List Mgmt. Contract, Trade & Draftee Discussion - 2022 Off Season Edition

[Keys]

Contract status of all players now fully updated

The Contracts Thread

2024 List Changes : Out: Retired- Gaff Delisted - Jones, Trew(R), Baker(R), Witherden, Burgiel, Culley(R) Traded - Darling (NM) Barrass (Hawthorn) In: Trade/FA acquisitions - Graham (Richmond) Baker (Richmond) Owies (Carlton) Current contract status (Updated 18/10/24) : Total 39 Players -...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Before anyone goes off on another rant; yes everything would be taken into account but at the very top of the tree is talent,talent,talent.
As is oft stated (not by all) WC always take the best player available!!

Yes, that’s why they traded down from 2 to 8

 

[Eagletime]

I’m wondering also if we can do a trade like future 3rd rounder for pick 30 odd and so have 8,12,20,26 and 30 something

Maybe take Harry Lemmey with pick 26 and use 30 odd on a sliding Edward Allen

 

[Westcoast88]

If he was potentially a Judd or Buddy of course I would !! For all the “bullshit”( gee I love that word) on here about not picking potential go home boys and all the naming of players that have left various clubs over the years; how about you wise men give me the names of all the draftees we overlooked over the years because of it. Better still name one!!!

Bullshit is a great word to use when you can't think of anything intelligent to say which seems to be quite often for you.

 

[Forward Press]

I’m wondering also if we can do a trade like future 3rd rounder for pick 30 odd and so have 8,12,20,26 and 30 something

Maybe take Harry Lemmey with pick 26 and use 30 odd on a sliding Edward Allen

Even if we finish last next year (god forbid), the future 3rd would be a pick 37 or thereabouts.

Doubt many clubs would take that offer, from all reports this draft is shallow anyway so we're better off hoarding Port's future picks.

Happy if we go in and just used the four picks, the Langdon delisting gives us more flexibility afterwards too. Plenty of opportunity via the rookie and pre-seasons drafts if needed.

 

[Westcoast88]

And people basing their recruiting processes on whether or not people are going to run home to mummy Havent got a clue!!

I form my views based on evidence which may or may not lead me to a conclusion that a draftee is a mummy boy. Some are some aren't. It's called formulating a view based on available facts rather than blurting out foul language thinking your a tough guy behind a keyboard.

 

[WCErevival]

Sounds like we will re rookie him if he's still there.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Sounds like we will re rookie him if he's still there.

Ryan Daniels disagrees.

We really shouldn't, he's nowhere near it.

 

[WCErevival]

Ryan Daniels disagrees.

We really shouldn't, he's nowhere near it.

Their wording is very specific about the main list.

 

[Tyberious Funk]

Sounds like we will re rookie him if he's still there.

Langdon? Surely if he was delisted with a year left on his contract, he would need to be paid out. Then, if he got re-rookied, he'd get paid for his rookie year.

We'd effectively be paying him twice.

For being a spud.

 

[Obeanie1]

WC will back in their systems with some confidence as far as player retention goes.Yes we’ve lost the odd one Judd being the biggest name but I think culture at the time contributed heavily to that decision.The Gaffs,Butlers,Waters etc stayed

Sure you listed players who stayed and we have a great record. And I agree Judd leaving likely had something to do with the AFL whitch hunt they deemed appropriate at the time.

However what is to say those players passed the flight risk test so we were happy to draft them. Because they had a low flight risk. And we ignored others who failed the flight risk test.

You have to look at each player as an individual.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Their wording is very specific about the main list.

It’s also very silent about re-rookieing him.

 

[Keys]

Langdon? Surely if he was delisted with a year left on his contract, he would need to be paid out. Then, if he got re-rookied, he'd get paid for his rookie year.

We'd effectively be paying him twice.

For being a spud.

We wouldn’t be paying him twice.

If he’s delisted he gets paid out

If he gets redrafted as a rookie he gets paid whatever he would have under the terms of his contract and there’s no need for a contract payout

 

[Obeanie1]

You need a minimum of 2 elite mids to challenge for a flag.

Whis elite on that list?

Was there an elite mid at pick 2 this year?

Who's to say we don't have them already?

Or that we trade one in in 2 years time.

Pick 9 you go best available. Because at 13 you likely still get the same class mid you do at 9

 

[Bender_]

"The rookie list", for when people aren't really rookies, just spuds.

 

[squashface]

He wouldn't be on much so it's either pay Langdon for another year to sit on our list and be garbage or cut him, pay out his final year and draft someone else on base salary.

Worth it.

 

[Obeanie1]

Langdon? Surely if he was delisted with a year left on his contract, he would need to be paid out. Then, if he got re-rookied, he'd get paid for his rookie year.

We'd effectively be paying him twice.

For being a spud.

Pretty sure he just gets paid once. He agrees to be moved to the rookie list. We agree to pick him and pay him the agreed contract amount.

If someone else rookies him we pay the gap.

 

[wirra44]

He wouldn't be on much so it's either pay Langdon for another year to sit on our list and be garbage or cut him, pay out his final year and draft someone else on base salary.

Worth it.

Hopefully they do the same with SPS

 

[Goldfish]

The 5+3 list spots available doesn’t include any of Winder, West or Trew. If any of that trio are recontracted the number of spots will reduce

Thanks for clarifying. Given we've got 4 picks in the top 26 (and our next pick is 78) you'd imagine we're only looking at using those plus rookie spots... Would mean two of the three don't go around next year unless we rookie them.

 

[Obeanie1]

Hopefully they do the same with SPS

If we had or wanted more picks in the main draft it could happen, sure.

If we don't have any decent picks then just draft a rookie or sign a DFA as a rookie.

Pushing a player to the rookie list also saves I recall $120k in cap space.

 

[mattyc75]

Good, I like it.

5th pick in the ND draft and culling some deadwood means we're looking at the rebuild more seriously.


Nice work 007 ya campaigner.

Darcy jones a sure thing now?


On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[THE A5]

What a glorious day guys

 

[Bleedblueandgold]

I'm still a bit sus if Langdon is gone once and for all. I certainly hope so, but the way they said he's being removed from the primary list rather than "delisted" concerns me that he might be considered for a rookie spot.

 

[dajesmac]

Their wording is very specific about the main list.

Keeping their options I dare say. Wont rule it out completely but hope there is better talent available in the RD

 

[THE A5]

9 days ago lol.

 

[bl4ke]

I had Langdon pick 1 so this is terrible news