Rumour GFC 2024 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt 2

[cats_09]

Ask and we'll try our best to assist - so here's 2024 Provisional AFL Draft Order

As normal, would like to acknowledge & thank Lore for creating this, keeping it up to date and making it available for all users on BF to use and keep track of the picks ahead of the upcoming draft





I'll also sticky this post to ensure it's easily accessible for discussion of our hypothetical trader


Also,

2024 Free Agency Period​

The AFL introduced free agency at the end of the 2012 season, giving players another vehicle where they can transfer from one club to another. Free agency is a common form of player movement in major football and sporting codes around the world.

Free Agency Opens: Friday October 4 at 9.00am
Free Agency Closes: Friday October 11 at 5.00pm

Continental Tyres AFL Trade Period​

Trade Period Opens: Monday October 7 at 9.00am
Trade Period Closes: Wednesday October 16 at 7.30pm

 

[Pure_Ownage]

In all seriousness given O'Brien was dropped this year for a genuine spud and the fact we know Chris Scott prefers mobile rucks I'd actually be pretty surprised if ROB would get a game for us. And you don't give up a pick in the 30s and a solid salary which he'd be on for a backup.

Who would get a game ahead of him? For next year our options are basically zero. He would play.

I agree i wouldnt overpay on the salary but he might be happy with average money which i would pay.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Just a bit of context for the Waterman scenario. Jake’s a free agent next year and if he maintains his 3 goal a game output in an awful team he’ll almost certainly get a band 1 offer next year. I think most are realistic enough to see that’s likely to mean a pick between 2 and 4.

I presume we’ll make sure his contract is enough to make him a restricted FA so we can match any offer if it’s in the club’s best interests.

Jake’s obviously a father son and the family has a history with the club since its inception. I’d be very surprised if Jake was pushing a move, it’s more likely to come from the Eagles if they decide the best way forward is to gain draft capital by refusing to raise/extend his contract significantly.

So whilst a top 10 pick (or equivalent) seems like overs, given his FA status next year and the possible compensation, WCE would factor that in when deciding if they would accept a trade this year. Obviously there is a risk of injury or that his form drops off but we have enough tall forward depth to cover him if he left.

Given the value and difficultly of finding tall forwards I’d be surprised if he left, I suspect his manager is just getting to work but if a good offer for Jake and the Eagles came in then I’m sure all parties would look at it.

Yeah I expect we're just putting in the offer now for next year. The money underlines his value and makes West Coast add dollars and stall negotiations until next year. I don't expect there would be an actual trade for him.

I also wouldn't guarantee band 1 on that either

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Just a bit of context for the Waterman scenario. Jake’s a free agent next year and if he maintains his 3 goal a game output in an awful team he’ll almost certainly get a band 1 offer next year. I think most are realistic enough to see that’s likely to mean a pick between 2 and 4.

I presume we’ll make sure his contract is enough to make him a restricted FA so we can match any offer if it’s in the club’s best interests.

Jake’s obviously a father son and the family has a history with the club since its inception. I’d be very surprised if Jake was pushing a move, it’s more likely to come from the Eagles if they decide the best way forward is to gain draft capital by refusing to raise/extend his contract significantly.

So whilst a top 10 pick (or equivalent) seems like overs, given his FA status next year and the possible compensation, WCE would factor that in when deciding if they would accept a trade this year. Obviously there is a risk of injury or that his form drops off but we have enough tall forward depth to cover him if he left.

Given the value and difficultly of finding tall forwards I’d be surprised if he left, I suspect his manager is just getting to work but if a good offer for Jake and the Eagles came in then I’m sure all parties would look at it.

When his last deal was signed it would have been average cash so he will be UFA you cant make him RFA now.

But i agree what he gets offered by a new club will probably trigger band 1 compo and for that reason i dont see you trading him this year.

 

[eaglevision]

Yeah I expect we're just putting in the offer now for next year. The money underlines his value and makes West Coast add dollars and stall negotiations until next year. I don't expect there would be an actual trade for him.

I also wouldn't guarantee band 1 on that either

Perhaps not from the Cats but if he goes at 3 goals a game again next year there will unequivocally be a band 1 offer from more than one club for a 3 goal a game tall forward in the modern game

 

[eaglevision]

When his last deal was signed it would have been average cash so he will be UFA you cant make him RFA now.

But i agree what he gets offered by a new club will probably trigger band 1 compo and for that reason i dont see you trading him this year.

We can bump up his existing 2 year contract so to ensure he’s a RFA at the end of his contract next year. According to footywire he’s already a RFA.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Perhaps not from the Cats but if he goes at 3 goals a game again next year there will unequivocally be a band 1 offer from more than one club for a 3 goal a game tall forward in the modern game

Yeah, let's hold fitlre on the presumptions until that happens though. I just wouldn't lock it in.

Either way, if he's leaving West Coast surely it's as a free agent not a trade. Would make zero sense as a trade

 

[CatToTheFuture]

We can bump up his existing 2 year contract so to ensure he’s a RFA at the end of his contract next year. According to footywire he’s already a RFA.

I don't think you can actually do that. He's already contracted for next year. You'd need to extend him. Also, footywire doesn't know this far out. In fact neither does the afl. Academic though because you would lose by matching

 

[Cattas_21]

lol waterman....

how many of you guys are old enough to remember geelong's boom forward recruits from west coast in brett spinks, mitcehll white.

Loved a WCE fwd back in the day, saw another poster mention Derek Hall. There was also David Haynes!

 

[eaglevision]

I don't think you can actually do that. He's already contracted for next year. You'd need to extend him. Also, footywire doesn't know this far out. In fact neither does the afl. Academic though because you would lose by matching

You can renegotiate the contract and as long as the average salary of the length of that contract (2 years this year and next) is in the top 25% then he’s a RFA. We can still bump his salary this year and next if needed.

If the offer was band 2 we’d match for sure, 750k or so over 5 years would be a good result for us. If it was band 1 and Jake was happy with the offer I’d hope wed let him go.

 

[sexyhunk]

if we even bother to put time in waterman I do a terry wallace.

nothing wrong with waterman but forwardline is not our problem, we should put time in recruiting for the midfield. even if we get bailry smith we still need more as from where we stand now, parfaitt and cam guthrie wont play more meaningful games for us from next year, dangerfield and blitzacs also a year older.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

We can bump up his existing 2 year contract so to ensure he’s a RFA at the end of his contract next year. According to footywire he’s already a RFA.

Footywire is completely inaccurate with contracts always.
You cant bump the existing contract and he wouldnt agree to that bc it limits his options.
Either he is pushing for an upgraded long term (5yrs) eagles deal and will sign it this off season (the manager is posturing for this) or he will sign for another club at end 2025. Either way he wont be RFA.

 

[eaglevision]

Footywire is completely inaccurate with contracts always.
You cant bump the existing contract and he wouldnt agree to that bc it limits his options.
Either he is pushing for an upgraded long term (5yrs) eagles deal and will sign it this off season (the manager is posturing for this) or he will sign for another club at end 2025. Either way he wont be RFA.

Why would he not agree to a pay increase and how would it limit his options?

 

[CatToTheFuture]

You can renegotiate the contract and as long as the average salary of the length of that contract (2 years this year and next) is in the top 25% then he’s a RFA. We can still bump his salary this year and next if needed.

If the offer was band 2 we’d match for sure, 750k or so over 5 years would be a good result for us. If it was band 1 and Jake was happy with the offer I’d hope wed let him go.

So Waterman is going to sign a contract for next year which pays him a couple hundred grand more for that year specifically but that contract is specifically there to undermine his bargaining power at the end of next year and make a trade harder and undermine his personal options?

Call me crazy but I doubt he's signing that contract

 

[eaglevision]

So Waterman is going to sign a contract for next year which pays him a couple hundred grand more for that year specifically but that contract is specifically there to undermine his bargaining power at the end of next year and make a trade harder and undermine his personal options?

Call me crazy but I doubt he's signing that contract

He’s already signed for next year guys read the post. All I’m saying is we can increase how much he is paid if needed.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

He’s already signed for next year guys read the post. All I’m saying is we can increase how much he is paid if needed.

Yeah, all im saying is that won't happen for two reasons:

1) it wouldn't be in watermans interest so he won't sign it

2) it won't be in West coasts best interests so they won't offer it

 

[eaglevision]

Yeah, all im saying is that won't happen for two reasons:

1) it wouldn't be in watermans interest so he won't sign it

2) it won't be in West coasts best interests so they won't offer it

1/ Waterman’s ideal outcome would be for WCE to match the best offer he receives and stay in Perth as a one club player.

2/ It would absolutely be in our best interests to pay a little more to ensure he’s RFA. We are going to really struggle to hit the 95% cap floor this year and next.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

1/ Waterman’s ideal outcome would be for WCE to match the best offer he receives and stay in Perth as a one club player.

2/ It would absolutely be in our best interests to pay a little more to ensure he’s RFA. We are going to really struggle to hit the 95% cap floor this year and next.

1/ if that's the case he won't sign a 1 year deal. What is your point?

2/ why throw more money at a player to make them RFA when your best outcome in him leaving is not matching to begin with? Throw the money at players who are staying

 

[Art Vandelay_]

Still a hard pass on journeymen rucks, and I'd include ROB.
Waste of time.

 

[eaglevision]

1/ if that's the case he won't sign a 1 year deal. What is your point?

2/ why throw more money at a player to make them RFA when your best outcome in him leaving is not matching to begin with? Throw the money at players who are staying

1/ why are you talking about a one year deal? He’s already signed for next year there’s nothing at all I’ve said about a one year deal.

2/ why use a small fraction of the gigantic space in our cap to ensure we can match a bid on our player? Pretty self explanatory.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

1/ why are you talking about a one year deal? He’s already signed for next year there’s nothing at all I’ve said about a one year deal.

2/ why use a small fraction of the gigantic space in our cap to ensure we can match a bid on our player? Pretty self explanatory.

1/ that is literally what you were suggesting here:

We can bump up his existing 2 year contract so to ensure he’s a RFA at the end of his contract next year. According to footywire he’s already a RFA.

2/ Matching gets you a worse deal, why invest in matching? Sign the player or don't sign the player

 

[catempire]

Waterman has "Jade Rawlings" written all over him.

Yep, as in he doesn’t want to come here.

 

[catempire]

Just a bit of context for the Waterman scenario. Jake’s a free agent next year and if he maintains his 3 goal a game output in an awful team he’ll almost certainly get a band 1 offer next year. I think most are realistic enough to see that’s likely to mean a pick between 2 and 4.

I presume we’ll make sure his contract is enough to make him a restricted FA so we can match any offer if it’s in the club’s best interests.

Jake’s obviously a father son and the family has a history with the club since its inception. I’d be very surprised if Jake was pushing a move, it’s more likely to come from the Eagles if they decide the best way forward is to gain draft capital by refusing to raise/extend his contract significantly.

So whilst a top 10 pick (or equivalent) seems like overs, given his FA status next year and the possible compensation, WCE would factor that in when deciding if they would accept a trade this year. Obviously there is a risk of injury or that his form drops off but we have enough tall forward depth to cover him if he left.

Given the value and difficultly of finding tall forwards I’d be surprised if he left, I suspect his manager is just getting to work but if a good offer for Jake and the Eagles came in then I’m sure all parties would look at it.

Zero chance of leaving. Great work by his manager.

PS. Nobody would ever pay a top 10 pick for him.

 

[D BRIDGE]

If I’m Waterman (and I promise I’m not) I’d be trying to get that big contract now.

Cash in now on his “one good year only” form.

If he goes into next year and drops form or does an ACL it’ll cost him bigtime.

The safe bet would be to lock something in now if possible (even if slightly unders).

He can obviously bet on himself (and might need to) but that could backfire.

Good luck to him.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I really think this is where statistics can be misinterpreted. Hitouts are basically an individual stat, 1 out of 44 players on the field can increase you chances of winning by 1.6%. Maybe as a team that’s not a lot but if 5-6 players improve your chances of winning by 1.6% it starts to add up. And that’s only part of a rucks contribution, they are often influential in terms of clearances, presenting as a marking target, and dropping back and contesting in the air.

In addition, the stat is kind of useless IMO without margin. What’s the win rate if you win hitouts by 1 vs 10%, 30%, 50%. Geelong had 70% less hitouts than North Melbourne, we won that specific game but I do wonder if you ever hit a tipping point where hitouts stats to influence things more.

Good discussion to have. Those figures would have been taken over a very large sample of games, so I imagine the take home point from it is hitouts alone are non influential in terms of influencing outcomes. There are so many other more important areas to have your ruck focused and skilled at.

 

[Klink]

If I’m Waterman (and I promise I’m not) I’d be trying to get that big contract now.

Cash in now on his “one good year only” form.

If he goes into next year and drops form or does an ACL it’ll cost him bigtime.

The safe bet would be to lock something now in if possible (even if slightly unders).

He can obviously bet on himself (and might need to) but that could backfire.

Good luck to him.

That's a very good point you raise.

If he has another year, next year, like he is having this year, it will pay off in a big way and he will likely be an UFA with huge offers.

But it's not without significant risk as you have alluded to.