Recruiting AFL Trade & Free Agency XII - 💰💰💰

[Lore]

Quick links: Player Contract Status | Draft Watch 2023 | AFLW Draft, Trade & Sign

The embedded resources below are kept up to date by the trade board mods (as much as possible – we are human after all). Enjoy!

Spoiler: 2024 Draft Order

 

[faible]

Lucky? Or they maybe knew for 18 years that it was the daicos draft?

Not sure they'd 'planned' to have a completely ****ed salary cap.

 

[Zach Package]

These mature agers or 17yr old kids?

Young ish mature agers, Toner and McLennan are 23 and Grey is maybe a little bit younger

 

[Zach Package]

Didn't Collingwood completely **** their salary cap, have no choice but to offload the guys on big contracts including throwing in draft picks, and just get extremely lucky that it was the Nick Daicos draft?

Grundy, Treloar, Stephenson lost for basically peanuts after significant investments, top 3 pick burnt to nothing.

Their success has been remarkable given they have lurched from calamity to calamity.

 

[faible]

Grundy, Treloar, Stephenson lost for basically peanuts after significant investments, top 3 pick burnt to nothing.

Their success has been remarkable given they have lurched from calamity to calamity.

They rolled out the 4th oldest list of all time on average across this season. They were fortunate they still had most of their core from the lost GF, then got Nick Daicos to cover up the shitshow of that offseason, and capitalised in a fairly weak season to win a granny.

Not sure it's really an example to emulate. Sydney or Geelong are the gold standard for football program management IMO.

 

[Milanista28]

As good as it is to have access to a top NGA like Kako, it's also a little annoying that we can't load up on mid range picks without them getting swallowed up when the bid comes in.

If I could I would try take 8-10 players in this draft.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

Didn't Collingwood completely **** their salary cap, have no choice but to offload the guys on big contracts including throwing in draft picks, and just get extremely lucky that it was the Nick Daicos draft?

My point isn’t that our situations are that alike.

My point is that they had players who they had seen as valuable, and they weren't afraid to move them on because they were ultimately surplus to their premiership-competitive list. They took the tough decision and did it.

They didn’t have to. They absolutely could’ve kept Grundy and Treloar. It would’ve cost them other players. Essendon would never have traded them. We’re too petrified of looking silly.

Both Grundy and Treloar have played some great footy this year. Collingwood and their supporters don’t give two shits and nor should they.

It’s not about collecting as many good players as possible, guys who might’ve had one or two great seasons at some point. It’s about building a list that can challenge for the flag with the tools available.

We need to be more ruthless with our list as a whole. I couldn’t tell you the last time we traded a half-reasonable player who hadn’t demanded to be traded. We’re too scared to - we collect players instead of building a list overall.

 

[donlav99]

I'd love to get rid of Laverde but he's contracted to the end of 2025. Not sure who's brilliant idea it was to re-sign him to a 3 year deal in 2022 but I guess there was a vacuum between Rutten's departure and Scott's arrival where players were getting ridiculous contracts like they were in a Oprah audience.

He's welcome to see out his contract in the VFL.

 

[ant555]

Didn't Collingwood completely **** their salary cap, have no choice but to offload the guys on big contracts including throwing in draft picks, and just get extremely lucky that it was the Nick Daicos draft?

Everyone sort of knew that Nick was coming three years out.

 

[ant555]

Not sure they'd 'planned' to have a completely ****ed salary cap.

No Ned Guy did that but the plan was all in for 2018.

 

[Nifft]

My point isn’t that our situations are that alike.

My point is that they had players who they had seen as valuable, and they weren't afraid to move them on because they were ultimately surplus to their premiership-competitive list. They took the tough decision and did it.

They didn’t have to. They absolutely could’ve kept Grundy and Treloar. It would’ve cost them other players. Essendon would never have traded them. We’re too petrified of looking silly.

Both Grundy and Treloar have played some great footy this year. Collingwood and their supporters don’t give two shits and nor should they.

It’s not about collecting as many good players as possible, guys who might’ve had one or two great seasons at some point. It’s about building a list that can challenge for the flag with the tools available.

We need to be more ruthless with our list as a whole. I couldn’t tell you the last time we traded a half-reasonable player who hadn’t demanded to be traded. We’re too scared to - we collect players instead of building a list overall.

Not just building a list, but building a balanced list. When was the last time we could say that our list was fairly well balanced? We always seem to have too much or not enough of something.

I agree at some stage we'll need to make list decisions that might be polarizing with the supporters. Otherwise we'll never be successful.

 

[faible]

My point isn’t that our situations are that alike.

My point is that they had players who they had seen as valuable, and they weren't afraid to move them on because they were ultimately surplus to their premiership-competitive list. They took the tough decision and did it.

They didn’t have to. They absolutely could’ve kept Grundy and Treloar. It would’ve cost them other players. Essendon would never have traded them. We’re too petrified of looking silly.

Both Grundy and Treloar have played some great footy this year. Collingwood and their supporters don’t give two shits and nor should they.

It’s not about collecting as many good players as possible, guys who might’ve had one or two great seasons at some point. It’s about building a list that can challenge for the flag with the tools available.

We need to be more ruthless with our list as a whole. I couldn’t tell you the last time we traded a half-reasonable player who hadn’t demanded to be traded. We’re too scared to - we collect players instead of building a list overall.

I think my point is, that you're assuming it was 'making the tough decision' versus 'we've ****ed our salary cap and need to offload our highest priced players' then immediately firing their list manager.

Says to me it was more luck than design on that front.

I don't disagree that we need to be better at building a balanced list, not just collecting the best guys possible.

 

[Vindicater]

So when do the player meetings begin.

When we seeing some

 

[Westlo]

Can we please stop citing Collingwood as something to emulate, yeah they won a flag but they've probably cost themselves another 2-3 by not having Callaghan and someone like Lalor/Langford to pair with Daicos for the next decade.

They got KOD by getting Daisy and Pendlebury while the year after we had to settle for Gumbleton and Jetta instead of Gumbleton and Boak/Selwood. If Collingwood had to pick Dempsey at the end of round 1 to pair with Daisy instead of Pendles they'll still be on 14 flags.

They also had an amazing draft in 2014 with De Geoy, Moore, Maynard and Cox which is something we haven't done and their "hard cuts" had **** all to do with. They won a flag because they had the core of a 2nd place side still intact, Grundy to Cameron was not a step back, Daicos is generational and they got lucky with Bobby Hill because Dodo was a cheapskate the year before.

 

[Old Campaigner]

This week some time I’d imagine

 

[Rick Ross]

So when do the player meetings begin.

When we seeing some

Those dainty kids scissors won’t do.
This is more a situation.

 

[cAsEy_18]

The thing that people probably think is common sense but people maybe undervalue is how much a coaches game plan and recruiting is linked. But in particular how much the impact of us consistently changing coaches has had an affect on this.

Any coach can have any game plan they like. But if they don't have the cattle to do it, then you're not getting anywhere.

We play a contested, territory based game. Why? Because that's what best covers the weaknesses of our team. We can't replicate Hawthorn for example because we don't have the pace or the skills to do so. We can't play a defensive transition game because overall we can't kick the footy.

So a new coach comes in and has to adapt a game plan to suit what the current list's strengths/weaknesses are. The idea would then be gradually to improve this team, and in turn game style, through recruitment that aligns. Except we haven't given a coach a long enough run at it to do this.

This is why it feels like we've been doing the same thing and performing the same way for a very long time. Because essentially, we are. The list we've got, in terms of balance, in terms of skillset, is wildly unbalanced for the way the modern game is played.

I don't know if Brad Scott is the guy. I like him. I don't love him. But we need to back someone in for a significant period of time. This isn't a "Okay Brad, you've had 2 years, we need to see significant improvements in Year 3." It's not that simple. Yes I have disagreed, like everyone has, with certain team selections throughout the year. You will regardless of who the coach is. But we need to back someone in to stay the course. We need Brad to have his full 6-year run (Fairly sure that's what he initially signed?) Appreciate that this is not a quick fix situation.

 

[Rick Ross]

The thing that people probably think is common sense but people maybe undervalue is how much a coaches game plan and recruiting is linked. But in particular how much the impact of us consistently changing coaches has had an affect on this.

Any coach can have any game plan they like. But if they don't have the cattle to do it, then you're not getting anywhere.

We play a contested, territory based game. Why? Because that's what best covers the weaknesses of our team. We can't replicate Hawthorn for example because we don't have the pace or the skills to do so. We can't play a defensive transition game because overall we can't kick the footy.

So a new coach comes in and has to adapt a game plan to suit what the current list's strengths/weaknesses are. The idea would then be gradually to improve this team, and in turn game style, through recruitment that aligns. Except we haven't given a coach a long enough run at it to do this.

This is why it feels like we've been doing the same thing and performing the same way for a very long time. Because essentially, we are. The list we've got, in terms of balance, in terms of skillset, is wildly unbalanced for the way the modern game is played.

I don't know if Brad Scott is the guy. I like him. I don't love him. But we need to back someone in for a significant period of time. This isn't a "Okay Brad, you've had 2 years, we need to see significant improvements in Year 3." It's not that simple. Yes I have disagreed, like everyone has, with certain team selections throughout the year. You will regardless of who the coach is. But we need to back someone in to stay the course. We need Brad to have his full 6-year run (Fairly sure that's what he initially signed?) Appreciate that this is not a quick fix situation

Very well put.

I’d add that whilst trying to establish coach’s game plan he has focused on player development a bit more than a resultist* would have.




*Ok, I’m hoping that the case and his playing players out side of the natural positions isn’t just naive.

 

[Nifft]

Those dainty kids scissors won’t do.
This is more a situation.

 

[P Money]

The thing that people probably think is common sense but people maybe undervalue is how much a coaches game plan and recruiting is linked. But in particular how much the impact of us consistently changing coaches has had an affect on this.

Any coach can have any game plan they like. But if they don't have the cattle to do it, then you're not getting anywhere.

We play a contested, territory based game. Why? Because that's what best covers the weaknesses of our team. We can't replicate Hawthorn for example because we don't have the pace or the skills to do so. We can't play a defensive transition game because overall we can't kick the footy.

So a new coach comes in and has to adapt a game plan to suit what the current list's strengths/weaknesses are. The idea would then be gradually to improve this team, and in turn game style, through recruitment that aligns. Except we haven't given a coach a long enough run at it to do this.

This is why it feels like we've been doing the same thing and performing the same way for a very long time. Because essentially, we are. The list we've got, in terms of balance, in terms of skillset, is wildly unbalanced for the way the modern game is played.

I don't know if Brad Scott is the guy. I like him. I don't love him. But we need to back someone in for a significant period of time. This isn't a "Okay Brad, you've had 2 years, we need to see significant improvements in Year 3." It's not that simple. Yes I have disagreed, like everyone has, with certain team selections throughout the year. You will regardless of who the coach is. But we need to back someone in to stay the course. We need Brad to have his full 6-year run (Fairly sure that's what he initially signed?) Appreciate that this is not a quick fix situation.

Well said. 100% agree.

 

[Milanista28]

Over the next 3 drafts there will be 120 top 40 selections, tell me why trying to bring 20-25 of them is the wrong play?

If we went down this path we could draft with a genuine plan, a specific model in mind, we will generate 8 of these selections just by finishing low on the ladder. (we traded our 2024 3rd last year)

I think we should do what we can to generate another 10-15 top 40 selections over the next 3 drafts and really commit to a new build.

My idea would bring low finishes and sub 6 win seasons but it doesn't frighten me at all, I'm terrified of 10-12 win seasons.

Let Scott genuinely build what he wants?

 

[gillon]

The thing that people probably think is common sense but people maybe undervalue is how much a coaches game plan and recruiting is linked. But in particular how much the impact of us consistently changing coaches has had an affect on this.

Any coach can have any game plan they like. But if they don't have the cattle to do it, then you're not getting anywhere.

We play a contested, territory based game. Why? Because that's what best covers the weaknesses of our team. We can't replicate Hawthorn for example because we don't have the pace or the skills to do so. We can't play a defensive transition game because overall we can't kick the footy.

So a new coach comes in and has to adapt a game plan to suit what the current list's strengths/weaknesses are. The idea would then be gradually to improve this team, and in turn game style, through recruitment that aligns. Except we haven't given a coach a long enough run at it to do this.

This is why it feels like we've been doing the same thing and performing the same way for a very long time. Because essentially, we are. The list we've got, in terms of balance, in terms of skillset, is wildly unbalanced for the way the modern game is played.

I don't know if Brad Scott is the guy. I like him. I don't love him. But we need to back someone in for a significant period of time. This isn't a "Okay Brad, you've had 2 years, we need to see significant improvements in Year 3." It's not that simple. Yes I have disagreed, like everyone has, with certain team selections throughout the year. You will regardless of who the coach is. But we need to back someone in to stay the course. We need Brad to have his full 6-year run (Fairly sure that's what he initially signed?) Appreciate that this is not a quick fix situation.

I don’t disagree with much of your post, but there is no coach that deserves 6 years unconditionally. You can’t just back em in and leave it be for the whole contract, there needs to be signs of growth. There has been in some instances as well. But if we end next year bottom 4 percentage, outside the 8 and have all the same issues, questions will rightly be asked.

 

[Bjchan13]

The logjams we have are in the midfield and medium/ 3rd tall forward.

We dont have enough small lockdown defenders or verstitle half back ball users.

I dont like Cox or Jones on the wing. They need to train KPP (pick an end) over summer and stick to it.

 

[yodellinhank]

As good as it is to have access to a top NGA like Kako, it's also a little annoying that we can't load up on mid range picks without them getting swallowed up when the bid comes in.

If I could I would try take 8-10 players in this draft.

People get all hung up on this like they are Adrian Dodoro scamming a bargain. Who cares?

All the points correlate to a discounted draft position. Now that you need as many picks as the points you plan to spend I don't see why it's so much greater to scam a discount on some kid and fist bump that you cleverly tossed out some 3rd rounders and then have to scrape a few dregs off the bottom of the barrell rather than just have one pick swallowed up at commensurate value to some kid you planned to take and all the rest of your picks are a bit earlier.

 

[joey_jo_jo]

it may have been different circumstances that lead to Collingwood letting Grundy/Treloar/Stephenson walk but the takeaway is that you need to be bold to get results.
Can you imagine Dodoro every admitting he had stuffed things up and letting a former AA ruckmen walk whilst still contracted?
As Bruno just illustrated in the Brad Scott thread the guys that are out of contract are mainly fringe guys. Letting them walk is just tinkering around the edges, hell even trading Shiel like most are suggesting isnt netting us much.

For genuine change we need to make some brave calls like the pies did with the three above or Hawks did with Mitchell/JOM.
There are a number of guys still in contract that have proven to be just ok to good players over their journey, they may have had one or two stand out years but have been just ok and/or injured for the most part. Individually they arent terrible but collectively they represent how average our club is. They are in their peak years and get us an ok draft hand, I think we need to test the market and see if there are any takers with these guys.

 

[yodellinhank]

Not having a go Milanista28. I'm dog tired and comprehension isn't so great, you actually seem to be along the same line of thinking as me: I hope we can use a number of decent enough picks.

We're lucky, it seems, they changed the rules back this year for Kako. But all this jumping up and down about trying to manipulate some freebie I don't get. Sure, get ahead of a bid. But if we can use just 1 pick to match then we haven't lost out IMO. We've just got priority access to a talent and took them about where they were rated. It's a bit Dodo to constantly try to construct anything else.