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)

 

[Milanista28]

First 2 years must be rookie wages then after that they can sign an extension whenever they want

Ok but if the club offer 400k in year 3 and 4, but he wants 600k what happens?

 

[doug85]

Or asked a king's ransom for trading him.

I think 4 year initial deals would have to come with the ability for clubs to trade future picks more than 1 year in advance, otherwise I'm not sure anyone would agree to it.

I have no opinion on the matter. Maybe I’d care more if Hobbs asked to be traded last week.

 

[eth-dog]

Or asked a king's ransom for trading him.

I think 4 year initial deals would have to come with the ability for clubs to trade future picks more than 1 year in advance, otherwise I'm not sure anyone would agree to it.

Make it more NBA style (not sure if NFL is the same). Have the ability to trade up to 2024 given their opinions of the 2 first rounders over 4 years thing, but have the ability to protect picks depending on where they fall

 

[citizen-erased]

Make it more NBA style (not sure if NFL is the same). Have the ability to trade up to 2024 given their opinions of the 2 first rounders over 4 years thing, but have the ability to protect picks depending on where they fall

Not sure im a fan of pick protection.
Say Port gave up 8, '24 1st and '25 1st and fell into a hole in 2025. Why should North lose out when they've planned their list mgmt around that pick. Unless it's more a compo type situation (Port get end of 1st rd, North keep the high Port pick)

But the draft is already becoming quite compromised as is.

I do think a team like Port should be able to show they have a young enough regular 22 to argue they can trade F1 + F2 onwards next year

 

[eth-dog]

Not sure im a fan of pick protection.
Say Port gave up 8, '24 1st and '25 1st and fell into a hole in 2025. Why should North lose out when they've planned their list mgmt around that pick. Unless it's more a compo type situation (Port get end of 1st rd, North keep the high Port pick)

But the draft is already becoming quite compromised as is.

I do think a team like Port should be able to show they have a young enough regular 22 to argue they can trade F1 + F2 onwards next year

If you protect a pick it automatically rolls over to the following year

 

[Dave]

It wouldn’t have. But norf could have held him for a couple more years in the hope they can turn him around.

He asked for a trade despite being contracted now, why would a couple of extra years have stopped him from still doing so?

 

[citizen-erased]

If you protect a pick it automatically rolls over to the following year

does it remain protected though?
AFL tends to see teams just hitting the bottom stay there for a bit. How long do the Roos wait for their pick?

i dont mind the idea of opening up a nominated 3-4 year period where a club says it going to trade hard for a flag. And they are unrestricted in that respect, but then after the period, they need to take minimum # of 1st & 2nd rd picks.

Just don't think clubs should be rewarded with the protection. i.e. Pies last year

 

[citizen-erased]

He asked for a trade despite being contracted now, why would a couple of extra years have stopped him from still doing so?

also, not like North don't finish last next year too. so if JHF refuses to sign and goes to the PSD, north re-draft him.

 

[Dave]

also, not like North don't finish last next year too. so if JHF refuses to sign and goes to the PSD, north re-draft him.

Yeah, that's a can of worms I don't think the AFL want opened.....

 

[andleanback]

Can someone explain how making JHF sign a 4 year instead if 2 year contract would've stopped him from asking for a trade?

Because if he still wanted to leave north would have so much hand, knowing he couldn’t leave for a further 3 years if they didn’t get a trade that suited.

 

[boncer34]

Because if he still wanted to leave north would have so much hand, knowing he couldn’t leave for a further 3 years if they didn’t get a trade that suited.

He's still a player that has no interest in being there. Contracted players move, how many years left is irrelevant. Look at Dunkley, Dogs held him for the extra 2 years. How'd that work out?

 

[andleanback]

also, not like North don't finish last next year too. so if JHF refuses to sign and goes to the PSD, north re-draft him.

People always jump to these conclusions. It just doesn’t happen like this. The afl is such an insular industry where list managers and agents have so many crossing relationships with different players they have on their books, they never know when they might need that clubs help in the future. You burn too many bridges acting like this.

 

[andleanback]

He's still a player that has no interest in being there. Contracted players move, how many years left is irrelevant. Look at Dunkley, Dogs held him for the extra 2 years. How'd that work out?

Worked out fine, they played in a grand final last year nearly won a flag and he won a bnf this year…

 

[boncer34]

Worked out fine, they played in a grand final last year nearly won a flag and he won a bnf this year…

And he's leaving anyway for less (potentially a lot less) than if they'd let him go.

 

[citizen-erased]

People always jump to these conclusions. It just doesn’t happen like this. The afl is such an insular industry where list managers and agents have so many crossing relationships with different players they have on their books, they never know when they might need that clubs help in the future. You burn too many bridges acting like this.

i think that situation would more be North making a stand for clubs over player power.
You wouldnt let a pick 1 from 2 years ago walk to the PSD, then past your pick in the PSD. And i think Port have to respect that tbh. At any stage they could be the next team facing that issue.

Point is, i don't see much difference in 2 years v 4 for draftees.

 

[andleanback]

And he's leaving anyway for less (potentially a lot less) than if they'd let him go.

Well they could’ve traded him last year but he didn’t ask for a trade. And they were never getting the kings ransom that they were asking for off essendon. They kept their player because they were in the premiership window unless a club was willing to pay extreme overs, it was the right call. The deal will get done today.

 

[andleanback]

i think that situation would more be North making a stand for clubs over player power.
You wouldnt let a pick 1 from 2 years ago walk to the PSD, then past your pick in the PSD. And i think Port have to respect that tbh. At any stage they could be the next team facing that issue.

Point is, i don't see much difference in 2 years v 4 for draftees.

There’s heaps of difference but anyway.

The afl need to step in and make change, at the moment with this generation of kids the draft is broken. You can’t have so many flight risks in the top 20 where clubs don’t want to pick them and have to settle for inferior talented players.

 

[boncer34]

Well they could’ve traded him last year but he didn’t ask for a trade. And they were never getting the kings ransom that they were asking for off essendon. They kept their player because they were in the premiership window unless a club was willing to pay extreme overs, it was the right call. The deal will get done today.

I'd rather have had someone in the club for the last 2 years, already used to the system instead of having to start next season.

To each their own though, please go address my Tippa post in the Menzies thread.

 

[doug85]

He asked for a trade despite being contracted now, why would a couple of extra years have stopped him from still doing so?

I literally just answered that. I don’t know if you’re being serious

 

[andleanback]

I'd rather have had someone in the club for the last 2 years, already used to the system instead of having to start next season.

To each their own though, please go address my Tippa post in the Menzies thread.

Yeah but essendon we’re going to give up what the dogs were asking for so your point is mute. The deal was never getting done. After the last year the dogs probably thought he’d sign long term with the club seemingly back in the window. Look what happened with Papley wanted to leave, now he’s signed long term. You’ve sometimes got to back in your club to change the players mind.

 

[boncer34]

Yeah but essendon we’re going to give up what the dogs were asking for so your point is mute. The deal was never getting done. After the last year the dogs probably thought he’d sign long term with the club seemingly back in the window. Look what happened with Papley wanted to leave, now he’s signed long term. You’ve sometimes got to back in your club to change the players mind.

My whole point though is the Dogs should've accepted the deal.

 

[andleanback]

My whole point though is the Dogs should've accepted the deal.

What deal is that?

 

[eth-dog]

does it remain protected though?
AFL tends to see teams just hitting the bottom stay there for a bit. How long do the Roos wait for their pick?

i dont mind the idea of opening up a nominated 3-4 year period where a club says it going to trade hard for a flag. And they are unrestricted in that respect, but then after the period, they need to take minimum # of 1st & 2nd rd picks.

Just don't think clubs should be rewarded with the protection. i.e. Pies last year

Less protected year on year. So let's say next year's pick is top 10 protected, the following year top 4 protected, the year after not protected.

 

[boncer34]

What deal is that?

Our deal. I'm saying their expectations for Dunkley at the time were to high, they should've lowered them, taken our deal and in the long run they'd be better off.

Exactly what North have done here with JHF, which I believe they'd have done whether or not he had 1 or 3 years left on his contract.

 

[citizen-erased]

Less protected year on year. So let's say next year's pick is top 10 protected, the following year top 4 protected, the year after not protected.

that makes more sense.