Recruiting AFL Trade & Free Agency XII - đź’°đź’°đź’°

Remove this Banner Ad

Vindicater said:
I do feel sorry for Zach.

If somehow Reid does want to come to us then I would not be upset trading Zach to a contender for more draft collateral for Harley.

He deserves to at least win one final.
Click to expand...
Cool your jets

Something is telling me he could play for another 8 years

Not a guy I would be releasing out of sympathy
 

Log in to remove this ad.

yodellinhank said:
Is the 3 years on top of the 8, or instead of?
Click to expand...
It is the second part. First part. Wait 2 years. Second part try and fix over 3 years. Third part player development. Final part. Finals or add another plan :thumbsu:
 
I know alot of what vozzo and Rosa are saying are just plain facts and I have been saying as much as anyone our list in poor shape/needs a rehaul but I don't blame any fan for wanting to tear their hair out with frustration reading that and I think we deserve all the derision we get from the rest of the Comp, this is basically the third reset since we turfed woosha in 2020. We aren't a serious football club.

These are my main issues:

- if the plan is too bring in a lot of young talent through draft why does our draft hand look so mediocre? I know the answer will be "no one wanted our players" or "any player with high trade currency was contracted and needs to want to leave". Well I think that's a cop out, I've seen numerous examples over the years of stronger clubs basically pushing out guys, with number of years left, out the door, whether through tough exit meetings or shopping them around visibly. It may rub players the wrong way, but who cares this playing group isn't getting us anywhere anyway. It also brings me to my next issue -

- why the actual F werent dodoro and his regime not frog marched out the door when vozzo/Scott came in? It's so Essington to have him moved around the club still having a negative impact and going rogue handing out contracts like Oprah handing out cars. We've wasted three off seasons of the supposed new regime now with one hand not talking to the other because we made tried to tip toe around off field political issues.

I thought Scott and vozzo were meant to be agents of change, and I still hold out hope that long term this will be case. But I need to see more tangible changes to continue to hold faith.
 
joey_jo_jo said:
I know alot of what vozzo and Rosa are saying are just plain facts and I have been saying as much as anyone our list in poor shape/needs a rehaul but I don't blame any fan for wanting to tear their hair out with frustration reading that and I think we deserve all the derision we get from the rest of the Comp, this is basically the third reset since we turfed woosha in 2020. We aren't a serious football club.

These are my main issues:

- if the plan is too bring in a lot of young talent through draft why does our draft hand look so mediocre? I know the answer will be "no one wanted our players" or "any player with high trade currency was contracted and needs to want to leave". Well I think that's a cop out, I've seen numerous examples over the years of stronger clubs basically pushing out guys, with number of years left, out the door, whether through tough exit meetings or shopping them around visibly. It may rub players the wrong way, but who cares this playing group isn't getting us anywhere anyway. It also brings me to my next issue -

- why the actual F werent dodoro and his regime not frog marched out the door when vozzo/Scott came in? It's so Essington to have him moved around the club still having a negative impact and going rogue handing out contracts like Oprah handing out cars. We've wasted three off seasons of the supposed new regime now with one hand not talking to the other because we made tried to tip toe around off field political issues.

I thought Scott and vozzo were meant to be agents of change, and I still hold out hope that long term this will be case. But I need to see more tangible changes to continue to hold faith.
Click to expand...

Yeah I’m on board with this. If the focus is the draft as they say, it feels like we weren’t nearly aggressive enough. I know plenty of people are saying “well nobody wants our players” but that doesn’t really ring true. Why aren’t the likes of Parish and Redman etc told they may be better off elsewhere if we can get a trade for decent picks.

Look maybe they did do it and have kept it all very quiet, but it’s hard to imagine that’s the case in the AFL which is one giant media leak.

They’re openly saying “we need to hit the draft” but the only player we deal for picks is Stringer for 53?

I look at Kennedy for Carlton - under contract, played every game, won “best clubman” or wherever… told you’re not in our plans and look elsewhere, traded to the Dogs.



- and just btw on your other point, I think the answer is simply a frogmarching would’ve seen a board spill, probably Sheedy or some other goose as president, and off we go again. Any political machine that is in place for this long clearly has a lot of support and tentacles everywhere, and wouldn’t be easy to dislodge.

I think Barham has done plenty wrong but at this stage you need to give him credit here, yes it’s taken some time but he appears to have negotiated the required change - which nobody else could do in 20 years.
 
I keep hearing why did we not shop around Parish or Redman to get better draft equity. First they have to want to go. Second you can not shop around a player with 5 years left on decent money and expect a premium return. Sure we could offer up Parish but personally I doubt we get more than a second round pick and still be paying some of his wage. In all honesty there is one bloke on the list that would give us a top 5 pick in return. Zack Merrett. Guys like Martin or Caldwell or Durham maybe get you a pick in the 10 to 20 range. Parish and Redman second round with their contract length. McGrath not in the top 20. Wright a Coles brand packet of chips. Cox or Read not in the top 25 picks. Perkins maybe early second. Hobbs not in the top 20. Bryan not top 30. Draper will only get a good return from FA compo. It is just not realistic to expect opposition clubs to take on players with more than 3 years to run on a contract and expect a good return unless you are talking genuine A grade players.
It is depressing for supporters but it is the net result of 15 years of critical errors at certain points that eroded the culture of the club.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Look I get being frustrated with a situation but actively wanting to make it worse by making a stupid decision to push assets into a current year because everyone tells you how good it is just idiotic.

Right now our supporters are like the investor who holds a tiny amount of shares that they bought for $1000, whos value has dropped to $600, they have sold and the price has shot back up to $1100 and are trying to buy back in.

We couldn't offload the core pieces we need to because as should be disgustingly apparant to anyone who watches this team. They.arent.good.
We are a mediocre team, with mediocre talent. That talent is also on long term deals.
They weren't bringing us anything this year.

We have a first round talented player who unfortunately due to where we finished (hi to everyone that disagreed that the Freo win was a bad thing) and where he was rated was going to eat our pick and we didn't have a great hand because we actively traded away future capital to move up one spot in prior years.

They have set a plan, which I would imagine involves a focus on a Dday type year for your Cox,Reid,Perkins talent, pushing out Hep and Stringer who clogged up spots all year and disallowed a change in structure.
We have pushed assets into next year, and will be able to be more aggressive next year with a greater draft hand, more clarity on who is actually worth listing and perhaps a first round comp pick for pushing out Draper, and minus 1 year off the deals of some of these poor deals.

This is what average gets you, you have to get worse to get better. The brightside is the people making the calls appear to be the two new guys, I'll give them a shot because the fact they have put us in this position is already more progress than any of the old guard did.
 
ant555 said:
I keep hearing why did we not shop around Parish or Redman to get better draft equity. First they have to want to go. Second you can not shop around a player with 5 years left on decent money and expect a premium return. Sure we could offer up Parish but personally I doubt we get more than a second round pick and still be paying some of his wage. In all honesty there is one bloke on the list that would give us a top 5 pick in return. Zack Merrett. Guys like Martin or Caldwell or Durham maybe get you a pick in the 10 to 20 range. Parish and Redman second round with their contract length. McGrath not in the top 20. Wright a Coles brand packet of chips. Cox or Read not in the top 25 picks. Perkins maybe early second. Hobbs not in the top 20. Bryan not top 30. Draper will only get a good return from FA compo. It is just not realistic to expect opposition clubs to take on players with more than 3 years to run on a contract and expect a good return unless you are talking genuine A grade players.
It is depressing for supporters but it is the net result of 15 years of critical errors at certain points that eroded the culture of the club.
Click to expand...

Parish would land a pick in the teens for us paying some salary, which we can more than afford to. We could probably clear our share in 2-3 years.

It’s all about finding the right deal. Caleb Daniel is a VFL player and went for a pick in the 20s ffs.

I think them “wanting to leave” is all part of it. When you have list issues you have to be a bit ruthless. Clubs shove players out the door when they don’t want them any more. Collingwood did it with Grundy and Treloar who were both determined to stay. At the end of the day, when you’re told “we don’t want you and you should look elsewhere”, players become open to looking elsewhere pretty quickly.
 
ant555 said:
I keep hearing why did we not shop around Parish or Redman to get better draft equity. First they have to want to go. Second you can not shop around a player with 5 years left on decent money and expect a premium return. Sure we could offer up Parish but personally I doubt we get more than a second round pick and still be paying some of his wage. In all honesty there is one bloke on the list that would give us a top 5 pick in return. Zack Merrett. Guys like Martin or Caldwell or Durham maybe get you a pick in the 10 to 20 range. Parish and Redman second round with their contract length. McGrath not in the top 20. Wright a Coles brand packet of chips. Cox or Read not in the top 25 picks. Perkins maybe early second. Hobbs not in the top 20. Bryan not top 30. Draper will only get a good return from FA compo. It is just not realistic to expect opposition clubs to take on players with more than 3 years to run on a contract and expect a good return unless you are talking genuine A grade players.
It is depressing for supporters but it is the net result of 15 years of critical errors at certain points that eroded the culture of the club.
Click to expand...
1. I've discussed with you earlier this week that I can understand re-siging Parish /redman last year because of the free agency compo being absorbed by mckay but why the contract length? Your response was contract lengths don't matter as much now.....but now apparently parish's contract length is the biggest issue holding us back from testing the trade market? either way the club has stuffed up here.

2. Neither Bunk or I said anything about high draft picks, this is a deep draft and I just wanted to see us attempt to get 3 or 4 picks inside 50....which is what Rosa said was the aim but didn't really do anything to achieve (to date, let's see how he goes with the future picks on draft night). So Parish ONLY netting a pick in the 2nd round is a win in my eyes. Hell we were happy to get rid of stringer for much less.

Which brings me to
3. We were happy to turf stringer because of structural issues / setting a poor example. Parish is in same boat in both regards. A small clearance machine....who only wins clearances if its 6-6-6 or has a setterfield type blocking for him, he refuses to cover the ground when he doesn't have the ball, he doesn't tackle, he hasn't got a great kick and he isn't a leader.

The Club has been walking in to rakes like Sideshow Bob for 20 odd years, I don't think it's hysterical to level some criticism at them.
 
Last edited:
Bunk Moreland said:
Parish would land a pick in the teens for us paying some salary, which we can more than afford to. We could probably clear our share in 2-3 years.

It’s all about finding the right deal. Caleb Daniel is a VFL player and went for a pick in the 20s ffs.

I think them “wanting to leave” is all part of it. When you have list issues you have to be a bit ruthless. Clubs shove players out the door when they don’t want them any more. Collingwood did it with Grundy and Treloar who were both determined to stay. At the end of the day, when you’re told “we don’t want you and you should look elsewhere”, players become open to looking elsewhere pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
Yep ruthless clubs get results and don't care whether the optics look bad to media/fans. Pies were the laughing stock of trade week for pushing grundy/treloar/stephenson out but a couple of years later they make a prelim and year after win the whole thing.
Hawks another club with a ruthless streak just delisted a top 10 pick from the bomb of a 2020 draft. We keep all three of our ,to date, failed picks on the list. The only guys we are willing to move on are blokes on the wrong side of 30 or in the last 4 or 5 spots in the squad.
 
Bunk Moreland said:
Parish would land a pick in the teens for us paying some salary, which we can more than afford to. We could probably clear our share in 2-3 years.

It’s all about finding the right deal. Caleb Daniel is a VFL player and went for a pick in the 20s ffs.

I think them “wanting to leave” is all part of it. When you have list issues you have to be a bit ruthless. Clubs shove players out the door when they don’t want them any more. Collingwood did it with Grundy and Treloar who were both determined to stay. At the end of the day, when you’re told “we don’t want you and you should look elsewhere”, players become open to looking elsewhere pretty quickly.
Click to expand...
Caleb Daniel did not have 4 years at good dollars left.
Treloar probably the best example .Pies got 14 and a F2 and gave up Treloar pus 26 - 33 - 42. They paid a lot of his contract for the first few years and I think they are still paying. Pies did not need mid range picks to make up points for a bid. A pick in the teens does not really work for us this year.
Pies got 27 for Grundy.
I think the fact that there was not a lot of interest in Parish at 5 years and $800k when he signed his last contract gives you an indication that he is not giving you a premium pick . Secondly he has had injury issues for two seasons now. I do not agree he just gets you a pick in the teens and on top of that the teen pick has to be traded out or it becomes collateral damage in a Kako bid.
Collingwood was a different circumstance in my view. They had to push two out or the blow the cap.
 
joey_jo_jo said:
1. I've discussed with you earlier this week that I can understand re-siging Parish /redman last year because of the free agency compo being absorbed by mckay but why the contract length? Your response was contract lengths don't matter as much now.....but now apparently parish's contract length is the biggest issue holding us back from testing the trade market? either way the club has stuffed up here.

2. Neither Bunk or I said anything about high draft picks, this is a deep draft and I just wanted to see us attempt to get 3 or 4 picks inside 50....which is what Rosa said was the aim but didn't really do anything to achieve (to date, let's see how he goes with the future picks on draft night). So Parish ONLY netting a pick in the 2nd round is a win in my eyes. Hell we were happy to get rid of stringer for much less.

Which brings me to
3. We were happy to turf stringer because of structural issues / setting a poor example. Parish is in same boat in both regards. A small clearance machine....who only wins clearances if its 6-6-6 or has a setterfield type blocking for him, he refuses to cover the ground when he doesn't have the ball, he doesn't tackle, he hasn't got a great kick and he isn't a leader.

The Club has been walking in to rakes like Sideshow Bob for 20 odd years, I don't think it's hysterical to level some criticism at them.
Click to expand...
1. I said the contract lengths become less of an issue when they get down to under 3 years to run. That is why I said contract lengths do not matter as much now. Personally I thought they stuffed up when he signed it and said so at the time. Never said having 5 years left did not matter. They should have stuck with 4. He was not going anywhere else.

2. I did not specifically say you. There where more than just you pushing to trade him in recent months and it was not just for a second round pick. They where looking for first round and Bunk has just said pick in the teens if we pay his salary.

3.Parish has issues but they are not the level of Stringers off field and preparation. The reason Stringer went as he was the one who had 1 year left and we told him there was no early offer for a second. Parish is not in that boat despite his deficiencies. You can not put the same pressure on. I suspect if Wright had 1 year left he would have been given the lets see how you go next year before we make another offer. They had no issue keeping Jake next year and paying him $500k if he said he was staying. They made a stand on contract length. If they really annoyed with the away from the club stuff they could easily have paid him out.

4. Did not say do not be critical. My post was about the real market. You may have been happy with second round for Parish. I would have as well. That is not what others where looking at. They where talking first round mid to late minimum.

5. The closest thing to what we maybe could have done with Parish is Treloar. Pies got 14 + F2 but the also had to give up 26 - 33 - 42 . So maybe we get the second round and pay $250k of his money for two years but is that really a lot ? with the Kako bid it would allow us to keep the last second round we have so basically it would be for a pick maybe 5 or so picks further up the draft.

6. Parish did not have a lot of interest when we signed him because of the money and length . If the reports are right then some where at 4 years at $750k so I doubt too many are jumping the que to get in with 4 years left at $800k after another year with a 5 week soft tissue injury.

The club has made mistakes. I have already posted I think they have. Be as critical as you want but my point was not aimed at anyone person. It was aimed at the thought he would give us a pick more towards the top end of the draft. That is why I said he was more second round pick territory and I am 100% sure you can find where I said the same months ago.
 
TheGreatBarryB said:
Not sure why the obsession with Culley …has just been delisted from one of the shittest teams in years
Click to expand...
Good player. Just got injured too often. The question mark is not about him being in a crap side and getting delisted. The question mark is durability. Given we have signed Setterfield I am saying no as well.
 
ant555 said:
1. I said the contract lengths become less of an issue when they get down to under 3 years to run. That is why I said contract lengths do not matter as much now. Personally I thought they stuffed up when he signed it and said so at the time. Never said having 5 years left did not matter. They should have stuck with 4. He was not going anywhere else.

2. I did not specifically say you. There where more than just you pushing to trade him in recent months and it was not just for a second round pick. They where looking for first round and Bunk has just said pick in the teens if we pay his salary.

3.Parish has issues but they are not the level of Stringers off field and preparation. The reason Stringer went as he was the one who had 1 year left and we told him there was no early offer for a second. Parish is not in that boat despite his deficiencies. You can not put the same pressure on. I suspect if Wright had 1 year left he would have been given the lets see how you go next year before we make another offer. They had no issue keeping Jake next year and paying him $500k if he said he was staying. They made a stand on contract length. If they really annoyed with the away from the club stuff they could easily have paid him out.

4. Did not say do not be critical. My post was about the real market. You may have been happy with second round for Parish. I would have as well. That is not what others where looking at. They where talking first round mid to late minimum.

5. The closest thing to what we maybe could have done with Parish is Treloar. Pies got 14 + F2 but the also had to give up 26 - 33 - 42 . So maybe we get the second round and pay $250k of his money for two years but is that really a lot ? with the Kako bid it would allow us to keep the last second round we have so basically it would be for a pick maybe 5 or so picks further up the draft.

6. Parish did not have a lot of interest when we signed him because of the money and length . If the reports are right then some where at 4 years at $750k so I doubt too many are jumping the que to get in with 4 years left at $800k after another year with a 5 week soft tissue injury.

The club has made mistakes. I have already posted I think they have. Be as critical as you want but my point was not aimed at anyone person. It was aimed at the thought he would give us a pick more towards the top end of the draft. That is why I said he was more second round pick territory and I am 100% sure you can find where I said the same months ago.
Click to expand...
Yeah fair points, sorry I thought it was a direct response to Bunk and I.
 
Parish gets us SFA.

  • no one trades for players of his type
  • he’s had one good year
  • that good year was 3 years ago
  • he’s on a long contract

We’re stuck with him
 
doug85 said:
I read this and had NFI what he was on about. We likely turned pick 9 into 3 first round draft picks (I expect 28 and 31 to become an F1). Lost no one of consequence. That’s a great trade week imo
Click to expand...

Excuse my ignorance but if we were to trade 28 and 31 into next year, and most of our remaining picks are used for Kako points, then who do we draft this year?
We've got 6 or 7 open spots.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Recruiting AFL Trade & Free Agency XII - đź’°đź’°đź’°

Similar threads

Duckworth
  • Locked
Recruiting AFL Trade & Free Agency XI - McKay. Goldstein. Gresham. Duursma!
382 383 384 385 386
Replies
10K
Views
386K
Lore
Lore
Lore
Recruiting AFLW Draft and Trade 2024 - Clarke traded to St Kilda, Scott walks to the draft
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
ant555
ant555
ghostdog
  • Locked
Recruiting AFLW Draft and Trade 2023 - Premiership demon Maddison Gay requests a trade to Essendon - 5/12
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
CrowdedHouse
CrowdedHouse
Old Campaigner
Roast AFL media - trade rumour tracker
Replies
7
Views
1K
andleanback
A
eth-dog
AFL Player #25: Jaxon Prior - Welcome to Essendon!
2
Replies
49
Views
3K
Yoda_
Yoda_
RedmanWasHere
AFL Player #42: Jayden Nguyen - Welcome to Essendon!
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
Yoda_
Yoda_
RedmanWasHere
AFL Player #40: Zak Johnson - Welcome to Essendon!
2 3
Replies
52
Views
4K
Keystone agony
Keystone agony

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top