Rumour GFC 2022 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists PT2

[Brewskies]

Brisbane wont do that its too many list spots. Would need to trade 38 and sav for a 20s pick then say that and 48 for 21 so its less list spots for them to find. Future 1st and 2nd will prob have to be used in the deals.

They mentioned on trade radio this morning they are still looking to split picks as they want more points and they need to trade for Gunston

 

[Turbocat]

Ok, 3 years for everyone, then. The reason to limit to only first rounders would be, like you said, a pick 50 is just happy to be on a list and isn't going to request a trade after 1 year. Whereas a first rounder knows they can dictate where they want to go because other clubs want them. But I'd be happy to extend draftee contracts for everyone. It gives clubs security of a top player for a bit longer, and gives the high draft picks a guaranteed wage for another year before the prospect of being delisted. Although the salary for the 3rd year at least would likely have to be higher.

The draft does deny players their own desires, but what's the alternative? No 18yo will ever choose to go the GWS. It will be like free agency on steroids. But instead of waiting until a player is 25 or 26 before getting to choose where they go, they go as an 18yo.

Us losing Clark is relevant, no club is ALWAYS going to win. That's the risk you take a little when drafting someone from interstate. But we've clearly benefitted from good players choosing to come here, too. The problem is there are some clubs that will ALWAYS lose. How many highly rated young players have requested a trade to GWS, Gold Coast, North etc.? it's one-way traffic from the bottom clubs. They're putting all their effort into retaining who they've got (i.e. overpaying), but never get any good players actively seeking to join. There's a certain part of this which is unavoidable, especially with clubs from Qld and NSW as they're not going to have the 'go-home' factor working in their favour as often. But if you make player movement easier, and at a younger age, with no incentive to go to, or at least stay at these clubs, then they might as well not exist because they'll never be successful.

I have no answer to that really. Im yet to hear a better system really that doesn't have its own problems.

If every player was given the choice of a Rookie B that too would have problems.

I think you would find clubs would hate the idea of 3 year contracts for all players. They would whinge about that too. The other issue is money in the third year. What is Sam Dek on this year compared to what Dacios will be on in his thrid year.

The whole thing is wet soap

 

[moond0g]

Its a complex issue and comes down to culture,off field club management..many things.

But one of the big issues is the cap floor needs to be lowered but the aflpa wont agree as they want their members to keep getting more money.
If the cap floor is 80 % the suns dont have to offload bowes to begin with and other clubs can blow us out of the water with $ and get guys like bowes. Because everyone has to pay 95 %of the cap you have kids like tarryn thomas being grossly overpaid on 700k and the bottom clubs dont have much extra money compared to top 4 clubs to woo players (5% is not a lot).

They need to come up with a way to lower the cap floor to 80% as thats all a bottom 4 list needs to pay and gives them 20 %to recruit guns. Find ways to make up the 15 % gap in players pay by giving them a share of other afl revenue streams etc (in order to get the PA to agree to it).

The easier solution would be to keep the floor where it is, in an absolute $$ sense, and increase the cap overall.

This may be a compromise everyone can settle one, no player will be worse off, because the minimum payment doesn't go down, but there's a bit more room to move between the minimum and maximum a club can spend.

 

[Kitcat]

Great we got this Bowes player, but can anyone explain why GC weren't allowed to alter his contract like we are doing? Paying his fee over 4 years instead of 2? GC look inept in giving massive contracts and backending them, but will they ever be able to keep players? And then adding the #7 ... It seems unfair even to a Cats fan that we are the beneficiaries of this.

We don't know yet what he is getting over the 4 years. Whatever it is, GC didn't want to go down that route.

 

[Tackle_happy]

Won't make any difference. Pick 7 is off the table for both the Henry and Bruhn deals. Geelong will (and have) been very clear with other clubs with regards to the pick not being part of any negotiations.

Henry will get done with Pick 18. Collingwood know that's a reasonable deal for a player OOC and who has publicly stated they want out. Collingwood have asked for a player but Geelong unlikely to budge. If a player is involved then pick 18 is off the table.

Bruhn will get done, and I'm told that the pick situation is ok, but the player packaged up with the pick is the sticking point at the minute. Clubs aren't too far apart though.

Just what I've been told to this point, and much closer to deals dropping on Henry and Bruhn now that Bowes is effectively done.

Do you have an opinion in regards to the player? Sav?

 

[Isaac Norm Smith]

I agree you do bowes first get 7 in then you work on whatever futures are needed to get bruhn done (ie future 1st with later picks back to us).
Then you just keep 18 on the table for henry til the last day we will get him at 18 in the ND if needed..they will cave as they dont have an alternative.

Yep. Do you think a combination of Sav and say pick 48 is our ticket to a FR2 that will allow us to use FR1 for Bruhn? I understand we'd like to keep him but id expect he wants to move for opportunities and historically we don't stand in the way of fringe guys wanting to explore opportunity.

In terms of the FR2 that GC apparently want for Bowes and pick 7. Will they be happy with ours? It's pretty broad a FR2 ( pick 19 - 36). Ours is likely to be closer to 36 and the Suns will know this.

They may demand we get to work and secure another FR2 from a club that is likely to finish well below us and be closer to that 19 rather than 36? They obviously know we need to do this anyway as they know we will need our FR1 for Bruhn.

So they may sit back and wait for us to get a FR2 pick that is tied to a team likely to finish much lower.

 

[Turbocat]

Sav?

Its just gut feel and what id be thinking if I was in that situation. Happy where I am ... but its a business too. Not playing for discount vouchers and free boots.

 

[#6 Thorp #7 Selwood LOL]

We don't know yet what he is getting over the 4 years. Whatever it is, GC didn't want to go down that route.

As others have touched on, I think it's more likely that he didn't want to go down that route.

Bowes, seeing himself on the outer and after 6 years of losing, having already deferred a big chunk of his money to later years, was probably just ready to move on and wouldn't have entertained an extension with GC.

 

[Leeds17]

Dunkley deal falling apart? Or just gamesmanship?

 

[#6 Thorp #7 Selwood LOL]

Yep. Do you think a combination of Sav and say pick 48 is our ticket to a FR2 that will allow us to use FR1 for Bruhn? I understand we'd like to keep him but id expect he wants to move for opportunities and historically we don't stand in the way of fringe guys wanting to explore opportunity.

In terms of the FR2 that GC apparently want for Bowes and pick 7. Will they be happy with ours? It's pretty broad a FR2 ( pick 19 - 36). Ours is likely to be closer to 36 and the Suns will know this.

They may demand we get to work and secure another FR2 from a club that is likely to finish well below us and be closer to that 19 rather than 36? They obviously know we need to do this anyway as they know we will need our FR1 for Bruhn.

So they may sit back and wait for us to get a FR2 pick that is tied to a team likely to finish much lower.

Agree with the sentiment, but I don't think they are really in a position to demand anything. The need Bowes gone, and he has picked us.

Gun, meet head.

 

[dazbroncos]

DKing was unhappy on the trade show tonight. He was talking about bans for the top 4 sides trading or something like that.

Its sort of what happens when a theory balloon breaks.... a lot of hot air escapes. Geelong cant do this or that after winning. flag against the defined model...etc.


If we want to we change the system ... a player of certain standard gets rated as a certain number of points rather than based on what they are prepared to play for. Watch that system melt like hot butter when they try it....

Funny how Swans getting Heeney for peanuts was fine for most.. and Buddy...and oh an COLA....

We get none of that.... NONE... but we are the ones "rorting" the system when in fact its been players basically buying into a club wide ethos of tram first for greater chance of success and its paid off. We've turned 8 rookie players and post 50 draft picks into gold and mixed it with getting some total gun talent that have seen the way we do it and want to buy into it.

The AFL will change the system again to suit the poor pickers, the over payers and the selfish minded ones in the vain hope it gives them the leg up they need.

I just wish the respect for what we've done would be paid in full and recognised and the ones that have missed out get admonished for not having their shit together...

Copy what we have done... imitation is the greatest form of flattery after all.

And go ahead and change the rules.... we'll adapt and go forward with it knowing that the rest of them just simply needed help to catch up.

Smug - you better ****ing believe it - but we wont rest on our laurels either... we have work to do to maintain our relevance like the last 16 years.

GO Catters

 

[Isaac Norm Smith]

Agree with the sentiment, but I don't think they are really in a position to demand anything. The need Bowes gone, and he has picked us.

Gun, meet head.

Yeah let's hope. But if they have half a brain, from their pov it makes sense to get the best possible deal. But as we know, they don't always make the best decisions.

 

[Vdubs]

We don't know yet what he is getting over the 4 years. Whatever it is, GC didn't want to go down that route.

Great replies from everyone. I just wasn't aware of the GC side of things for starters, but also the player.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Yep. Do you think a combination of Sav and say pick 48 is our ticket to a FR2 that will allow us to use FR1 for Bruhn? I understand we'd like to keep him but id expect he wants to move for opportunities and historically we don't stand in the way of fringe guys wanting to explore opportunity.

In terms of the FR2 that GC apparently want for Bowes and pick 7. Will they be happy with ours? It's pretty broad a FR2 ( pick 19 - 36). Ours is likely to be closer to 36 and the Suns will know this.

They may demand we get to work and secure another FR2 from a club that is likely to finish well below us and be closer to that 19 rather than 36? They obviously know we need to do this anyway as they know we will need our FR1 for Bruhn.

So they may sit back and wait for us to get a FR2 pick that is tied to a team likely to finish much lower.

Yes i think all our later picks not just 48 will be on the table as we cant use them (list spots). Ideally we can get a earlyish fr2 with 38 48 55 and 58..if not use one or two of those picks plus sav for the fr2 if we have to. It will depend whether sav wants to stay or go obviously.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Do you have an opinion in regards to the player? Sav?

Just my own opinion. I can't see them trading Sav unless a very attractive offers falls in their lap. C Scott loves Sav and he's loved around the club by all reports. It's easy to look at Sav from a 2022 perspective - but if there were injuries to SDK / Hawkins / Cameron, then I think he plays way more footy.

Club has invested a bit of time and big blokes take longer as we know. I just don't think they'll part with him too easily.

Not to say it won't happen but I think we've got surplus stock in other areas on our list - Sav will be a required player still I think. The name popping up now is Cooper Stephens ........ will his chances of game time reduce if we bring in Bruhn / Jhye Clark / Bowes? And when Parfitt and Menegola were fringe best 22, and Holmes spends more time in the midfield?

 

[dazbroncos]

I think Clark is the obvious Selwood replacement but just the name Clark gives me jitters.
Humphrey could be a Danger replacement
Cadman a solid pick but will be gone.

They currently sit at 5-7 in most phantoms but we have effectively Pick 8. Will we miss all three.

Not as keen on those straight after Clark and would probably name Busslinger.

My issue with this is you dont replace Selwood.

And I pity the poor bastard that gets labelled as such.

There will clearly be someone playing in the position vacated by his retirement - but replacing Selwood is a furphy at best and just creates the illusion that his contribution will be covered.

And I hope we as a fan base can give the kids the time to work into it." Clark as the Selwood replacement in wk 9 only getting 14 touches was a waste of a pick 7.."

Just dont pressure the situation too much.

And im not having at you at all - its the concept im referring to.

GO Catters

 

[Stokey]

My issue with this is you dont replace Selwood.

And I pity the poor bastard that gets labelled as such.

There will clearly be someone playing in the position vacated by his retirement - but replacing Selwood is a furphy at best and just creates the illusion that his contribution will be covered.

And I hope we as a fan base can give the kids the time to work into it." Clark as the Selwood replacement in wk 9 only getting 14 touches was a waste of a pick 7.."

Just dont pressure the situation too much.

And im not having at you at all - its the concept im referring to.

GO Catters

Agree. I'm only talking position and a few characteristics. I don't expect anyone to be a Selwood clone.

 

[moond0g]

Funny how Swans getting Heeney for peanuts was fine for most.. and Buddy...and oh an COLA....

We get none of that.... NONE... but we are the ones "rorting" the system when in fact its been players basically buying into a club wide ethos of tram first for greater chance of success and its paid off. We've turned 8 rookie players and post 50 draft picks into gold and mixed it with getting some total gun talent that have seen the way we do it and want to buy into it.

The AFL will change the system again to suit the poor pickers, the over payers and the selfish minded ones in the vain hope it gives them the leg up they need.

I just wish the respect for what we've done would be paid in full and recognised and the ones that have missed out get admonished for not having their s**t together...

Copy what we have done... imitation is the greatest form of flattery after all.

And go ahead and change the rules.... we'll adapt and go forward with it knowing that the rest of them just simply needed help to catch up.

Smug - you better ******* believe it - but we wont rest on our laurels either... we have work to do to maintain our relevance like the last 16 years.

GO Catters

I think the swans getting Heeney was generally looked at as something which shouldn't happen, hence the system changed the next year. And has since changed again after JHU went to the dogs. COLA has also been scrapped.

I think most people are giving us due praise for the way we've managed our list. But I think it's also pretty naive to think that it's an even playing field and all clubs can do what we are doing. As has been discussed, FA forces some clubs to pay over to retain talent. The way the comp has been nationalised also means it will never be a completely even playing field. WA and SA clubs will probably always get more benefit from 'go-home' factor because they're footballing states with only 2 clubs, we also benefit from this from anyone from regional Vic or wanting that lifestyle.

The system is constantly in flux, and that won't stop now. I'm really grateful to support a team that has been so successful for a long period of time. But I also don't think it's unreasonable for the AFL to adapt and change the rules slightly here and there to try and keep the league from having perennial 'winners' and 'losers'.

 

[standupand]

I don't think zones will work. It's a backward step, an insular concept, and clubs will exploit it.

I'm no expert, but I think if you want to see which way we'll go in the AFL, just take a look at what most other major sporting codes do overseas. That's generally where we take our lead and I don't think it will be any different on this topic either.

Cheers. I'm definitely no expert either.

I just think with the level of free-agency in the comp now, the salary cap seems to be the only meaningful equalisation measure.

I don't see zones (I guess I mean some sort of access like with F-S, rather than exclusive access) as necessarily insular or a backward step. I think you've got to look at the reasons players decide to play for a particular club (say for less than their 'market price'). Often it's to be closer to family. Sometimes it's to play with others who they grew up with. Sometimes to chase success.

Club identity and club loyalty is something that, if the system tends to encourage it, will actually benefit the expansion clubs whose main struggle is not access to talent but retaining talent.

 

[goyoucatters]

Funny how Swans getting Heeney for peanuts was fine for most.. and Buddy...and oh an COLA....

We get none of that.... NONE... but we are the ones "rorting" the system when in fact its been players basically buying into a club wide ethos of tram first for greater chance of success and its paid off. We've turned 8 rookie players and post 50 draft picks into gold and mixed it with getting some total gun talent that have seen the way we do it and want to buy into it.

The AFL will change the system again to suit the poor pickers, the over payers and the selfish minded ones in the vain hope it gives them the leg up they need.

I just wish the respect for what we've done would be paid in full and recognised and the ones that have missed out get admonished for not having their s**t together...

Copy what we have done... imitation is the greatest form of flattery after all.

And go ahead and change the rules.... we'll adapt and go forward with it knowing that the rest of them just simply needed help to catch up.

Smug - you better ******* believe it - but we wont rest on our laurels either... we have work to do to maintain our relevance like the last 16 years.

GO Catters

I don't think it's hard to see that the system is 'broken', according to the viewpoint of everyone apart from followers of the hoops. You 'shouldn't' be able to do what the Cats are getting done here. To be incredibly relevant, agile and ultimately successful over such a long period of time, when the whole shebang is designed to have an inexorable gravitational pull over a much shorter timeframe.

But the system doesn't factor in intangibles like not 'needing' the draft to build a compelling list, or having players take significant unders to be part of a classy culture and an environment that is conducive to those wanting a life outside of the footy fishbowl. And I'm not sure it ever really can.

So here we are as an industry. Fumbling around to find a way to fix a system that clearly 'isn't working', without acknowledging that any serious changes to the status quo will ultimately have other unforeseen consequences that also fail to properly level the playing field. The AFL's grand dream to have 18 different premiers across 18 consecutive seasons will never come close to being realised. And the competing forces that are each club's/player's autonomy pitted against the 'greater good' of the entire competition will always result in deeply dissatisfying outcomes for plenty of those involved at any given point in time.

In the end, our club has nothing to hide and nothing to apologise for in how we have navigated the current arrangements at a level that is so far above everyone else. The rules have been the same for everyone (well, apart from the ones that have clearly worked against a club like ours, that is). So the rest of the comp would do well to spend less time bleating about us or banging on about the need to change the stipulations, and more time just trying to live out the title of Collingwood's historic culture report of recent years in how they manage their lists for success.

'Do. Better.'

 

[Sttew]

I think most people are giving us due praise for the way we've managed our list. But I think it's also pretty naive to think that it's an even playing field and all clubs can do what we are doing. As has been discussed, FA forces some clubs to pay over to retain talent. The way the comp has been nationalised also means it will never be a completely even playing field. WA and SA clubs will probably always get more benefit from 'go-home' factor because they're footballing states with only 2 clubs, we also benefit from this from anyone from regional Vic or wanting that lifestyle.

The system is constantly in flux, and that won't stop now. I'm really grateful to support a team that has been so successful for a long period of time. But I also don't think it's unreasonable for the AFL to adapt and change the rules slightly here and there to try and keep the league from having perennial 'winners' and 'losers'.

Success is compounding. Since 2007 Geelong has developed into a destination club and has been able to nurture a culture that is the envy of other clubs. As part of the new culture players were prepared to accept unders just to remain part of the Club. Joel's statement that you don't come to work at GFC for money; you come for the experience, simply encapsulates everything the Club has done over the past 14 years.

The expansion clubs and some of the less successful clubs cannot do what Geelong has done because it is money that attracts players to them. I am yet to hear a player say, "I'll take unders to be part of the success of Gold Coast / GWS". I reckon the same applies to North and probably St Kilda, Essendon and Port.

Should Geelong be penalised for what it has achieved? Absolutely not. We haven't had a top 10 pick in eons. No father sons who have come cheaply since 2006, and no favours in relation to our home ground.

 

[Stokey]

Success is compounding. Since 2007 Geelong has developed into a destination club and has been able to nurture a culture that is the envy of other clubs. As part of the new culture players were prepared to accept unders just to remain part of the Club. Joel's statement that you don't come to work at GFC for money; you come for the experience, simply encapsulates everything the Club has done over the past 14 years.

The expansion clubs and some of the less successful clubs cannot do what Geelong has done because it is money that attracts players to them. I am yet to hear a player say, "I'll take unders to be part of the success of Gold Coast / GWS success". I reckon the same applies to North and probably St Kilda, Essendon and Port.

Should Geelong be penalised for what it has achieved? Absolutely not. We haven't had a top 10 pick in eons. No father sons who have come cheaply since 2006, and no favours in relation to our home ground.

One thing you won't see Geelong doing is handing out 7+ year deals. Why clubs are doing this is beyond me.

I think it immediately kills trust. We as a club don't trust you to take a better offer from another club in a couple of years.

Create an environment where players want to play. Think and act like the best and players wi want to play for you and maybe for less.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Dunkley deal falling apart? Or just gamesmanship?

Brisbane traded out their 1st. It's hard to see that deal getting done.

 

[moond0g]

Success is compounding. Since 2007 Geelong has developed into a destination club and has been able to nurture a culture that is the envy of other clubs. As part of the new culture players were prepared to accept unders just to remain part of the Club. Joel's statement that you don't come to work at GFC for money; you come for the experience, simply encapsulates everything the Club has done over the past 14 years.

The expansion clubs and some of the less successful clubs cannot do what Geelong has done because it is money that attracts players to them. I am yet to hear a player say, "I'll take unders to be part of the success of Gold Coast / GWS success". I reckon the same applies to North and probably St Kilda, Essendon and Port.

Should Geelong be penalised for what it has achieved? Absolutely not. We haven't had a top 10 pick in eons. No father sons who have come cheaply since 2006, and no favours in relation to our home ground.

I agree 100% with what you're saying, success breeds success. But like you said, some clubs simply can't do what we have done.

But the AFL have a responsibility to try and make the competition fair, and allow the clubs you mention from having a reasonable chance of being successful. That doesn't mean punishing us, but they probably have to pull whatever levers they have available to let those clubs have a better chance of attracting and retaining talent.

 

[Tackle_happy]

Just my own opinion. I can't see them trading Sav unless a very attractive offers falls in their lap. C Scott loves Sav and he's loved around the club by all reports. It's easy to look at Sav from a 2022 perspective - but if there were injuries to SDK / Hawkins / Cameron, then I think he plays way more footy.

Club has invested a bit of time and big blokes take longer as we know. I just don't think they'll part with him too easily.

Not to say it won't happen but I think we've got surplus stock in other areas on our list - Sav will be a required player still I think. The name popping up now is Cooper Stephens ........ will his chances of game time reduce if we bring in Bruhn / Jhye Clark / Bowes? And when Parfitt and Menegola were fringe best 22, and Holmes spends more time in the midfield?

That does make more sense. GWS do need someone who is potentially going to be a hard worker more than uber polished (it's where they continually keep failing in regards to their picks).

If it is someone like Cooper then I am assuming the swap for Bruhn would likely be for a F2/FF2 then (and maybe some shuffling of deck chairs thereafter)?