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

 

[Beerfish]

The only thing bottoming out guarantees is losing a shitload of games.

 

[Old Campaigner]

We bottomed out in 2015 and 2016, and look where (and what) it got us.

 

[TheUnicorn]

A lot of soaking in here.

 

[Howard Moon]

A lot of soaking in here.

Napisan for whiter whites?

 

[Vindicater]

Trade period needs to be cut back to three days.

 

[JayJ20]

You keep going

No one is taking Hobbs and pick 9 for pick 1, which is the only way you can guarantee Lalor

Still yet to come up with anything, save your time. There is nothing

Focus your energy into praying a bid doesnt come in the top 8

Hobbs has also said he doesnt want to leave

Until a player from the club comes out and says theyre exploring options i dont want to see these stupid unrealistic hypotheticals. Stringer, Shiel, Lav is it

This is a trade discussion thread and I've provided three different scenarios and not just Hobbs. Also, I clearly said in my posts that it doesn't have to be Lalor so I don't know where you're getting pick 1 from. The point is trade up and avoid a bid so we can make two selections.

Do I always have to say "if Hobbs is ok with leaving. If Wright is ok with leaving".

If you don't want to see "stupid unrealistic hypotheticals", then the trade thread is not for you.

 

[rusman]

Given Hobbs is a totally different player I fail to see how Parish make him redundant. If you selling Hobbs as no longer needed then it is Caldwell and Durham who are blocking him. Of course Merrett and Parish could also play other roles and if Parish cops another year like the last two we can easily move him out for cheap and pay some of his wage.

Different players. But do you think hobbs could play greshams role. By that I mean the hf that rolls upto the stoppages.

 

[Gumby2Hurley]

Haven't really followed the draft closely since the Parish Francis & McGrath (not drafting the goalkicking mid in McCluggage still piss me off) drafts. How does Kako compare to other fwds drafted early like Ainsworth, Higgins, Rankine, Henry, Pickett, Weightman, Rachele, Jones, Watson and our own Davey twins?

 

[ant555]

It's not that Parish and Hobbs are exactly the same player, but it's that Parish along with the others will keep Hobbs out of the midfield especially if we start playing Tsatas at AFL level. I think Tsatas has the higher ceiling so I prefer to trade Hobbs so we can get ahead of a bid and recruit a player like Lalor. End result is that we have two top 10 picks (if Kako is bid on in the top 10) and our future first next year for a player that will most likely be clear cut best 22 moving forward.

We need to be more aggressive in turning over and balancing our list and I think this is a fairly simple way of doing so.

This is based on the side staying the same this as this year. Which never happens. Merrett has already spoken about playing different roles next year. They can mix things up. Merret can play attacking half back. Parish can play forward / midfield. Shiel may be surplus. Then there is injury. Parish has had several long soft tissue lay offs in the last two years.

Hobbs is one of our best GBG players. They like him so much that they are willing to use him as a forward despite his outside game not being strong. There is being aggressive and then there is giving away a bloke who has shown he can play and for what ? so we can draft another young midfielder ? That is if someone is offering a top 10 pick for Hobbs which would not be happening. If he is considered surplus to requirements then he is brining in a second round pick and not a top 10 pick. I rate Hobbs and personally I do not think he is getting you any better than a very late first round. Any pick you get for Hobbs will just get eaten up by a Kako bid even if the bid comes after 9. You would need to be trading him for a future pick.
He was pick 14. He has shown he can play a bit but is not an A grade commodity. He is a workhorse competitor . He does not give us a pick before pick 9 material.
So people blow up when we give away Mass as his kicking skills are what we need but we can give up a genuine hard at it competitor as we have so many of them.
Just does not work for me. Understand your angle but personally I do not see it as the way to go.

 

[ant555]

Different players. But do you think hobbs could play greshams role. By that I mean the hf that rolls upto the stoppages.

Hobbs lacks the outside skill set to do it. Parish would be better in that role if you are going to swap it out.

 

[ant555]

Haven't really followed the draft closely since the Parish Francis & McGrath (not drafting the goalkicking mid in McCluggage still piss me off) drafts. How does Kako compare to other fwds drafted early like Ainsworth, Higgins, Rankine, Henry, Pickett, Weightman, Rachele, Jones, Watson and our own Davey twins?

Kako is a lot harder at the contest than the Davey boys. Not as quick as them but does have a bit of X factor in his play. Has had games where he has kicked at goal like an old mule. His biggest plus is he attacks the footy flat out and makes stuff happen.

 

[ant555]

"However, Nine’s Tom Morris reports the Eagles are in favour of ‘bolstering’ their 2025 hand, with the Hawks now holding four picks over the first two rounds of next year’s count."

Guess not every club is selling the farm to be in this years draft.

 

[MiguelM]

This is based on the side staying the same this as this year. Which never happens. Merrett has already spoken about playing different roles next year. They can mix things up. Merret can play attacking half back. Parish can play forward / midfield. Shiel may be surplus. Then there is injury. Parish has had several long soft tissue lay offs in the last two years.

Hobbs is one of our best GBG players. They like him so much that they are willing to use him as a forward despite his outside game not being strong. There is being aggressive and then there is giving away a bloke who has shown he can play and for what ? so we can draft another young midfielder ? That is if someone is offering a top 10 pick for Hobbs which would not be happening. If he is considered surplus to requirements then he is brining in a second round pick and not a top 10 pick. I rate Hobbs and personally I do not think he is getting you any better than a very late first round. Any pick you get for Hobbs will just get eaten up by a Kako bid even if the bid comes after 9. You would need to be trading him for a future pick.
He was pick 14. He has shown he can play a bit but is not an A grade commodity. He is a workhorse competitor . He is not give us a pick before pick 9 material.
So people blow up when we give away Mass as his kicking skills are what we need but we can give up a genuine hard at it competitor as we have so many of them.
Just does not work for me. Understand your angle but personally I do not see it as the way to go.

One thing with Hobbs is he is a very good mark for his size, so can get a mismatch if has stints forward.

Parish/Hobbs could swap forward/midfield to change things up a bit.

 

[JayJ20]

This is based on the side staying the same this as this year. Which never happens. Merrett has already spoken about playing different roles next year. They can mix things up. Merret can play attacking half back. Parish can play forward / midfield. Shiel may be surplus. Then there is injury. Parish has had several long soft tissue lay offs in the last two years.

Hobbs is one of our best GBG players. They like him so much that they are willing to use him as a forward despite his outside game not being strong. There is being aggressive and then there is giving away a bloke who has shown he can play and for what ? so we can draft another young midfielder ? That is if someone is offering a top 10 pick for Hobbs which would not be happening. If he is considered surplus to requirements then he is brining in a second round pick and not a top 10 pick. I rate Hobbs and personally I do not think he is getting you any better than a very late first round. Any pick you get for Hobbs will just get eaten up by a Kako bid even if the bid comes after 9. You would need to be trading him for a future pick.
He was pick 14. He has shown he can play a bit but is not an A grade commodity. He is a workhorse competitor . He is not give us a pick before pick 9 material.
So people blow up when we give away Mass as his kicking skills are what we need but we can give up a genuine hard at it competitor as we have so many of them.
Just does not work for me. Understand your angle but personally I do not see it as the way to go.

The hypothetical I mentioned wasn't for a first rounder straight up though. It was to get ahead of a Kako bid plus points for Kako. Though that's tough now as Richmond gave away their picks to Brisbane.

Richmond had some interest in Hobbs so I said:

Richmond give: 6 (that they obtain from the Rioli trade) + 3rd (unlikely now)
Essendon give: 9 + Hobbs

Richmond and St Kilda are our main threats of a Kako bid. That would give us Kako and another first this year while retaining our F1. We could potentially have another 2025 first if Draper decides to leave to Adelaide.

It's not going to happen, but that could have been something we worked towards.

 

[Yoda_]

"However, Nine’s Tom Morris reports the Eagles are in favour of ‘bolstering’ their 2025 hand, with the Hawks now holding four picks over the first two rounds of next year’s count."

Guess not every club is selling the farm to be in this years draft.

have heard a couple of posters suggest 2025 has a "pointier top end bu doesn't bat as deep" or the like.

 

[Keystone agony]

This is a trade discussion thread and I've provided three different scenarios and not just Hobbs. Also, I clearly said in my posts that it doesn't have to be Lalor so I don't know where you're getting pick 1 from. The point is trade up and avoid a bid so we can make two selections.

Do I always have to say "if Hobbs is ok with leaving. If Wright is ok with leaving".

If you don't want to see "stupid unrealistic hypotheticals", then the trade thread is not for you.

No, we need to start an unrealistic trade thread for this

Your saying it like its easy

None of those 3 guys want to leave and all of them are contracted, so its a waste of energy and a waste of energy for the club

Yes you need to say 'if they want out' because it fuels unrealistic expectations among many fans in here with the list management

 

[Keystone agony]

Different players. But do you think hobbs could play greshams role. By that I mean the hf that rolls upto the stoppages.

He already plays that role when hes been playing

 

[JayJ20]

No, we need to start an unrealistic trade thread for this

Your saying it like its easy

None of those 3 guys want to leave and all of them are contracted, so its a waste of energy and a waste of energy for the club

Yes you need to say 'if they want out' because it fuels unrealistic expectations among many fans in here with the list management

You're making it seem like my suggestion was trading Stringer for 2 firsts. That is unrealistic. I don't think my hypotheticals are unrealistic and unreasonable at least from a value perspective. And it's also not unrealistic to trade players that have been stuck in the twos or played as a sub.

I'm just discussing the type of list management decisions the club could have made to take the more aggressive approach they promised to take.

"Essendon coach Brad Scott says “everything is on the table” when it comes to list management decisions after a failed 2024 campaign with confirmation champion and former captain Dyson Heppell will get the farewell game fans wanted after the “gut-wrenching decision” to leave him out of last week’s final game in Melbourne."

Apparently we're supposed to believe trading a contracted Stringer for a token pick is "everything on the table" when its not.

 

[Keystone agony]

"However, Nine’s Tom Morris reports the Eagles are in favour of ‘bolstering’ their 2025 hand, with the Hawks now holding four picks over the first two rounds of next year’s count."

Guess not every club is selling the farm to be in this years draft.

Tbf eagles dont have an option but to say that now, i wonder if theyre having a play for Warner with that mindset

I think this draft and how its rated is getting a bit murky

The way i see it

The top few isnt anything amazing compared to recent years, in fact average. There is probably another couple after that, that could be number 1

Clearly clubs seem fairly keen on the 10-14 range. Im not sure i see it, but i havnt seen Hotton justs surprised off an ACL

Thats the Travaglia, Berry, Hotton, Lindsay sortve range

Then i think its pretty deep from the 20-50/60 range

 

[ant555]

The hypothetical I mentioned wasn't for a first rounder straight up though. It was to get ahead of a Kako bid plus points for Kako. Though that's tough now as Richmond gave away their picks to Brisbane.

Richmond had some interest in Hobbs so I said:

Richmond give: 6 (that they obtain from the Rioli trade) + 3rd (unlikely now)
Essendon give: 9 + Hobbs

Richmond and St Kilda are our main threats of a Kako bid. That would give us Kako and another first this year while retaining our F1. We could potentially have another 2025 first if Draper decides to leave to Adelaide.

It's not going to happen, but that could have been something we worked towards.

Great in theory . Although in saying that are the Tigers looking for another inside midfielder ?
I can understand the Pies interest as Hobbs would fit in their side.
Anyway that is not just unlikely it will not happen as Richmond has just landed pick No.20 from the Lions in exchange for two second-round picks (No.32 and 42) and two third-round picks (No.43 and 45).

 

[Yoda_]

Great in theory . Although in saying that are the Tigers looking for another inside midfielder ?
I can understand the Pies interest as Hobbs would fit in their side.
Anyway that is not just unlikely it will not happen as Richmond has just landed pick No.20 from the Lions in exchange for two second-round picks (No.32 and 42) and two third-round picks (No.43 and 45).

We should have been in on doing something similar in hindsight. Move our pick 31 for a whole bunch of junk picks like this.

Rosa on record we're wanting 3 - 4 so those would be 'live' selections anyways

 

[Keystone agony]

You're making it seem like my suggestion was trading Stringer for 2 firsts. That is unrealistic. I don't think my hypotheticals are unrealistic and unreasonable at least from a value perspective. And it's also not unrealistic to trade players that have been stuck in the twos or played as a sub.

I'm just discussing the type of list management decisions the club could have made to take the more aggressive approach they promised to take.

"Essendon coach Brad Scott says “everything is on the table” when it comes to list management decisions after a failed 2024 campaign with confirmation champion and former captain Dyson Heppell will get the farewell game fans wanted after the “gut-wrenching decision” to leave him out of last week’s final game in Melbourne."

Apparently we're supposed to believe trading a contracted Stringer for a token pick is "everything on the table" when its not.

You guys take too much of what the club says as gospel and take it the wrong way

That still requires players wanting to leave or not being contracted

Its unrealistic because it cant be done

 

[Keystone agony]

We should have been in on doing something similar in hindsight. Move our pick 31 for a whole bunch of junk picks like this.

Rosa on record we're wanting 3 - 4 so those would be 'live' selections anyways

They will come from a combination of Stringer, Shiel, Lav

 

[ant555]

You're making it seem like my suggestion was trading Stringer for 2 firsts. That is unrealistic. I don't think my hypotheticals are unrealistic and unreasonable at least from a value perspective. And it's also not unrealistic to trade players that have been stuck in the twos or played as a sub.

I'm just discussing the type of list management decisions the club could have made to take the more aggressive approach they promised to take.

"Essendon coach Brad Scott says “everything is on the table” when it comes to list management decisions after a failed 2024 campaign with confirmation champion and former captain Dyson Heppell will get the farewell game fans wanted after the “gut-wrenching decision” to leave him out of last week’s final game in Melbourne."

Apparently we're supposed to believe trading a contracted Stringer for a token pick is "everything on the table" when its not.

You can use the Scott quote but it does not matter if he says everything is on the table as 1) players have to want to leave and 2) another club wants to pay for what we have. We do not know how aggressive they have been as we do not know what conversations they have had with our players and their managers or exactly what enquires we have had. It is just standard talk for we will do what we can. You can not really take comments in the press literally. Sott can say everything is on the table. Then Rosa says well this is what we can actually put on the table. That is why I said it will be a quiet trade period months ago.

 

[The Donners]

What were you saying at Round 17 when we were 4th on the ladder?

Worst team ever in AFL history to be top 4 after round 17. I was at the Geelong game in round 16 and that was indicative of where we were at.