News Monfries traded to Port + Expectations Poll

[CV21]

Thats wrinkles and stupid....
Or dumb and dumber....

You call them graham and stephen around here, and ppl dont know who your talking about...

Haha, i'll keep that in mind for next time

 

[240volt]

Here we go again....all aboard the Spud Train, gee this time of year comes around fast

And our first Spud on offer is Angus Monfries, 180cm slow as a wet week and cant kick for shyt ....if that don't get your taste bubs drooling nothing will.

 

[pastmyprimus]

According to the AFL website Carlton has de-listed Jordan Russell so we could pick him up quite cheaply.

 

[Natman]

The radio hosts on the 5AA sports show.

Rooly

 

[Enviable Tradition]

According to the AFL website Carlton has de-listed Jordan Russell so we could pick him up quite cheaply.

If he is delisted then we can pick him up for free as a delisted free agent.

I don't think picking up a delisted free agent affects our compo either.

 

[Waspy79]

So just to be clear - you are high on Monfries?

As a non-injured 2006-08 era Salopek standard player would obviously be quite a worthy addition to our team.

Salopek has not contributed much to the club's on field fortunes for years - Monfries will be a best 18 player.

The worst case scenario would be that Monfries becomes a less-injury-prone fringe-AFL-team primarily-SANFL-based list-clogger as Sal sadly has become.

 

[pastmyprimus]

If he is delisted then we can pick him up for free as a delisted free agent.

I don't think picking up a delisted free agent affects our compo either.

Free is my kind of cheap

 

[Junk]

Just curious.. Our compensation picks, do we receive them for this coming draft or next years?

 

[Forzaport]

This draft only. No banking of FA compo picks allowed.

 

[TheFVK]

I don't see the issue with offering Angus Monfries 4 years. In these times of FA the carrot to lure a player over will often be that extra year or two on the contract- the security of a long term contract at a good wage. If that's what it takes then that's what it takes, and if we don't pay the price then there are 16 other clubs who might. Being stingy on contract lengths will see us miss out on luring Free Agents to our club.

Contract lengths for Free Agents should not be compared to contract lengths for existing squad members.

 

[Portia]

Being stingy on contract lengths will see us miss out on luring Free Agents to our club

It'll also see us with greater list and contract flexibility for all of the other ways in which we can acquire & trade players, including those FAs.

 

[TheFVK]

It'll also see us with greater list and contract flexibility for all of the other ways in which we can acquire & trade players, including those FAs.

So we should be stingy on contracts offered to FAs (which will ensure we won't lure any FAs), so that we have greater list flexibility to acquire FAs?

 

[Powerade 08]

So we should be stingy on contracts offered to FAs (which will ensure we won't lure any FAs), so that we have greater list flexibility to acquire FAs?

We aren't being stingy. Freo and Richmond are being generous.

 

[Jumbo]

We aren't being stingy. Freo and Richmond are being generous.

Richmond are trying to help us become a better side!

 

[Portia]

So we should be stingy on contracts offered to FAs (which will ensure we won't lure any FAs), so that we have greater list flexibility to acquire FAs?

I'm saying that the mere fact a player can go FA can make it easier to trade for them cheaply and on a sensible contract. I'd rather use that than throw 4 years at a guy barely in the first 18

 

[TheFVK]

We aren't being stingy. Freo and Richmond are being generous.

So far every best 22 Free Agent (Goddard, Pearce, Monfries and Chaplin) has signed a rumoured 4 year deal. I disagree with anyone who thinks that more generous contractual terms than a player's existing club are willing to offer are a key component of persuading players to switch clubs and allegiances.

This is not a Michael "HE GOT OFFERED 3 YEARS WTF" Pettigrew scenario, it is a situation in which we need to offer an identified player lucrative terms to coerce them to come to our club. Monfries is a proven talent who our recruiting department obviously feel will benefit us by being in our 22. With this in mind I have zero problem with them backing their judgement in and throwing in an extra year to the contract if that is what it takes to lure him over. The real problem here is that the judgement of our footballing department has been diabolical and so shorter contract lengths have been (in hindsight) more desirable to rid our club of the latest list clogger

 

[TheFVK]

I'm saying that the mere fact a player can go FA can make it easier to trade for them cheaply and on a sensible contract. I'd rather use that than throw 4 years at a guy barely in the first 18

It may make it easier, but there is still the task of convincing a player to change teams and sign with your club. As you correctly assert FA will ultimately reduce the cost (draft picks etc) of trading for players, but it is unlikely that they will switch allegiance for a "sensible contract" unless they have issues such as job security queries or the go-home factor. Usually this will mean showing them the $$$.

If we had a list management and recruitment department we could trust the extra year wouldn't be an issue, however with a track record of recruiting spuds like Nash, Logan, Meyer, Renouf, Shattock I can understand why this board is understandably wary of long term contracts for new arrivals.

 

[Portia]

It may make it easier, but there is still the task of convincing a player to change teams and sign with your club. As you correctly assert FA will ultimately reduce the cost (draft picks etc) of trading for players, but it is unlikely that they will switch allegiance for a "sensible contract" unless they have issues such as job security queries or the go-home factor. Usually this will mean showing them the $$$.

It is OK to accept that acquiring some players would not be affordable within the salary cap. That is actually a sensible conclusion to reach - its meant to be a balancing device.

The way you `win' at salary cap is to make sure you have enough money to get & keep the best players and that you don't overpay the players that you can replace. Monfries is just about the definition of a player that can be replaced.

 

[Malibu#27]

I get the impression we are replacing pearce with monfries to an extent... saving ourselves some cap space and holding on to a reasonable pick.

 

[TheFVK]

. Monfries is just about the definition of a player that can be replaced.

Come on, 180cm KPFs don't grow on trees!

Monfries for Pearce isn't exactly like-for-like, personally I just hope that letting Pearce go was a sign of our confidence in Pittard and Wingard stepping up as line-breakers.

 

[Ford Fairlane]

Capel writes it will be a trade via our third or fourth round pick.

 

[Wargreymon90]

<3 Rohde <3

 

[TheFVK]

In Rhode we trust

 

[cole w]

According to the AFL website Carlton has de-listed Jordan Russell so we could pick him up quite cheaply.

russell would be ok, what do you think it would take to get him. they say a third or fourth draft pick for monfries

 

[PJ Power]

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/sport...d-angus-monfries/story-fnahrqwo-1226490215892

Capel has clearly been reading BF. I hope we'd get better compensation than a second and third rounder for Pearce and Chaplin - that would be awful.