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

 

[JayJ20]

Let's say all of Shiel, Stringer, Parish, Laverde, Weideman, Draper and Setterfield are no longer at the club next year along with all the others already gone (with perhaps Baldwin the exception). We add Rosas, Dante Visentini (still a fan of his) and Josh Sinn as well as a bunch of first year players. That would equate to over 1,400 games of experience lost. Our average games played would drop to 53.

Not saying anything either way but that's what the reality of the situation is

I'm fine with keeping Stringer, Laverde, Draper and Setterfield. If Stringer and Laverde get a better deal elsewhere, then I'm not opposed to them leaving, but I do see them as required players at this stage. We won't get much for them in return so there's no pressing need to trade them. In Laverde's case, I also worry about our back line being injury prone (McKay's history, Ridley, Reid).

Parish and Shiel to be traded. If we're committing to Tsatas and Hobbs going forward, then we'll need to start playing them in their positions at AFL level. Otherwise they'll be stuck playing VFL or out of position. But it doesn't seem like we'll be able to trade Parish and Shiel so it's unlikely that they leave.

If we trade Parish and Shiel, it probably means a bottom 4 finish given that we'll likely have injuries, but I think it's necessary for us to obtain top end talent as our list really lacks that star power at the moment.

 

[Snake Charmer]

Ash Johnson interest anyone else??

 

[Skipper_]

Ash Johnson interest anyone else??

He is even more soft and uncompetitive than Wright,

 

[Foxx]

We need 5 young outside linkup runners. That's what Hawthorn are full of. And that's what all the new rules support.
The stand rule, 666, 20m gain kick ins, holding the ball attempt to dispose etc. It all supports OUTSIDE run.

We need a whole bunch of outside runners, who can push up and back.
Trade anybody in our team who can't do that. Barring key positions.

 

[iDon]

Look at how solid Zerk-Thatcher has looked for Port and how poor McKay looked at times for us this year.

All Australian might be a bridge too far, but I have no doubt Laverde will look a whole of a lot better in a system that isn't as poor as ours is at times.

Zerk is a liability and in no way has he been better at Port.

 

[The Dustbin]

If Stringer and Laverde get a better deal elsewhere, then I'm not opposed to them leaving, but I do see them as required players at this stage. We won't get much for them in return so there's no pressing need to trade them. In Laverde's case, I also worry about our back line being injury prone (McKay's history, Ridley, Reid).

Pick 100 for Laverde is overs and fine.

This whole mindset of Laverde is backup for our defence, if he leaves it will expose us...
Please, it may actually open the door for someone? Hundreds of examples where players have come in and performed at a higher level and exceeded expectations than their predecessor/s who have left.

Don't worry the backline will be fine without Laverde short and long term.

 

[naraku]

I've read Ladhams might leave Sydney with lack of opportunities.

Would he be worth taking a look at?

 

[faible]

Pick 100 for Laverde is overs and fine.

This whole mindset of Laverde is backup for our defence, if he leaves it will expose us...
Please, it may actually open the door for someone? Hundreds of examples where players have come in and performed at a higher level and exceeded expectations than their predecessor/s who have left.

Don't worry the backline will be fine without Laverde short and long term.

Kelly and Heppell gone.

Our tall backline consists of;

McKay - Reid (inj) - Ridley (inj) with Lewis Hayes (young KPP yet to debut) for backup and/or Sam Weideman.

It's an exceedingly poor take to suggest Laverde wouldn't provide useful depth.

 

[The Dustbin]

Kelly and Heppell gone.

Our tall backline consists of;

McKay - Reid (inj) - Ridley (inj) with Lewis Hayes (young KPP yet to debut) for backup and/or Sam Weideman.

It's an exceedingly poor take to suggest Laverde wouldn't provide useful depth.

Kelly and Heppell are not key position players.

Laverde can provide depth in the reserves for the last year of his contract, he is not up to the level of AFL.
Otherwise, I would have no issue if he left on his own accord or he was delisted.

We should be looking to upgrade (which isn't hard) from Laverde e.g. Leek Aleer. But you would probably prefer Laverde over Aleer.

 

[katana]

there's also those two 200cm wingman... one of them could stand a forward if it really came down to the other three being injured.

 

[faible]

Kelly and Heppell are not key position players.

Laverde can provide depth in the reserves for the last year of his contract, he is not up to the level of AFL.
Otherwise, I would have no issue if he left on his own accord or he was delisted.

We should be looking to upgrade (which isn't hard) from Laverde e.g. Leek Aleer. But you would probably prefer Laverde over Aleer.

Seems to me like you've lost it here mate, the bolded is especially weird.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Let's say all of Shiel, Stringer, Parish, Laverde, Weideman, Draper and Setterfield are no longer at the club next year along with all the others already gone (with perhaps Baldwin the exception). We add Rosas, Dante Visentini (still a fan of his) and Josh Sinn as well as a bunch of first year players. That would equate to over 1,400 games of experience lost. Our average games played would drop to 53.

Not saying anything either way but that's what the reality of the situation is

And probably get a top 3 draft pick if we got rid of all those players. Don’t think there will be much FA quality coming in

 

[Wahooti Fandango]

We are going to be very young next year with Heppell, Hind and Kelly departing and Stringer, Laverde, Goldstein potentially going as well.

That is potentially 6 of the top 8 oldest players on the list this year gone.

 

[Call Me Cake]

I would give a club our future 3rd to take Lav away from us.

 

[Snake Charmer]

He is even more soft and uncompetitive than Wright,

Flys for marks. Unlike any of our forward other than Draper

 

[rusman]

Let's say all of Shiel, Stringer, Parish, Laverde, Weideman, Draper and Setterfield are no longer at the club next year along with all the others already gone (with perhaps Baldwin the exception). We add Rosas, Dante Visentini (still a fan of his) and Josh Sinn as well as a bunch of first year players. That would equate to over 1,400 games of experience lost. Our average games played would drop to 53.

Not saying anything either way but that's what the reality of the situation is

Has parish been mentioned anywhere for trade?

 

[faible]

Has parish been mentioned anywhere for trade?

I've seen rumblings on both the Port board and Trade board

 

[yodellinhank]

What would be the pros and cons of a Parish trade?

 

[Rick Ross]

What would be the pros and cons of a Parish trade?

Do you want me to calculate the impact on goals kicked? Could add impact on oppo goals kicked too…

 

[bombreys]

Look at how solid Zerk-Thatcher has looked for Port and how poor McKay looked at times for us this year.

All Australian might be a bridge too far, but I have no doubt Laverde will look a whole of a lot better in a system that isn't as poor as ours is at times.

BZT has only been okay.

Laverde could be a solid enough mid-sized defender, but is ideally depth. At any club. He is not, in any lifetime, getting anywhere near AA.

 

[Duckworth]

Goldy is contracted

But yeh agree, its a refresh/rebuild. These older guys didnt get the job done, not much point keeping them when younger guys can achieve a similar ball park result next year

Where did you read that he was contracted?

 

[jdstorm]

What would be the pros and cons of a Parish trade?

Pros get a good (ish asset) future asset and open up opportunities for Hobbs in your best 22.

Cons: Hobbs doesn’t live up to draft position and have lost a significant/ contested player

 

[FootyGuru]

Showing my bias but I don’t think parish playing style is conducive to winning finals and he needs a major midfield role to contribute.

I also think we should be open to a nick Bryan trade, I much prefer bash and crash marking ruckman than the extra midfielder type that Bryan projects as.

But other than a couple (caddy, Martin Durham) we should be open to moving anyone provided it opens up opportunities for a younger player and it gets us draft compensation

 

[eth-dog]

What would be the pros and cons of a Parish trade?

Pros: we actually get a chance to balance the midfield
Cons: Parish apologists will whinge about it until he retires

 

[MarkJohnson#1]

Pros get a good (ish asset) future asset and open up opportunities for Hobbs in your best 22.

Cons: Hobbs doesn’t live up to draft position and have lost a significant/ contested player

Hmm significant contested player is a stretch