List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[Saints43]

Premiership clubs don't throw away good CHBs for the lure of picks.

They back their recruiters to find the players with the picks they have and retain the essential parts of their list.

You can't easily replace players like battle. All you'll end up doing is trading a first round pick to get one again in 3 years time or you go without.

We are being seduced by a pick. Like its the magic tonic that will net an elite mid and turn everything around.

How often do you reckon Battle plays on centre half forwards?
I would like Battle to stay but if a club offered us pick 5 for him in a trade there's nobody on earth that wouldn't take it.

 

[_Maximus_12]

How often do you reckon Battle plays on centre half forwards?
I would like Battle to stay but if a club offered us pick 5 for him in a trade there's nobody on earth that wouldn't take it.

Battle often plays on the 3rd string forward. He looks vulnerable when defending the monsters. He is an above average AFL defender but I’m not paying $900 x 5 for that.

 

[MordySaint]

Battle often plays on the 3rd string forward. He looks vulnerable when defending the monsters. He is an above average AFL defender but I’m not paying $900 x 5 for that.

By the time his 3,4,5 years come up ... $900 k will seems cheap.

It was only a few years ago that $600k was astronomical.

Looking good quality players into long term deals who have no injury concerns just makes great list management sense.

 

[pluggeranddoc]

How often do you reckon Battle plays on centre half forwards?
I would like Battle to stay but if a club offered us pick 5 for him in a trade there's nobody on earth that wouldn't take it.

So he's worth about 30% of what we gave for Hill?

 

[The Punter]

Hill had two years left on his contract at Fremantle. And everyone thinks we paid at least a little over.

 

[StCicatriz]

Mate you are the one who was talking up his general marking stats. I just specified exactly which marking stat matters for a third tall defender. Because it can’t be influenced by our game style.

As for letting it happen organically. Isn’t that happening now?

We have no ability to control the situation. It is what it is at this point.

No matter how good a recruiter. It is harder to nail turning second or third round picks into gun players. Thats why the chances of doing so are so low.

Ultimately, it’s going to be very hard to move into contention by taking our 1 first rounder and trying to nail a free agent.

The draft is the path forward for our club and I’m pretty content that pick 5 is over value for Battle.

Either way I’ll be happy. But we won’t be winning next years flag with or without Battle. The cattle just isn’t there yet and I’m not really in the mood to fall back into past mistakes where we over value our players.

Every other club has shown the path forward involves moving on from good to great footballers. The only club yet to buy into that is west coast. We started last year letting the likes of Gresham go.

If the value exceeds the capability. Then it’s okay if Battle goes too.

the problem you have is losing battle goes against half the strategy of the club. they want a dual narrative of collecting players through the draft but also to become competitive and play finals so that they can utilise the salary cap space they have created by letting players like gresham, billings etc go.

how are we going to get free agents if battle leaves, we leak more goals and our ladder position never improves? what free agent is going to a club who's not playing finals. plus ross is going to want to return to finals next year at worst the year after, otherwise he's cooked. they will not renew his contract without making finals.

you can then argue well we wait until that pick 5 has an impact and the overall side improves, which then we will be able to utilise the cap space and attract a free agent. but we will still need to find a CHB and that's going to take time.

so what will happen in the mean time is:
1) we re-enter the market for a CHB who has a tank and can cover the ground. free agents aint going to be knocking down the door to come to a club not playing finals. so you're talking trade now, which is going to cost picks and $$$, unless you're bringing in something seriously ineffective like cordy. beyond that you're drafting and waiting...
2) any salary cap space created by battle is effectively useless. the banking mechanism has to be used. now you'd argue front loading, but that can only go so far with longer term contracts. essentially this war chest is ineffective as our ladder position is poor and stays that way. it comes into affect if we play finals. so what it means in reality is that battle money will just be used on the existing group or money ball picks looking for a bit more coin.

i'm happy for the argument to be that pick 5 gets us a shot at an elite mid, i disagree that's what will happen, but i can atleast see the argument. if its salary cap and free agents and returning to finals, then its counter productive to the strategy.

the risk is we get more players looking to leave for "success" as we spend more time out of the 8.

there's alot of have ya cake and eat it too here. it'll come unstuck.

honestly the best strategy we can have with the dual narrative is to retain the effective best parts of the 22 and the parts of the spine/engine room. retain players like steele, hill, king, marshall, wilkie. retain the upcoming talent like windhager, owens, pou, wilson. if that means over paying in the short term then do it. by the sounds of it we are only talking 200k a year on battle max. this allows us to try and make finals ASAP keeping the players in a competitive environment. a return to finals can mean attracting a free agent or trade targets. in the mean time we collect the first rounds organically. any good recruiter will find players in the 2nd and 3rd round.

anyone got Dalrymple's draft history? i'm guessing he found effective mids outside of a top 10 pick.

 

[Winmar2Lockett]

By the time his 3,4,5 years come up ... $900 k will seems cheap.

It was only a few years ago that $600k was astronomical.

Looking good quality players into long term deals who have no injury concerns just makes great list management sense.

That's probably why we offered Battle a $4.8 million contract. We tried to lock in a good quality player & he decided to see if he could get even more from another club.

Despite the TPP going up, surely that's overs for a player with his footy CV if we're being serious.

 

[StCicatriz]

Tell me which points you actually disagree on?

The Battle situation is about money, it always is.

Bottom line is free agency is hurting the less successful clubs. It's making a tiered system of the have and have not's.

Gresham last year, Battle this year... who is next year? Richer/more powerful clubs now just look at our list now and say who can we poach.

The club needs to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough.

this is the big risk i think people are ignoring. you run into a hill situation where he asks for trade even if contracted because there was no hope he was going to play finals so returning to victoria where he had more support through his partners family and better career opportunity. or you run into another battle situation where a club like hawthorn is seen as having a better chance of success.

we can't keep spending 2-5 years blocks out of finals. it just kills any chance of building a competitive list. hurts player development. hurts player retention. hurts attracting opposition players. its an awful place to be in. basically you become a feeder club for clubs playing finals or those that have $$$ and connections.

 

[StCicatriz]

By the time his 3,4,5 years come up ... $900 k will seems cheap.

It was only a few years ago that $600k was astronomical.

Looking good quality players into long term deals who have no injury concerns just makes great list management sense.

does anyone know what the reported pay gap is?

i'm guessing its 700-800k vs 900k? that's not alot cap wise and it's not like we have anyone to spend it on?

 

[_Maximus_12]

The argument of locking Battle in at overs just to retain him doesn’t really consider any other factor than keeping a good player on our list.

If you consider the entire picture, there is no real argument for overpaying him.

1) as stated numerous times, he’s above average not elite
2) $900k is above market value and asks as to commit a large portion of our cap at a significant length to an above average player.
3) we have the worst midfield in the comp, and the only way to bring good ones in are to develop from high draft picks
4) we have Schoenmaker who could play the third tall role who looks to be a very real prospect of the future. While he’s unlikely to be as solid defensively next year, he already looks to be as creative offensively as battle is
5) Battle is not even in our leadership group, let alone a ‘fabric player’
6) the outcome of battle leaving becomes net positive, it allows us to reallocate cap space, add a high end midfielder through the draft and subsequently develop Arie.

on the flip side, we retain battle, he gives us above average output for his position, he continues to be a good player but not someone that moves the needle. We lose a competitor, and someone who has a crack each week.

As most have maintained, I’d happily keep him… but not at any cost. For the right price and that price is less than what hawthorn have reportedly tabled

 

[StCicatriz]

Battle often plays on the 3rd string forward. He looks vulnerable when defending the monsters. He is an above average AFL defender but I’m not paying $900 x 5 for that.

he's not meant to play on the monsters. they don't cover the ground. that's howards job. he takes the guys > 195-197 cm.

 

[_Maximus_12]

That's probably why we offered Battle a $4.8 million contract. We tried to lock in a good quality player & he decided to see if he could get even more from another club.

Despite the TPP going up, surely that's overs for a player with his footy CV if we're being serious.

The cap going up is only going to mean the best of the best get a bigger slice of the pie.

 

[stavro#4]

the problem you have is losing battle goes against half the strategy of the club. they want a dual narrative of collecting players through the draft but also to become competitive and play finals so that they can utilise the salary cap space they have created by letting players like gresham, billings etc go.

how are we going to get free agents if battle leaves, we leak more goals and our ladder position never improves? what free agent is going to a club who's not playing finals. plus ross is going to want to return to finals next year at worst the year after, otherwise he's cooked. they will not renew his contract without making finals.

you can then argue well we wait until that pick 5 has an impact and the overall side improves, which then we will be able to utilise the cap space and attract a free agent. but we will still need to find a CHB and that's going to take time.

so what will happen in the mean time is:
1) we re-enter the market for a CHB who has a tank and can cover the ground. free agents aint going to be knocking down the door to come to a club not playing finals. so you're talking trade now, which is going to cost picks and $$$, unless you're bringing in something seriously ineffective like cordy. beyond that you're drafting and waiting...
2) any salary cap space created by battle is effectively useless. the banking mechanism has to be used. now you'd argue front loading, but that can only go so far with longer term contracts. essentially this war chest is ineffective as our ladder position is poor and stays that way. it comes into affect if we play finals. so what it means in reality is that battle money will just be used on the existing group or money ball picks looking for a bit more coin.

i'm happy for the argument to be that pick 5 gets us a shot at an elite mid, i disagree that's what will happen, but i can atleast see the argument. if its salary cap and free agents and returning to finals, then its counter productive to the strategy.

the risk is we get more players looking to leave for "success" as we spend more time out of the 8.

there's alot of have ya cake and eat it too here. it'll come unstuck.

honestly the best strategy we can have with the dual narrative is to retain the effective best parts of the 22 and the parts of the spine/engine room. retain players like steele, hill, king, marshall, wilkie. retain the upcoming talent like windhager, owens, pou, wilson. if that means over paying in the short term then do it. by the sounds of it we are only talking 200k a year on battle max. this allows us to try and make finals ASAP keeping the players in a competitive environment. a return to finals can mean attracting a free agent or trade targets. in the mean time we collect the first rounds organically. any good recruiter will find players in the 2nd and 3rd round.

anyone got Dalrymple's draft history? i'm guessing he found effective mids outside of a top 10 pick.

As it stands we are somewhere between 6th and 15th under Ross.

(I don’t think we are as bad as 15th with everyone fit)

But I don’t think we are a contender and I don’t think 1 top 5 pick changes that without some serious luck landing a superstar.

The club wants to hit the draft. I believe that has been the priority for 2 years. They are trying to land free agents - that’s clearly not working right now.

So we can’t sit there and keep what we have hoping a few picks each year changes the game.

We can however move players on if we get over vale draft asset returns. Invest further in the draft and continue to seek out free agents.

Each year we miss finals. The likes of Battle get less valuable.

If he stays great. If he goes and gets us pick 5 - that’s fantastic too.

The truth is that he hasn’t been lowballed. He hasn’t been pushed to the side with us begging for an overpay.

He has had a massive deal since March on the table and hasn’t signed - even when it appeared sorted.

There is so much frustration with what the club might do. But I don’t believe they have done anything wrong here.

I don’t believe it impacts us in 2025 either or our ability to land a free agent. They were seemingly only coming for huuuuuggeee offers. That won’t drive. That’s the driver as we aren’t a contender

 

[stavro#4]

does anyone know what the reported pay gap is?

i'm guessing its 700-800k vs 900k? that's not alot cap wise and it's not like we have anyone to spend it on?

Our battle offer in March was reported as 800/6.

6 weeks or so ago I think Twomey said 850/6 from the saints.

So whatever Hawthorn goes to. You assume it’s higher

 

[StCicatriz]

The argument of locking Battle in at overs just to retain him doesn’t really consider any other factor than keeping a good player on our list.

If you consider the entire picture, there is no real argument for overpaying him.

1) as stated numerous times, he’s above average not elite
2) $900k is above market value and asks as to commit a large portion of our cap at a significant length to an above average player.
3) we have the worst midfield in the comp, and the only way to bring good ones in are to develop from high draft picks
4) we have Schoenmaker who could play the third tall role who looks to be a very real prospect of the future. While he’s unlikely to be as solid defensively next year, he already looks to be as creative offensively as battle is
5) Battle is not even in our leadership group, let alone a ‘fabric player’
6) the outcome of battle leaving becomes net positive, it allows us to reallocate cap space, add a high end midfielder through the draft and subsequently develop Arie.

on the flip side, we retain battle, he gives us above average output for his position, he continues to be a good player but not someone that moves the needle. We lose a competitor, and someone who has a crack each week.

As most have maintained, I’d happily keep him… but not at any cost. For the right price and that price is less than what hawthorn have reportedly tabled

you need to actually draft a mid and develop them. its very risky. its unknown. we've had very little success there and i know its a new head recruiter and list boss. pretty sure the swans didn't need top 5 picks to build their midfield. i know heeney is a top 5 academy pick. the rest weren't or don't play midfield (i.e. mills).

schoenmark cannot defend. he's not a battle replacement and if he's going to be that player its speculative and could take 3 years.

battle is a very popular player, as seen on the weekend. i'd be wary of letting those guys go. at 26 he's now ready to start becoming a leader. some players take longer to develop into leadership roles. see hill for example. hill's not in the leadership group, neither is wood from memory. both are crucial to mentoring the younger players.

reallocating cap space? for what? no free agent is coming if we don't play finals. no decent trade targets that form part of the engine are coming. it'll be flankers and very average KPP/midfield talent looking for opportunity and $$$.

what you're going to do is stunt the immediate onfield results which will affect attracting and retaining talent.

 

[StCicatriz]

Our battle offer in March was reported as 800/6.

6 weeks or so ago I think Twomey said 850/6 from the saints.

So whatever Hawthorn goes to. You assume it’s higher

i'm hoping he signs with the improved offers. 800-850 by 6 is around what i think he's worth. if we have to go to 950k i'd do it. i think the 100-150k is money well spent to keep that backline stable and not take on all the risks from losing him.

i don't see any benefit in cap saving.
i like the idea of a top 5 pick but the risk is too large with the affect in the short term and there's no guarantee we turn pick 5 into anything.

if battle leaves 100% that money goes to the existing group. don't see any benefit to it. we just end up with more billings situations.

my wish is:
1) retain battle and king
2) return to finals in 2025 and beyond
3) take pick 5 to the draft
4) look at free agents in 2025 with a better ladder position, if not 2026,
5) churn the list using ageing players/non engine room/spine players, try grab some 2nd/3rd rounders and let Dalrymple earn his money.

we need to very wary of guys like Nas and Pou coming out of contract in the upcoming years. even more important reason to play finals.

i'd also add i don't think this side is as bad as the ladder position suggests. i think we make the 8 next year if we retain battle just on fixture alone and some luck with injury/suspension. we have had 6 games lost with 10 points or less. change that and we are top 6.

worst case scenario for people on here i feel is we lose battle AND it doesn't get band 1 compo. that's like activate the nuke codes level of anger.

 

[StCicatriz]

The cap going up is only going to mean the best of the best get a bigger slice of the pie.

due the salary cap floor unfortunately no. it means clubs like north will over pay a bunch of average players.

best thing the AFL could do is increase the banking mechanism and lower the floor.

 

[gringo2011]

In our midfield?

If Seb Ross or Ryan Byrnes can get games this year. Shiel can too.

Shiel has been injured most of the year and has barely strung 15 good games together in years. He's 32. I'd say his body isn't up to the rigours of footy. He would be an insane target unless we want to help Essendon take some money out of their cap for free. He'll keep the doctors and rehab staff in work I guess.

 

[gringo2011]

the problem you have is losing battle goes against half the strategy of the club. they want a dual narrative of collecting players through the draft but also to become competitive and play finals so that they can utilise the salary cap space they have created by letting players like gresham, billings etc go.

how are we going to get free agents if battle leaves, we leak more goals and our ladder position never improves? what free agent is going to a club who's not playing finals. plus ross is going to want to return to finals next year at worst the year after, otherwise he's cooked. they will not renew his contract without making finals.

you can then argue well we wait until that pick 5 has an impact and the overall side improves, which then we will be able to utilise the cap space and attract a free agent. but we will still need to find a CHB and that's going to take time.

so what will happen in the mean time is:
1) we re-enter the market for a CHB who has a tank and can cover the ground. free agents aint going to be knocking down the door to come to a club not playing finals. so you're talking trade now, which is going to cost picks and $$$, unless you're bringing in something seriously ineffective like cordy. beyond that you're drafting and waiting...
2) any salary cap space created by battle is effectively useless. the banking mechanism has to be used. now you'd argue front loading, but that can only go so far with longer term contracts. essentially this war chest is ineffective as our ladder position is poor and stays that way. it comes into affect if we play finals. so what it means in reality is that battle money will just be used on the existing group or money ball picks looking for a bit more coin.

i'm happy for the argument to be that pick 5 gets us a shot at an elite mid, i disagree that's what will happen, but i can atleast see the argument. if its salary cap and free agents and returning to finals, then its counter productive to the strategy.

the risk is we get more players looking to leave for "success" as we spend more time out of the 8.

there's alot of have ya cake and eat it too here. it'll come unstuck.

honestly the best strategy we can have with the dual narrative is to retain the effective best parts of the 22 and the parts of the spine/engine room. retain players like steele, hill, king, marshall, wilkie. retain the upcoming talent like windhager, owens, pou, wilson. if that means over paying in the short term then do it. by the sounds of it we are only talking 200k a year on battle max. this allows us to try and make finals ASAP keeping the players in a competitive environment. a return to finals can mean attracting a free agent or trade targets. in the mean time we collect the first rounds organically. any good recruiter will find players in the 2nd and 3rd round.

anyone got Dalrymple's draft history? i'm guessing he found effective mids outside of a top 10 pick.

Dalrymple has been a pretty poor with high picks over his time at Sydney but usually redeems himself finding guys like Warner and Dawson late.

Warner's 2019 draft was actually pretty good between 30 and 40. Harrison Jones, Comben, Trent Rivers, Keidean Coleman, Nick Bryan and Chad Warner all went between those picks.

 

[Miha]

Get Jaxon Binns

 

[_Maximus_12]

you need to actually draft a mid and develop them. its very risky. its unknown. we've had very little success there and i know its a new head recruiter and list boss. pretty sure the swans didn't need top 5 picks to build their midfield. i know heeney is a top 5 academy pick. the rest weren't or don't play midfield (i.e. mills).

schoenmark cannot defend. he's not a battle replacement and if he's going to be that player its speculative and could take 3 years.

battle is a very popular player, as seen on the weekend. i'd be wary of letting those guys go. at 26 he's now ready to start becoming a leader. some players take longer to develop into leadership roles. see hill for example. hill's not in the leadership group, neither is wood from memory. both are crucial to mentoring the younger players.

reallocating cap space? for what? no free agent is coming if we don't play finals. no decent trade targets that form part of the engine are coming. it'll be flankers and very average KPP/midfield talent looking for opportunity and $$$.

what you're going to do is stunt the immediate onfield results which will affect attracting and retaining talent.

Mate, this is Josh Battle you’re talking about. Not Jeremy Cameron.
Battle is not winning games off his own boot.
Trying to tie any potential decline to a Josh Battle departure is laughable.
He is not, nor is he likely to ever be a match winner.
His last 2 seasons he has finished 9th and 10th in our best and fairest respectively.
He’s not an all Australian.
He’s not in our leadership group.
He’s an above average AFL footballer

 

[gringo2011]

i'm hoping he signs with the improved offers. 800-850 by 6 is around what i think he's worth. if we have to go to 950k i'd do it. i think the 100-150k is money well spent to keep that backline stable and not take on all the risks from losing him.

i don't see any benefit in cap saving.
i like the idea of a top 5 pick but the risk is too large with the affect in the short term and there's no guarantee we turn pick 5 into anything.

if battle leaves 100% that money goes to the existing group. don't see any benefit to it. we just end up with more billings situations.

my wish is:
1) retain battle and king
2) return to finals in 2025 and beyond
3) take pick 5 to the draft
4) look at free agents in 2025 with a better ladder position, if not 2026,
5) churn the list using ageing players/non engine room/spine players, try grab some 2nd/3rd rounders and let Dalrymple earn his money.

we need to very wary of guys like Nas and Pou coming out of contract in the upcoming years. even more important reason to play finals.

i'd also add i don't think this side is as bad as the ladder position suggests. i think we make the 8 next year if we retain battle just on fixture alone and some luck with injury/suspension. we have had 6 games lost with 10 points or less. change that and we are top 6.

worst case scenario for people on here i feel is we lose battle AND it doesn't get band 1 compo. that's like activate the nuke codes level of anger.

It can't be overstated how precarious it is to drop out of finals for a sustained period with easier player movement. Clubs will be paying up to get good players when Tassie hits as their only means to build up. Tasmania will also be offering big money. Guys like Steele might look sulky but you would too if you are nearing the end and finals is looking a long way off again.

You'd much rather try to keep competitive and attract players to you than drop down for 4 or 5 years and then need to rebuild again as the old guys all retire. We have a very thin bunch in Battle's age group. Without him we have King, Bonner, Dow, Byrnes, Paton, Clark types as our senior core in 4 years. If half the kids don't make it we are in all sorts of trouble then.

 

[gringo2011]

Get Jaxon Binns

If SOS is going to pick in Carlton's bin make it Binns.

 

[akaifu]

Get Jaxon Binns

I was keen on Binns in his draft year, I dare say he’d be in the RWB if Hotton didn’t slide

 

[gringo2011]

I was keen on Binns in his draft year, I dare say he’d be in the RWB if Hotton didn’t slide

I think it was the Metro v Country game that he played that made people sit up and notice him.