Rumour Bluemour Discussion XXXV - 'Loopy' Season has begun

[Blue__Balls]

If we are taking a lower pick to clear cap space, we would be looking at a FA

Not necessarily. And I think given our list profile it's more likely we're improving our position for later on.

Offload $400k a year from Fisher in each of 2024 and 2025.
Replace him with a $120k draftee.
Front-end $280k worth of salary from Charlie/Harry/Cripps/etc. into each year.
$560k has been freed up from 2026 onwards - conveniently, the year that new contracts will be commencing for Cerra, Acres, Kemp, Weiters, Motlop and De Koning.

If we're banking money by offloading Fisher, and we don't have a gaping hole in the starting 22 for an elite player, then it seems we'd be better off moving money around rather than adding to the salary bloat coming into a period where plenty of guys will be (rightly) expecting improved contracts.

 

[Arr0w]

Not necessarily. And I think given our list profile it's more likely we're improving our position for later on.

Offload $400k a year from Fisher in each of 2024 and 2025.
Replace him with a $120k draftee.
Front-end $280k worth of salary from Charlie/Harry/Cripps/etc. into each year.
$560k has been freed up from 2026 onwards - conveniently, the year that new contracts will be commencing for Cerra, Acres, Kemp, Weiters, Motlop and De Koning.

If we're banking money by offloading Fisher, and we don't have a gaping hole in the starting 22 for an elite player, then it seems we'd be better off moving money around rather than adding to the salary bloat coming into a period where plenty of guys will be (rightly) expecting improved contracts.

Certainly sound list management in that regard.

This off season will also be interesting as it's the first year where clubs can offload salary for draft picks, without players involved

 

[RPCB]

A young KPD is about the only glaring vacancy in our list.(unless Young has a form reversal)
Another developing Jack Martin clone would be nice, but not a desperate need.
Last year an Acres type was an obvious need, next year we need to squeeze in Binns and Cow, don't see a pricey free agent in Navy blue soon.

But do we have place for Cowman?

 

[The Blue Weirdo]

But so we have place for Cowman?

Dunno?
That's my point, why trade for more players on $350k upwards? Just go to the draft with minimal picks, reward the kids on the list with games, and have a look at the new Irish ones.
And keep Dow.

 

[RPCB]

Dunno?
That's my point, why trade for more players on $350k upwards? Just go to the draft with minimal picks, reward the kids on the list with games, and have a look at the new Irish ones.

It was a joke that apparently we have a Cowan and a Cowman on our list. Thank you herald sun.

 

[Robertio]

Certainly sound list management in that regard.

This off season will also be interesting as it's the first year where clubs can offload salary for draft picks, without players involved

I'm usually living in Robland, how will that work?

 

[4flagsin5yrs]

That really sucks balls then. I can only 'imagine' that we have already spent our future free cash in promises to current players already. It would explain why there is no noise about Ben Mckay when we only have 1 KPDer of note. We have Kemp/Marchy/Mcgovern trying to be KPDers.

Jonas played KPD for years with success.

He stands 1.88m.

 

[Sector 7G]

Jonas played KPD for years with success.

He stands 1.88m.

But not premiership success

 

[DangerousD]

It’s not always as simple an equation as what people think.

List management and TPP management is a multi year thing.
Losing player A (in this case Fisher) doesn’t mean we have that cap space next year for a FA acquisition.
Players contracts are almost always weighted year on year, very rarely lineal. So it could very likely be needing to lose a player or two around Fishers coin, knowing that we are replacing them with draft picks that are on a 2 year locked base contract. With the knowledge that the money saved is already assigned to players we already have on our list.

This doesn’t make much sense to me.

In this case Fisher is contracted for 3 more years, so theoretically by moving him on, you do save the money.

I understand your point when a player comes off contract, that you’re not necessarily saving anything.

Just not seeing how by trading a contracted player, we wouldn’t end up with the spare cash

 

[Magruder]

This doesn’t make much sense to me.

In this case Fisher is contracted for 3 more years, so theoretically by moving him on, you do save the money.

I understand your point when a player comes off contract, that you’re not necessarily saving anything.

Just not seeing how by trading a contracted player, we wouldn’t end up with the spare cash

Really depends on the anticipated TPP for 2024 & 2025 etc...

If we had planned to trade a player or two on Fish type coin, or thought it likely we would lose a player on that sort of coin then it makes sense.

*super simplistic example below

Say our player payments are projected to be $200k over the cap for 2024 (or more likely where we want our payments to be for that year to accommodate advance planning/FA or resigning required players) and say Player A is contracted for $400k.
Then trading him, (even planning to trade a player on this wage), while replacing him with a draftee or rookie elevation on $100k each makes sense.

You can call it poor management if you like but I'd disagree. Very fine margins in list management and all clubs push to the line and take risks.

I'd suggest it's how we got Acres, (factoring in the Jackson shenanigans also).

 

[Blue__Balls]

Really depends on the anticipated TPP for 2024 & 2025 etc...

If we had planned to trade a player or two on Fish type coin, or thought it likely we would lose a player on that sort of coin then it makes sense.

*super simplistic example below

Say our player payments are projected to be $200k over the cap for 2024 (or more likely where we want our payments to be for that year to accommodate advance planning/FA or resigning required players) and say Player A is contracted for $400k.
Then trading him, (even planning to trade a player on this wage), while replacing him with a draftee or rookie elevation on $100k each makes sense.

You can call it poor management if you like but I'd disagree. Very fine margins in list management and all clubs push to the line and take risks.

I'd suggest it's how we got Acres, (factoring in the Jackson shenanigans also).

It's a good call that - not something anyone here likely every considers, but it is a very real possibility that some clubs "overcommit" to salary in future years on the expectation that one or more established players may elect to leave, that some established players could be shopped around, or that existing contracts could be manipulated (ie. front- or back-ended) on the fly to make things work.

A club could project to be $500k over the cap in 2025 because they've committed to a few high value re-signings, but they don't get punished for it unless it actually eventuates in that year. As long as they can correct the overspend by the time that season rolls around they're OK.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

i think we need a backup incase Charles/Harry are unavailable.
Apparently Membrey is gettable...would be a break glass in emergency type, but fits the "has played well against us criteria"

 

[thylacine60]

i think we need a backup incase Charles/Harry are unavailable.
Apparently Membrey is gettable...would be a break glass in emergency type, but fits the "has played well against us criteria"

 

[Magruder]

It's a good call that - not something anyone here likely every considers, but it is a very real possibility that some clubs "overcommit" to salary in future years on the expectation that one or more established players may elect to leave, that some established players could be shopped around, or that existing contracts could be manipulated (ie. front- or back-ended) on the fly to make things work.

A club could project to be $500k over the cap in 2025 because they've committed to a few high value re-signings, but they don't get punished for it unless it actually eventuates in that year. As long as they can correct the overspend by the time that season rolls around they're OK.

You put that so much better than I did!

 

[Forty3]

This doesn’t make much sense to me.

In this case Fisher is contracted for 3 more years, so theoretically by moving him on, you do save the money.

I understand your point when a player comes off contract, that you’re not necessarily saving anything.

Just not seeing how by trading a contracted player, we wouldn’t end up with the spare cash

It goes hand in hand with re-signing other players really. They are always speculating and projecting what the team make up might be next year, in two years and so on.
At the start of the season, or halfway through last season, there was probably an assumption that a number players from the likes Mcgovern, Boyd, Cunners, Fog, Kemp, Cincotta, Owies and maybe even Jack Martin weren't going to be playing roles in the 2023 team, let alone the 2024 team and beyond.

Obviously the landscape has changed a lot since then, so the list management has to change with it.

 

[agro]

i think we need a backup incase Charles/Harry are unavailable.
Apparently Membrey is gettable...would be a break glass in emergency type, but fits the "has played well against us criteria"

Frank Marchesani says hello.

 

[Blue__Balls]

How does that work, can u provide an example please?

Club A needs to free up some cap space, but are happy with their list and don't want to offload any players.

Club B have excess cap space and are struggling to attract quality players, and so would like to improve their draft hand to get more/better kids in.

Club A offer a draft pick to Club B, in return for Club B taking on some of Club A's salary commitment (ie. Paying $X of someone's contract), or Club B "loaning" a portion of their salary cap to Club A (ie. Their salary cap drops by $X, and Club A gains $X of additional cap space).

Not sure exactly which way the AFL have framed it.

 

[ferrisb]

Club A needs to free up some cap space, but are happy with their list and don't want to offload any players.

Club B have excess cap space and are struggling to attract quality players, and so would like to improve their draft hand to get more/better kids in.

Club A offer a draft pick to Club B, in return for Club B taking on some of Club A's salary commitment (ie. Paying $X of someone's contract), or Club B "loaning" a portion of their salary cap to Club A (ie. Their salary cap drops by $X, and Club A gains $X of additional cap space).

Not sure exactly which way the AFL have framed it.

This would have been incredible under the SOS days.

He would have traded the sh*t out of our cap space. I strongly suspect he took on a few mature recruits on short-term contracts just to meet the minimum salary floor.

Trading cap space for picks could have really accelerated the rebuild.

 

[Aphrodite]

It was a joke that apparently we have a Cowan and a Cowman on our list. Thank you herald sun.

Also have Oliver Henry on our list



****wit Ralphy

 

[RPCB]

Also have Oliver Henry on our list



******* Ralphy

How did he get that one wrong?

 

[Aphrodite]

i think we need a backup incase Charles/Harry are unavailable.
Apparently Membrey is gettable...would be a break glass in emergency type, but fits the "has played well against us criteria"

 

[smit_is]

Interesting take by Tom Morris on SEN. Not that it means much at the end of the day, but I’m still curious; can any of the ITK’s shed any light on this? Fact or fiction?

 

[Kruezing]

i think we need a backup incase Charles/Harry are unavailable.
Apparently Membrey is gettable...would be a break glass in emergency type, but fits the "has played well against us criteria"

I’d do this … and then delist lol

 

[Stamos]

Interesting take by Tom Morris on SEN. Not that it means much at the end of the day, but I’m still curious; can any of the ITK’s shed any light on this? Fact or fiction?

View attachment 1790936

I'm not sure how a Free Agent can be 'trade bait'?

 

[teagueyubeauty]

Interesting take by Tom Morris on SEN. Not that it means much at the end of the day, but I’m still curious; can any of the ITK’s shed any light on this? Fact or fiction?

View attachment 1790936

Perfect, exactly the way I wanted to keep him. He’s a 20-25 player on the list and needs to be paid accordingly, not based off his name or supporters infatuation with him.

2 years would be perfect, for him as well as the club. Improve in areas he’s deficient in like sticking a lot more marks and kicking at goal and demand the big money at next contract.
If he takes 2 extra marks a game and lifts his goal kicking % from low 50’s to 65-70% and he automatically looks much better, it’s not a lot of improvement that needs to be made but there’s been no real improvement in those areas over the journey so far.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com