Player Watch Billy Frampton - Traded to Collingwood

[dogs105]

How about a Crouch and Frampton for Poulter package? Overs, but move on 2 players

 

[crow2crow]

Rankine, Rachelle, and Parnell can be added to that list

Parnell not seen enough for mine

 

[Redline]

AFL website says both picks are on the table for FramptonView attachment 1531965

Not sure this one gets done. We don't need these picks. I don't think they will give up a future third and know we will just delist him anyway. Unless Reid can get something to do us a favour and give us something for 50 and 51 then I think he will just walk to Collingwood one way or another.

 

[crow2crow]

Not sure this one gets done. We don't need these picks. I don't think they will give up a future third and know we will just delist him anyway. Unless Reid can get something to do us a favour and give us something for 50 and 51 then I think he will just walk to Collingwood one way or another.

its just points for max Michalanney if he gets pick at 24 onwards

if he got picked at 24, we need 707 points and pick 46 contributes 331 so we need some more to not go into deficit. 50 and 51 does that

 

[zippity doedee]

its just points for max Michalanney if he gets pick at 24 onwards

if he got picked at 24, we need 707 points and pick 46 contributes 331 so we need some more to not go into deficit. 50 and 51 does that

I reckon 50 and 51 would be a great result but at a minimum maybe this would work:
Adel give Frampton, get pick 58
Coll give Henry, get pick 25 and Frampton
Gee give pick 25 & 58, get Henry

 

[Vader]

I reckon 50 and 51 would be a great result but at a minimum maybe this would work:
Adel give Frampton, get pick 58
Coll give Henry, get pick 25 and Frampton
Gee give pick 25 & 58, get Henry

That's a worse result - and still gives us what we don't need.

The whole point of rejecting 50 & 51 is that we can't use picks in the 2022 ND, as we don't have the list vacancies to use them. We need picks in the 2023 ND.

 

[zippity doedee]

That's a worse result - and still gives us what we don't need.

The whole point of rejecting 50 & 51 is that we can't use picks in the 2022 ND, as we don't have the list vacancies to use them. We need picks in the 2023 ND.

Agree it's a worse result, that's why I said minimum.
The picks would be used for points on a Michalanney bid. Or are you saying we will only be using 1 pick in total this year?
Collingwood have already used their future 2nd round pick so they probably wouldn't be keen to lose their future 3rd as well.

 

[crows dude]

That's a worse result - and still gives us what we don't need.

The whole point of rejecting 50 & 51 is that we can't use picks in the 2022 ND, as we don't have the list vacancies to use them. We need picks in the 2023 ND.

So far it looks like one pick in main draft and two picks in Rookie draft. We will have to trade someone else or delist a contracted player.

I have Rowe, Frampton being traded or delisted. Davis delisted. Newchurch and Borlase re-contracted.

Leaves us with

two Rookies = Murray and Parnell. Two Picks
Two Cat b Rookies = Borlase and Newchurch
Senior List = 37. One Pick

So we n

1- Jones
2 - Keays
3 - McCasey
4 - Murphy
5 - Crouch
6 - Hately
7 - Thiltorpe
8 - Rachele
9 - Sloane
10 - Pedlar
11- Seedsman -
12 - Dawson
13 - Walker
14 - Soligo
15 - Cook
16 - Hamill
17 - Taylor
18 - Hinge
19 - Berry
Frampton Delisted or traded
20 - McAdam
21 - Worrell
22 - McHenry
23- Schoenberg
24 - Nankervis
25 - Murray (Rookie)
26 - Laird
27 - Milera
Rowe Delisted or traded
28 - Fogarty
29 - Smith
30 - Himmeberg
31 - Borlase Out of Contract Re contract as CAT B
32 - McPherson
33 - Parnell (Rookie)
34 - Sholl
35 - Doedee
Davis will be delisted
36 - Butts
37 - Newchurch Re contracted as CATB B
38 - ROB
39 - Gollant
40 - Strachan
41 - Turner to be delisted
42 - Rankine

 

[Vader]

Agree it's a worse result, that's why I said minimum.
The picks would be used for points on a Michalanney bid. Or are you saying we will only be using 1 pick in total this year?
Collingwood have already used their future 2nd round pick so they probably wouldn't be keen to lose their future 3rd as well.

It appears we're planning on using 2 picks in this year's draft - currently pick 23, and pick 46. Picks in the 50s are completely useless to us.

 

[Vader]

So far it looks like one pick in main draft and two picks in Rookie draft. We will have to trade someone else or delist a contracted player.

<snip>

At this stage, it's looking like:

Start: 37/6/2
Brown retire: 36/6/2
Rankine trade in: 37/6/2
Delist/trade Frampton, Rowe, Davis: 35/5/2
Upgrade Butts, Strachan: 37/3/2

Now we get a bit more speculative...
Seedsman to rookie list: 36/4/2
2x ND selections: 38/4/2

That leaves us with a full list, having moved from a 37/5 structure to a 38/4 structure.

Then, after the rookie draft (where we make no selections):
Seedsman to inactive list: 38/3/2
PSSP selection: 38/4/2

We still have the option of delisting a contracted player, and including their 2023 salary under the 2022 cap - but it's unlikely to happen. We also have the option of delisting Turner, which would free up a position on the rookie list, which would then give us a selection in the RD.

** The mechanism for Brown's retirement is not yet known. He was contracted for 2023, which has implications. It's likely that we're making a negotiated settlement in lieu of his 2023 salary, which would be included in our 2022 salary - further decreasing the chances of another contracted player being paid out. However, it's also possible that we may need to take the Gibbs option, moving him to the rookie list and placing him on the inactive list - which has implications, most likely forcing us to delist Turner (potentially re-signing him in the PSSP).

 

[zippity doedee]

It appears we're planning on using 2 picks in this year's draft - currently pick 23, and pick 46. Picks in the 50s are completely useless to us.

If Michalanney is bid on soon after our first pick, picks in the 50s (which will likely come in to the late 40s after other F/S bids) could stop us going into a deficit for next year's draft.

 

[Vader]

If Michalanney is bid on soon after our first pick, picks in the 50s (which will likely come in to the late 40s after other F/S bids) could stop us going into a deficit for next year's draft.

We won't even be able to take those picks into the draft, because we won't have the vacancies to use them.

If you only have 2x senior list vacancies on your list, you only get to take 2 draft picks into the draft.

 

[feenix67]

We won't even be able to take those picks into the draft, because we won't have the vacancies to use them.

If you only have 2x senior list vacancies on your list, you only get to take 2 draft picks into the draft.

Is that right? I thought it meant you could only make two selections and pass on the rest.

 

[Betts are off]

I would have thought this trade would be fairly simplistic. Anyone know what's the holdup is?

Were we just ticking off the Rankine trade first or is it coming from Collingwood's side?

 

[spenze]

I would have thought this trade would be fairly simplistic. Anyone know what's the holdup is?

Were we just ticking off the Rankine trade first or is it coming from Collingwood's side?

Looking to get a future first from all accounts

 

[Betts are off]

Looking to get a future first from all accounts

Future 1st?

I feel like i'm missing something fairly substantial here

 

[Crow till I die]

Looking to get a future first from all accounts

That is one of the more humorous posts on here for a while thats for sure

 

[crow2crow]

Future 1st?

I feel like i'm missing something fairly substantial here

that would be something like trade 23 and frampton out for a future first say might be 16ish but doubt he can pull that off

now hornes gone im all for trying to push into next year and get h reid. hollands is still two years away....

 

[cmndstab]

We won't even be able to take those picks into the draft, because we won't have the vacancies to use them.

If you only have 2x senior list vacancies on your list, you only get to take 2 draft picks into the draft.

Surely that's not the case when it comes to matching bids?

 

[Vader]

Is that right? I thought it meant you could only make two selections and pass on the rest.

It's confused...

Originally, you could take as many picks in as you wanted. Then clubs (Sydney the biggest offenders - as the serial cheats usually are) started rorting it, so they changed the rules.

They changed it so that clubs were only allowed to take as many picks into the draft as they have vacancies. Note that most clubs don't fill their senior list (going with 36/6 or 37/5 structures instead), so they still had a bit of flexibility, taking in 1-2 more picks than they actually intended to use.

In 2020 they reverted back to the original rule, as list reductions meant that the clubs each had 2 less vacancies to fill, and they'd (potentially) already traded for picks in the 2020 ND.

The 2020 rule change was supposed to be temporary... but was it? This is where things remain unclear, because the AFL doesn't always tell us what the rules are, and temporary rule changes have a nasty habit of becoming permanent (e.g. COVID list size reductions).

 

[Scorpus]

 

[Vader]

Surely that's not the case when it comes to matching bids?

That's the whole point of the rule.

 

[Mutineer]

Grundy to the Dees for #27, it's getting ridiculous now.

 

[spenze]

Future third, good work Reidy

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Can anyone explain why COLL didn't simply sign Frampton as a DFA ?