Recruiting AFL Trade & Free Agency X - Club has elected not to fill list spot - Davey returning from injury?

[Lore]

Quick links: Player Contract Status | Draft Watch 2022 | JHA Father/Son and NGA | Adrian Dodoro

Spoiler: LIVE DRAFT ORDER (2022 Draft Order)

Spoiler: FUTURE PICK TRACKER (2023 Draft Order)

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

I wouldn't mind us asking the question to GWS Jack Bowes + pick 7 style of Lachie Whitfield.


Whitfield is only 28, does have 4 more years on the contract worth somewhere near $800,000 a year. Give us Lachie Whitfield + pick 15 and I would be serious about doing that.

Help pay the cap floor, help get inside the first round and ahead of a possible Davey Jnr bid.

win win win for all parties

Is there any inkling that GWS are under cap pressure or you just think they might look to clear for the future? Taranto, Hopper and Bruhn all gone you'd think they wouldn't be too concerned but I'd definitely be keen.

 

[faible]

Is there any inkling that GWS are under cap pressure or you just think they might look to clear for the future? Taranto, Hopper and Bruhn all gone you'd think they wouldn't be too concerned but I'd definitely be keen.

They might be keen to offload Whitfield which gives them oodles of leverage over Richmond with Hopper.

Haynes and a pick might be better for us though, shorter contract and all, achieving a similar outcome for GWS.

 

[Zach Package]

Sounds like we’re trying to in effect turn Francis into Weid, have to say that’s a victory for list profile given Francis is a surplus 3rd tall defender that we seemingly don’t want to play there and Weid is actually a key position size.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

They might be keen to offload Whitfield which gives them oodles of leverage over Richmond with Hopper.

Haynes and a pick might be better for us though, shorter contract and all, achieving a similar outcome for GWS.

I don't think Scott would be interested in Haynes taking up a list spot given his age. Not sure he'd even get a game. Wouldn't mind the pick though.

 

[faible]

I don't think Scott would be interested in Haynes taking up a list spot given his age. Not sure he'd even get a game. Wouldn't mind the pick though.

If he came with a first rounder I'm sure Scott would find some interest

 

[Young Dusty]

Bowes and 7 for a future 3rd, how on earth do the AFL sign off on that

 

[JT_the_Man]

Bowes and 7 for a future 3rd, how on earth do the AFL sign off on that

More importantly what on earth went through the GC list manager's head to accept that?

 

[Runk]

Setterfield: From pick 5 to 68

More importantly what on earth went through the GC list manager's head to accept that?

Pressure from within the club

 

[andleanback]

Bowes and 7 for a future 3rd, how on earth do the AFL sign off on that

How on earth did gc allow bowes to get to geelong could’ve got a f2 off either hawks essendon instead they’ll end up with a pick in the 50s. Cameron should be fired.

 

[faible]

How on earth did gc allow bowes to get to geelong could’ve got a f2 off either hawks essendon instead they’ll end up with a pick in the 50s. Cameron should be fired.

They also could have sold off Bowes & contract for a peanuts pick without throwing in #7.

Absolutely bizarre list management.

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

It's simply farcical what has happened with Bowes and Pick 7 to Geelong for nothing. Serious questions need to be asked of the AFL here.

 

[Howard Moon]

Clearly they let him choose his destination because they felt guilty for stiffing him

 

[Pweter]

Bowes and 7 for a future 3rd, how on earth do the AFL sign off on that

Any word on whether the salary dump has to be paid in the years 1 and 2 as it would've been at GC?

If it doesn't, that's where the rule needs to be tightened. It sucks, but Cats have just used the system without breaking any rules.

 

[faible]

Any word on whether the salary dump has to be paid in the years 1 and 2 as it would've been at GC?

If it doesn't, that's where the rule needs to be tightened. It sucks, but Cats have just used the system without breaking any rules.

They've already been reported as having spread his contract over 4 years, so no requirement to match the original structure. IMO matching the original structure should be a key point of qualifying it as a salary dump trade....

 

[Howard Moon]

I see the dees enquire about schache.. now there's a question for us, which failed top ten pick fwd would you rather

Weideman
Schache

Both seem to lack a certain intensity that was missed through their draft year interviews and analysis it seems

 

[faible]

I see the dees enquire about schache.. now there's a question for us, which failed top ten pick fwd would you rather

Weideman
Schache

Both seem to lack a certain intensity that was missed through their draft year interviews and analysis it seems

Weideman seems less soft than Schache.

 

[Snake Charmer]

I see the dees enquire about schache.. now there's a question for us, which failed top ten pick fwd would you rather

Weideman
Schache

Both seem to lack a certain intensity that was missed through their draft year interviews and analysis it seems

Can we pick neither? lol but since we are getting Weid. Go weid!

 

['51 Bewick]

The AFL is a disgrace. I will be watching Essendon only next year. The competition can go and jump as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Zach Package]

It's simply farcical what has happened with Bowes and Pick 7 to Geelong for nothing. Serious questions need to be asked of the AFL here.

It’ll prompt a rule change to formalise the current lawless wasteland. Might even be ‘the Bowes rule’

If we want to Americanize every other aspect of the game then contracts will be next cab off the rank. Trade a player in contract and the contract follows him and you can’t extend it or alter it until it’s finished.

JHF would have one year left, Bowes would have 2x850k, etc.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

how in the blue **** does the AFL allow Geelong to Get Bowes + Pick 7 for a bloody F3?

that is insane.

 

[Corleone]

Bowes and 7 for a future 3rd, how on earth do the AFL sign off on that

I think most people are struggling with this because they are assuming we are in a fair competition and that the league is there to create checks and balances in the game to make it more even and fair for all.

This is a lie.

The league has favoured players/teams/clubs and at a whim they can "make concessions" or "accommodate compromises" or "find common ground" or "make a once off exception" when they want to ... if they want it to happen, it happens. If they don't then it won't.

 

[ghostdog]

Looking forward to hitting the game day thread to exclaim "The Weid is smokin!"

 

[Howard Moon]

I think most people are struggling with this because they are assuming we are in a fair competition and that the league is there to create checks and balances in the game to make it more even and fair for all.

This is a lie.

The league has favoured players/teams/clubs and at a whim they can "make concessions" or "accommodate compromises" or "find common ground" or "make a once off exception" when they want to ... if they want it to happen, it happens. If they don't then it won't.

Just like the old adage goes, the harder I work the luckier I get..

If you make your joint the best it can be you'll get 'lucky' things coming your way, run a shit show and you'll get donuts

 

[Lore]

I think most people are struggling with this because they are assuming we are in a fair competition and that the league is there to create checks and balances in the game to make it more even and fair for all.

This is a lie.

The league has favoured players/teams/clubs and at a whim they can "make concessions" or "accommodate compromises" or "find common ground" or "make a once off exception" when they want to ... if they want it to happen, it happens. If they don't then it won't.

This doesn't happen anywhere near as often as people think it does though. Much as with umpires making bad calls on the ground, often times it's because laypeople don't pay attention when the rules are changed (up to and including the dickhead commentators who perpetuate bad interpretations).

Salary dumps were green lit a few weeks ago and publicised as such. It comes after a series of salary dump trades over the last few years, including injured players and moneyball type trades (we picked up Craig Bird, Hawthorn got Patton, Scully and Scrimshaw, there's loads of examples), Collingwood busting their cap and sending Stephenson, Treloar and Bosenavulagi out the door the other year, and Gold Coast trading out Scrimshaw, Brodie and now Bowes under contract.

The Treloar one was strung out for ages after actual trade period was completed because of inconsistencies in the amount of salary each club expected to pay and still meet the fair trade requirements in terms of the picks exchanged. Allowing for a more unequal trade so that the side taking the player is more willing to also take their salary appears necessary to grease the wheels.

That the first club to benefit from a trade like that happens to be the reigning premiers is a bit on the nose, but it looks like an unintended consequence. The general idea is that more and more players are being traded under contract, and being able to trade salary cap space as a currency in its own right has to be able to happen in order for the salary cap to function as it is intended to. For the players, it's advantageous as they're more likely to get those monster contracts and more job security. And the AFL likes the drama during trade week too.


Probably next year or the year after they will be able to trade salary space for picks without a player being moved on too... it's small steps in that direction at the moment. While players have to consent and choose only to consent when they go to top sides, it seems top sides are most likely to benefit, but if they can trade cap space separately then bottom teams will be better able to trade that out and acquire the picks they need for a rebuild.

 

[Vindicater]

Bowes and 7 for a future 3rd, how on earth do the AFL sign off on that

Geelong