mid without giving up anything we want to keep on the list.

Easier to negotiate that way as our pick would be a known entity - but if possible, I'd love to find a way to get the two picks in this mid-heavy draft.
If we also ended up with Battle compensation, it could be a great draft for us.

 

[gubby88]

You'd want to make sure that this isn't a worse draft than next years first. 20 picks in a shit draft are worth less than one in a super draft.

apparantly next year has alot of Key position and not many really class mids as of yet

 

[gringo2011]

I don't think Hill was such a weird choice, in that we were desperately in need of foot skills. Hanners was our only other highly skilled option between the arcs and he couldn't get out there.
Much like Campbell raises our average age a fair bit on his own, Hill raised our average foot skills at the time significantly by just being there.
We had none, and still really struggle in that area. Because of that, instead of being a cherry/cake player we really depended on him.

Like plenty of our decisions, they might appear weird without taking into account our circumstances - which have usually been pretty dire in one way or another.

We didn't look like we were Hill off a premiership though. He cost us heaps of capital and cash. Could have developed our own if we weren't in the window. Your soft outside players need to be fed, we hadn't even built a goods basic list.

I think history would be enough to show Hill was a road that we probably weren't ready to go down that has extended the rebuild out a lot longer than it had to. To step out of a couple of drafts and give up access to star kids should only be done if you're very sure that you're close to flag.

 

[gringo2011]

This year's national draft being midfield heavy (exactly what we want, and exactly what North don't need) could be a really big opportunity.
North would surely get more out of next year's draft.

Of course, they'll have pick 1 which is a known entity so if we offered next year's first for their 1st this year, we'd obviously have to sweeten it a lot - but surely there's a price at which they'd consider it.

Something like 2025 1st + 2nd + players to help get them out of their hole sooner.

Hypothetically what do you think the price would be?

We'd end up with 2 top 5 mids this year, and it would also keep our gun list age a bit closer together between King's age and the young-uns.

A couple of talls are heading for top 3. I reckon they might trade down but not out too far. Probably cost us pick 3 to 6 and our second round pick to move up a few places. Not really worth it in a draft without a Harley Reid. They also might choose to go for a Jagga Smith over a Smillie or O'Sullivan to get a bit more zip and X factor. They have plenty on inside grunt but class mids can be redeployed. Smith probably plays forward for a couple of years before becoming a mid.

 

[SteeleSaints]

Our defence was the best in the league last season and Battle is still rated really highly, hence I cant believe people are eager to see Battle leave. The last thing we need to be doing is losing one of key pillars we need to be building on them. If we lose Battle who takes his place there is not one player proven to be ready to step up and play CHB. The other thing with Battle is he has proven to be pretty resilient since moving to defence.

To answer what others might be thinking -

Shoenmaker is poor defensively still needs time to develop at VFL level,
Van Es injured & still unknown is coming from a long way back,
Cordy is similiar to Campbell only played in case of emergency,
Howard couldnt run out of sight on a dark night and his skills are the worst in the side,
Caminiti doesnt have the composure to play in defence,
Hayes might be our best option but he is still having problems with his knee and I dont know if he is quick enough to play the role.

Top teams dont lose key players they dont have a ready made replacement for!

 

[gringo2011]

Easier to negotiate that way as our pick would be a known entity - but if possible, I'd love to find a way to get the two picks in this mid-heavy draft.
If we also ended up with Battle compensation, it could be a great draft for us.

I've been reading up a bit more on this draft. Some are saying the top end is weaker than usual and some of the games have been lack lustre with lots of the best players academy or FS. It looks like it runs deep though with potential all the way through but not much stand out.

Some are saying Jack Whitlock and his brother are like the McKays and Jack looks like he could push up along with Trainor and Shanahan as KPs in the front end of the draft.

The mids that are available are outside or classy mids rather than real extractor bulls at the front end of the draft. The good bulls all sit between late first round and late second round.

It doesn't look like a draft to go all chips in on the first round in.

 

[gringo2011]

Our defence was the best in the league last season and Battle is still rated really highly, hence I cant believe people are eager to see Battle leave. The last thing we need to be doing is losing one of key pillars we need to be building on them. If we lose Battle who takes his place there is not one player proven to be ready to step up and play CHB. The other thing with Battle is he has proven to be pretty resilient since moving to defence.

To answer what others might be thinking -

Shoenmaker is poor defensively still needs time to develop at VFL level,
Van Es injured & still unknown is coming from a long way back,
Cordy is similiar to Campbell only played in case of emergency,
Howard couldnt run out of sight on a dark night and his skills are the worst in the side,
Caminiti doesnt have the composure to play in defence,
Hayes might be our best option but he is still having problems with his knee and I dont know if he is quick enough to play the role.

Top teams dont lose key players they dont have a ready made replacement for!

I'm confident Shoenmaker will be a gun but Battle should be redeployed as a forward before losing him. Unless his wage is so outstandingly OTT we should do what ever we can to hold on to him.