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

 

[Son_Of_God29]

For those tuning into the VFL today, have a look at former Sun Brayden Crossley in the ruck for the Sharks. Haven't seen much of him but he leads the VFL for hitouts and has had a few games where he has kicked multiple goals.

Looks like he doesn't mind a snag or two so maybe he could be the next Mumford project? Plays a physical brand and looks like he has a reasonable skill set for a ruckman.

Just look for the bad mother rucker moustache.

Would think the door to an AFL return is done considering his previous 12 month drug ban - looks like he could play though

AFL Statement: Brayden Crossley sanction

Read the full AFL statement on the Brayden Crossley sanction

www.afl.com.au

 

[Johanpetro]

Yes. Our centre square brigade typically all get 65% of the game. Bruhn, Atkins, Parfitt all got roughly 65% time when playing on-ball, the same goes for Dangerfield when playing in the middle.

It is the major reason why none of them rack up big numbers. It's not like the Dogs where Treloar, Bont, Libba etc all get 80%+.

Cool let’s see if Bailey Smith plays 65% of game time next season. Would prove your point that Bruhn, Atkins and Parfitt are all fitness machines but we just don’t let them play anymore TOG

 

[frggr]

Take on McRae's big contract on one side, get a lower price on Smith on the other.

I think McRae's relative interest in Geelong would be a good proxy for whether Smith himself is problematic, too.

 

[FootyLad0]

I think McRae's relative interest in Geelong would be a good proxy for whether Smith himself is problematic, too.

As in, McRae wouldn’t want to go to Geelong if Smith was there?

 

[cats_09]

Since it's a discussion topic, here's our midfielders average TOG across this season

Some observations:

• Knevitt's seriously impacted due to playing only minutes against Adelaide in round 2
• Clark has played as the starting sub
• Guthrie, Bruhn & Parfitt have all been subbed off early
• The highest TOGs are the guys not purely playing as inside mids, with Holmes also spending good time playing from the backline

A very clear example of how we run the midfield & TOG is looking at Tommy Stewart this year with the obvious difference in his TOG from full-time defender to inside mid after the Essendon game

Ignoring being subbed off, as a defender he only played less then 83% TOG twice, while as a midfielder he's only played more than 79% twice - he averaged 84.4% TOG playing as a defender and that drops to 77.6% as a mid

Stewart has also spoken about how the midfield group gets roatated to the bench more than the other players on the ground - so that's another reason he hasn't minded the move






For another comparison, here's Jack Bowes

12

Jack Bowes

Age

26

Ht

189cm

Wt

85kg

Pos.

D/M

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.3

4star

K

9.7

4star

HB

6.6

4star

M

3.9

4star

T

2.5

4star

MG

318.1

4star

D

18.0

4star

K

11.8

5star

HB

6.3

4star

M

5.4

5star

T

1.1

2star

MG

318.1

4star

D

11.6

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

5.2

4star

M

2.8

3star

T

2.4

4star

career stats including his time at GC - noticeable drop in TOG since arriving at Geelong, and that's not simply due to the sub role but the team structure. And I'm going to guess he'd have the match fitness to run out for longer than he does

 

[cats_09]

Cool let’s see if Bailey Smith plays 65% of game time next season. Would prove your point that Bruhn, Atkins and Parfitt are all fitness machines but we just don’t let them play anymore TOG

If playing as a pure inside mid, he'd likely be averaging around the 70% TOG at Geelong - our inside mids simple don't average 80%+ over recent seasons due to changes in structure and planning for the group

 

[iameviljez]

Cool let’s see if Bailey Smith plays 65% of game time next season. Would prove your point that Bruhn, Atkins and Parfitt are all fitness machines but we just don’t let them play anymore TOG

Depends on where he plays. Are you suggesting that all of Dangerfield, Bruhn, Atkins and Parfitt are somehow all just unfit compared to other on-ball brigades?

My suspicion is that the coaching team know that the on-ball brigade can't compete on raw star power, so they try and keep them as fresh as possible.

 

[Footy Smarts]

The highest TOG from the weekend was interesting. Dempsey, Mannagh, Henry, Henry, Bews, Kolo and Mullin (who would've been higher if not for hurting his knee late). Not exactly the biggest names on our list.

We're happy for our outside runners and defenders to play big minutes. But we clearly want our inside players to be explosive so we limit them to low game time.

The only real exception to that last Thursday was Duncan who had very low game time (under 60%) until the last quarter. Are we worried about him running out a game or were we actively managing him in case we needed to play 4 consecutive finals?

 

[iameviljez]

The highest TOG from the weekend was interesting. Dempsey, Mannagh, Henry, Henry, Bews, Kolo and Mullin (who would've been higher if not for hurting his knee late). Not exactly the biggest names on our list.

We're happy for our outside runners and defenders to play big minutes. But we clearly want our inside players to be explosive so we limit them to low game time.

The only real exception to that last Thursday was Duncan who had very low game time (under 60%) until the last quarter. Are we worried about him running out a game or were we actively managing him in case we needed to play 4 consecutive finals?

Yep, usually our longest ToG players are our outside runners and our tall backs.

It's a similar model to what Melbourne does with Langdon - not the best player in the AFL, not the flashiest, but he can play the whole game on the wing without needing a rotation, letting the best players continually refresh and sprint.

 

[sexyhunk]

if we win the flag this year i couldn't give a rats fat who we bring in….id give Paddy 5 years if he wanted!!!

agree with this, and i would gladly offer 2 first for smith cause that mean our fist this year is 18. is all about flags.

 

[Johanpetro]

Depends on where he plays. Are you suggesting that all of Dangerfield, Bruhn, Atkins and Parfitt are somehow all just unfit compared to other on-ball brigades?

My suspicion is that the coaching team know that the on-ball brigade can't compete on raw star power, so they try and keep them as fresh as possible.

Bruhn and Parfitt yes. Danger obviously managed due to age/injury. My main point is Bruhn though. He hasn’t got the tank to play more than he is atm, another pre season or 2 will help

 

[Strange Cat]

Over the pre-season, do we actually undertake a standard time trial such as the 2km?

I thought we changed years ago to a timed run and seeing the distance players could cover across 10 minutes, 20 minutes etc, as that was more relevant than simply running 2km...

I wonder who will be the new time trial king once Blitz is done lol

 

[iameviljez]

My main point is Bruhn though. He hasn’t got the tank to play more than he is atm, another pre season or 2 will help

How do you know this?

 

[Jumping Jack]

Add this to the pile of stupid, ill-considered and poorly researched stories for some time. They tried to make something out of nothing (if you watch the exchange on Fox Footy) then went full 360 degrees and talked themselves down at the end.

The Bailey Smith deal with Cotton On (and McDonalds) has already been signed off by the AFL. Having had some behind the scenes knowledge of how these deals are viewed, there's a very simple default position (or starting point) that the AFL takes. Is there a legitimate "commercial" component to the deal. In other words, does the sponsorship or endorsement arrangement provide legitimate value back to the sponsor at relative commercial terms - whether it's Bailey Smith or any other personality outside AFL circles. If it lines up then it gets ticked off as being outside the cap.

These blokes even touched on a couple of absurd examples like the Chris Judd and Visy $200k deal which had no tangible commercial benefit back to Visy and got knocked on the head by the AFL. Also the example of the WCE player who got $150k for "attending" 3 football clinics with a sponsor.

So the bottom line is that Bailey Smith's connection to a current Geelong commercial partner (Cotton On) is largely irrelevant in this case as the deal has previously been signed off by the AFL. The only cause for the AFL to re-examine the bona fides of the deal would be if the arrangement conveniently doubled in dollar value upon him signing with Geelong. Neither Geelong or Cotton On are stupid enough to do that. Steve Hocking is across this stuff from his AFL days and the club will manage it perfectly - as you'd expect.

 

[cats_09]

I wonder who will be the new time trial king once Blitz is done lol

Merrick has often been right up there

Thinking Holmes is potentially another along with Scratcher due to his athletic background

 

[iameviljez]

These blokes even touched on a couple of absurd examples like the Chris Judd and Visy $200k deal which had no tangible commercial benefit back to Visy and got knocked on the head by the AFL. Also the example of the WCE player who got $150k for "attending" 3 football clinics with a sponsor.

To be fair, the article also stated that this agreement would absolutely not fly nowadays.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Over the pre-season, do we actually undertake a standard time trial such as the 2km?

I thought we changed years ago to a timed run and seeing the distance players could cover across 10 minutes, 20 minutes etc, as that was more relevant than simply running 2km...

That's my recollection too. Either way it's not a full game endurance test

 

[frggr]

As in, McRae wouldn’t want to go to Geelong if Smith was there?

Yeah, more or less.

If McRae chooses Geelong then I think that's a good sign - or at least not a bad one.

That no club has been named suggests he may have chosen Geelong.

Add to that Smith's (now deleted) post and I reckon we're going to eventually find out that Smith wasn't/isn't the problem at Footscray and that Darcy (who is a ****ing peanut of the highest order), Bevo, and Bains (who oversaw a cluster**** at St Kilda) are more likely to be the issue.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

I wonder who will be the new time trial king once Blitz is done lol

Dempsey and Knevitt if the big fella is still with us

 

[frggr]

Add this to the pile of stupid, ill-considered and poorly researched stories for some time. They tried to make something out of nothing (if you watch the exchange on Fox Footy) then went full 360 degrees and talked themselves down at the end.

The Bailey Smith deal with Cotton On (and McDonalds) has already been signed off by the AFL. Having had some behind the scenes knowledge of how these deals are viewed, there's a very simple default position (or starting point) that the AFL takes. Is there a legitimate "commercial" component to the deal. In other words, does the sponsorship or endorsement arrangement provide legitimate value back to the sponsor at relative commercial terms - whether it's Bailey Smith or any other personality outside AFL circles. If it lines up then it gets ticked off as being outside the cap.

These blokes even touched on a couple of absurd examples like the Chris Judd and Visy $200k deal which had no tangible commercial benefit back to Visy and got knocked on the head by the AFL. Also the example of the WCE player who got $150k for "attending" 3 football clinics with a sponsor.

So the bottom line is that Bailey Smith's connection to a current Geelong commercial partner (Cotton On) is largely irrelevant in this case as the deal has previously been signed off by the AFL. The only cause for the AFL to re-examine the bona fides of the deal would be if the arrangement conveniently doubled in dollar value upon him signing with Geelong. Neither Geelong or Cotton On are stupid enough to do that. Steve Hocking is across this stuff from his AFL days and the club will manage it perfectly - as you'd expect.

Look all I'm saying is that if Cotton On release a range of 'Bailey Smith Commemorative Mullet Wigs' I'll put myself down to buy 100,000 of em.

Great post, JJ - cuts through the manufactured hysteria of the AFL media perfectly.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Add this to the pile of stupid, ill-considered and poorly researched stories for some time. They tried to make something out of nothing (if you watch the exchange on Fox Footy) then went full 360 degrees and talked themselves down at the end.

The Bailey Smith deal with Cotton On (and McDonalds) has already been signed off by the AFL. Having had some behind the scenes knowledge of how these deals are viewed, there's a very simple default position (or starting point) that the AFL takes. Is there a legitimate "commercial" component to the deal. In other words, does the sponsorship or endorsement arrangement provide legitimate value back to the sponsor at relative commercial terms - whether it's Bailey Smith or any other personality outside AFL circles. If it lines up then it gets ticked off as being outside the cap.

These blokes even touched on a couple of absurd examples like the Chris Judd and Visy $200k deal which had no tangible commercial benefit back to Visy and got knocked on the head by the AFL. Also the example of the WCE player who got $150k for "attending" 3 football clinics with a sponsor.

So the bottom line is that Bailey Smith's connection to a current Geelong commercial partner (Cotton On) is largely irrelevant in this case as the deal has previously been signed off by the AFL. The only cause for the AFL to re-examine the bona fides of the deal would be if the arrangement conveniently doubled in dollar value upon him signing with Geelong. Neither Geelong or Cotton On are stupid enough to do that. Steve Hocking is across this stuff from his AFL days and the club will manage it perfectly - as you'd expect.

They would keep an eye on whether the agreement expanded and the relative value add of that expansion to Cotton On though.

 

[Gunf]

I wonder who will be the new time trial king once Blitz is done lol

Miers would be a good shout

 

[iameviljez]

Yeah, more or less.

If McRae chooses Geelong then I think that's a good sign - or at least not a bad one.

That no club has been named suggests he may have chosen Geelong.

Add to that Smith's (now deleted) post and I reckon we're going to eventually find out that Smith wasn't/isn't the problem at Footscray and that Darcy (who is a ing peanut of the highest order), Bevo, and Bains (who oversaw a cluster at St Kilda) are more likely to be the issue.

That post wasn't the greatest idea in all history. Bevo may well be a divisive idiot, but it's best to be patient and unload on him after you've retired.

 

[Jumping Jack]

They would keep an eye on whether the agreement expanded and the relative value add of that expansion to Cotton On though.

Any changes to allow for CPI component and general cost of living changes would be acceptable and most likely be reflected in clauses built into those agreements. I think the AFL would only see a red flag if there was an abnormal increase to the contract value without a rationale explanation. Or if the tangible commercial return to the sponsor was impacted by less work the player was seen to be doing for them.

Hard to see the latter being an issue if Cotton On are already a sponsor of the club. Smith's profile and brand presence would only build for the brand once he lands at Geelong. I recall speaking to someone about the impact of Ablett Jnr returning to the club a few years ago - it was estimated that the commercial / financial benefit of him coming back was around $300k pa to the clubs bottom line. Things have changed a bit since then and given Smith's social media profile I'd take a stab and say the benefit to Geelong off field would be well north of $500k pa.

 

[Gunf]

Since it's a discussion topic, here's our midfielders average TOG across this season

Some observations:

• Knevitt's seriously impacted due to playing only minutes against Adelaide in round 2
• Clark has played as the starting sub
• Guthrie, Bruhn & Parfitt have all been subbed off early
• The highest TOGs are the guys not purely playing as inside mids, with Holmes also spending good time playing from the backline

View attachment 2107318

A very clear example of how we run the midfield & TOG is looking at Tommy Stewart this year with the obvious difference in his TOG from full-time defender to inside mid after the Essendon game

Ignoring being subbed off, as a defender he only played less then 83% TOG twice, while as a midfielder he's only played more than 79% twice - he averaged 84.4% TOG playing as a defender and that drops to 77.6% as a mid

Stewart has also spoken about how the midfield group gets roatated to the bench more than the other players on the ground - so that's another reason he hasn't minded the move

View attachment 2107334




For another comparison, here's Jack Bowes career stats including his time at GC - noticeable drop in TOG since arriving at Geelong, and that's not simply due to the sub role but the team structure. And I'm going to guess he'd have the match fitness to run out for longer than he does

View attachment 2107328

View attachment 2107331

Some of us have explained the fact that we changed the way we run our midfield in 22 had an effect on tog and possession counts.

Yet some still seem to think that this player or that player are completely unfit or this player and that player don't do enough cause they don't average 25+ possessions.

I have yet to see 100% proof Bruhn for example can't play 80% each week.

Something changed in the coaching group between 2021 and 22 which stopped us from playing Danger, Selwood, Gola, Guthrie etc at 85% game time constantly as they decided that by doing that the players by the time they got finals they were cooked or carrying to many injuries to be completely on the ball.