List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2023

[left at home]

For people that want do a hard bargain for Schulz, don’t be silly
1/ that’s not how wright works
He is after a fair deal for both sides and does not drive an unfair trade
2/ we want this player, offered a good contract, it’s up to us to get the deal done, not the other way around

 

[pz5151]

Why would 19 alone not be enough?

Because whether it’s worth it or not, if they wait a year they’ll get better than that as compo due to the size of the contract we are offering. Plus the chance to convince him to stay over the year like Sydney did with Papley when he wanted to go to the Blues.

 

[gouki88]

Could somebody enlighten me.As I understand Lachie Schultz because he has been delisted would be a UFA if he came out of contract this year,so when he comes out of contract next year will he automatically become a UFA because of his former delisting? If he he is eligble for UFA status then Freo should take the 1st rounder Collingwood is offering and run, because next year they get nothing.

I think the UFA status of someone like Schultz would be different. Freo would not be able to match, but would still get compo

 

[vindaloo]

For people that want do a hard bargain for Schulz, don’t be silly
1/ that’s not how wright works
He is after a fair deal for both sides and does not drive an unfair trade
2/ we want this player, offered a good contract, it’s up to us to get the deal done, not the other way around

A freo poster on the drafts boars who's the mod over there was steaming, yelling that we must pay a tax as a destination club. That might be the game with opposition clubs. At some point we have to play the long game and make a stand. Under no circumstances do we trade our future first.

 

[MoreMoore]

Facebook trade rumours reporting we are trying to get JUH out of dogs after Norton contract
Offering 10 year deal
Probably next year, no idea how we get it done
Definitely can’t trade next year’s first

 

[sam_e]

All elite or above average and people are complaining about giving up a low 20’s pick. I live in WA so watch a lot of freo games. Hes very very good

what would you give up for him Stormy?

Pick 19 (2023) for mine is fine.
1st pick (2024) is a hard NO for mine
Pick 19 (2023) + one of 33 or 38 (2023), with nothing back, starts to feel a bit toppy.

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

Because whether it’s worth it or not, if they wait a year they’ll get better than that as compo due to the size of the contract we are offering. Plus the chance to convince him to stay over the year like Sydney did with Papley when he wanted to go to the Blues.

I doubt he is going to get band 1 next year.....unless there is a bidding war.
McStay was the same age as he will be next year and we offered 4x (550-650) and he went band 3 (second round).
So getting band 1 is unlikely.....

So its a risk for them 'just to prove a point'....how do you think that will go down for future players who are unsure as to whether to go there?
So two sides to both arguments.

 

[Scodog10]

Potentially Harsh on Dean yes, but it’s also kinda the reality for mine, he’s been on the list for 2 years and played 3 VFL games. Until he shows that his body can stand up I’ll consider him a non factor not to mention the step up from playing on VFL level KPF to AFL level KPF.

We’re win now, and the initial premise was worrying for Murphy, it would make me very nervous doing a full season with Frampton and Dean as our back ups

Not harsh at all. Dean’s a non factor until he debuts! It’s like suggesting Allan can replace Steele in 2025 after he’s spent all of 2024 injured.

The faith being placed in a guy that’s spent the better part of two years on the injury list and hasn’t played a senior game is mad in the context of us being the reigning premier. If Murphy goes we’re talking about Dean potentially standing Curnow/ Daniher/ Hogan/ Cameron in a cutthroat final. He might get there, but I’d be cranky if it came out that Murphy being done right now was a certainty and we were comfortable going into 2024 with Frampton and Dean as our KPD’s behind Moore.

 

[Chameleon75]

A freo poster on the drafts boars who's the mod over there was steaming, yelling that we must pay a tax as a destination club. That might be the game with opposition clubs. At some point we have to play the long game and make a stand. Under no circumstances do we trade our future first.

unless that mod is named Peter bell, it doesn’t matter what he says.

 

[Chameleon75]

Facebook trade rumours reporting we are trying to get JUH out of dogs after Norton contract
Offering 10 year deal
Probably next year, no idea how we get it done
Definitely can’t trade next year’s first

Facebook trade rumour, sounds legit

 

[stormskye]

what would you give up for him Stormy?

Pick 19 (2023) for mine is fine.
1st pick (2024) is a hard NO for mine
Pick 19 (2023) + one of 33 or 38 (2023), with nothing back, starts to feel a bit toppy.

I rate him highly. Small that can find the ball like him is rare. In our system he will only get better.

Then realistically look at our picks.

19 is a low 20’s second rounder.
33 and 38 are dropping to.

Then look at what you could REALISTICALLY get with those.

Sure we could get the next mcreery. But chances are we get the next bianco, ruscoe etc.

Schultz is a known value, just hitting his prime. Our system and with wade he’s a 40 goal a year small. That’s elite. Not to mention his defensive side.

We’ve offered him a 5 year deal. What players oh our list get those? Only the best.

19 and a late second If it gets it done and prevents a bidding war next year (after his value increases) is fine with me

 

[sr36]

what would you give up for him Stormy?

Pick 19 (2023) for mine is fine.
1st pick (2024) is a hard NO for mine
Pick 19 (2023) + one of 33 or 38 (2023), with nothing back, starts to feel a bit toppy.

There was earlier talk that most clubs are only expected to add a couple of kids at the draft this year and it'll only go to about 50. Those picks in the 30s may not hold much value at all as they're not that much likely to get a player than end of the draft picks

 

[Scodog10]

I think the UFA status of someone like Schultz would be different. Freo would not be able to match, but would still get compo

Perfect, but with a minor clarification. Both RFA and UFA status entitles the club losing the player to compensation so long as the contract terms and player are of sufficient herbs and spices. Basically as long as you aren’t old as balls or a DFA there will be compensation.

 

[ElliottsMaggies]

Facebook trade rumours reporting we are trying to get JUH out of dogs after Norton contract
Offering 10 year deal
Probably next year, no idea how we get it done
Definitely can’t trade next year’s first

Facebook rumours? Really?

 

[RobJD]

Is anyone saying he is worth 2x 1st round picks?

Maybe Freo! Seems like things are at an impasse. With both sides adopting the negotiating mantra that the first to speak loses. Not sure the AFL will intervene in this trade as it doesn't seem like it's holding up any additional trades - might go down to the wire which is good for Trade Radio, and little else.

 

[left at home]

A freo poster on the drafts boars who's the mod over there was steaming, yelling that we must pay a tax as a destination club. That might be the game with opposition clubs. At some point we have to play the long game and make a stand. Under no circumstances do we trade our future first.

What the fans think does not matter, Wrighty will do the deal that he thinks is best for the club and the team

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

There was earlier talk that most clubs are only expected to add a couple of kids at the draft this year and it'll only go to about 50. Those picks in the 30s may not hold much value at all as they're not that much likely to get a player than end of the draft picks

Correct.
I get the feeling this year will be the year everyone looks back on as "the death of the draft".
50 (ish) will be the new norm.

With compromised draft, basically yearly now, coupled with different avenues to bring players in....taking 4-5 18 year old kids is a surefire way to spend years down the bottom!

Won't happen anymore as clubs continue to expand their perspectives of talent.

Haven't done the numbers....but i'd speak to GC about one their 20's picks and move 33/38 to them (for points etc).....then give both 19 + 20's the Freo.
Assuming GC still need points (no idea...haven't done the numbers!)

 

[Tarkyn_24]

We may end up dealing our 2023 1st and 2024 2nd for Schultz and their 2024 3rd. With likely ladder finishes, it won’t be that big of a slide back in 2024 but it’ll give them some more ammo.

I don’t view it likely that Freo miss the eight by much, if at all. Could be close to a full round slide back very conceivably

 

[RobJD]

Perfect, but with a minor clarification. Both RFA and UFA status entitles the club losing the player to compensation so long as the contract terms and player are of sufficient herbs and spices. Basically as long as you aren’t old as balls or a DFA there will be compensation.

As an UFA, we can formally lodge a low-ball contract - diminishing the return that Freo get as FA compensation, and then re-negotiate the contract with Schultz after the first year when he's a Collingwood player - or Freo can accept Pick 19 - which is better than they'll get next year.

 

[sr36]

Correct.
I get the feeling this year will be the year everyone looks back on as "the death of the draft".
50 (ish) will be the new norm.

With compromised draft, basically yearly now, coupled with different avenues to bring players in....taking 4-5 18 year old kids is a surefire way to spend years down the bottom!

Won't happen anymore as clubs continue to expand their perspectives of talent.

Haven't done the numbers....but i'd speak to GC about one their 20's picks and move 33/38 to them (for points etc).....then give both 19 + 20's the Freo.
Assuming GC still need points (no idea...haven't done the numbers!)

It's the smaller list sizes. You just can't afford to run many speculative prospects, you've got to have the vast majority of your list as ready to play squad members if you want to be competitive.

 

[Tarkyn_24]

As an UFA, we can formally lodge a low-ball contract - diminishing the return that Freo get as FA compensation, and then re-negotiate the contract with Schultz after the first year when he's a Collingwood player - or Freo can accept Pick 19 - which is better than they'll get next year.

A club screwing another in terms of “free” compensation isn’t likely to endear that club to any other teams going forward, rightly or wrongly.

 

[Apex36]

Because whether it’s worth it or not, if they wait a year they’ll get better than that as compo due to the size of the contract we are offering. Plus the chance to convince him to stay over the year like Sydney did with Papley when he wanted to go to the Blues.

What is the size of the contract we are offering? Everyone seems to assume that they’d get end of first round compo, but the consensus also seems to be the contract is 4 years @~$600-650k with a trigger for a 5th?
For context, Brisbane received band 3 last year for McStays reported 5 year $650k contract. I’m not sure that the assumption that Schultz would attract end of first round compo is as certain as people think.

 

[Hazz]

I haven't seen much but I posted earlier his 2023 stats are in the ballpark of:
Rankine (pick 3, then traded pick 5 + late trades)
Bailey (pick 15)
Papley (rookie but Carlton offered pick 9)
Pickett (pick 12)
Weightman (pick 15)

Could argue a premium given he's a known quantity & development years are done, or a discount given he's 26 soon, but it's in the ballpark.



View attachment 1830041

Noice - where is that data from?

 

[TheVillageIdiot7]

It's the smaller list sizes. You just can't afford to run many speculative prospects, you've got to have the vast majority of your list as ready to play squad members if you want to be competitive.

Not just smaller list sizes.
It's MSD, it's SSP changes as well.
It's players playing until they are mid 30's more than they used to.

Those changes make it possible to bring people in easier, who are all mature age and more 'ready to go'....so the need to carry young prospects just creates un-usable assets on your list.

 

[Scodog10]

As an UFA, we can formally lodge a low-ball contract - diminishing the return that Freo get as FA compensation, and then re-negotiate the contract with Schultz after the first year when he's a Collingwood player - or Freo can accept Pick 19 - which is better than they'll get next year.

That’s separate to my post and not going to happen. He’ll be a Collingwood player in 2024 because we (average punter) would have heard it was in trouble by now if the two parties were wide enough apart that it could fall through. Also because the club know that we have him on the hook, we need him now with the loss of Adams and anything could happen in those 12 months.