Free Agency Nick Haynes - Joins Carlton as UFA

[Elmer_Hauser]

What you are saying may be right but unusually for BF, we can both be right and our points can be mutually exclusive. I am simply saying without draft improvement Hawks would have no interest in him at that age.

Fair enough.

The AFL was really angry at Gold Coast and their Jack Bowes trade with Geelong last year, i get the feeling they are probably going to try veto or introduce a new rule against any future potential 'salary dump' deals.

It's veering upon clubs being able to buy first round picks from other clubs for money (cap space relief) territory, which I am not really keen on.

 

[Makeshift Park]

GWS are simply not going to pay another club with a valuable draft pick to take him and contract off their books. They could easily still absorb it for one more season.

About $5m of their $13m salary cap is going to five players.

Then you've got Himmelberg and Taylor on about three-quarters of a million each.

Those are the kind of salaries you might expect in a team that's a premiership contender.

But then say GWS believe they are a contender in 2024 - its not clear to me what role Haynes has in that campaign.

Kingsley has started experimenting with Haynes playing upfield because there aren't positions available at half-back.

Sure he's a respected player, but no team wants to be spending a million bucks on a player without a critical and well-defined role.

 

[Giant Pete]

He's been mediocre at best for 2 years now Elmer

Incorrect.

 

[Orange crush]

When he isn't one of the 7 most required defenders in your team.

So in 2-3 years?

 

[Makeshift Park]

So in 2-3 years?

Well lets recap on the past 6 rounds:

Round 12 - VFL
Rounds 10 and 14 - subbed off
Round 17 - started as sub
Round 18 - suspended

But if you reckon that constitutes value for money, then that's fine.

 

[Orange crush]

Well lets recap on the past 6 rounds:

Round 12 - VFL
Rounds 10 and 14 - subbed off
Round 17 - started as sub
Round 18 - suspended

But if you reckon that constitutes value for money, then that's fine.

A concussion from friendly fire and an ankle knock can happen to anyone … he is best 22

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

It’s far less stupid than paying a million dollars for someone to play in the VFL for most of a year.
It’s also a better deal for GWS than any of those suggested so far in this thread.

even if you discount him as a player (and as an AA defender I don’t think you can) you’re still suggesting we give up pick 8 for 17 - which is beyond stupid.

also, after a lean 18 months with injury - he’s refound a fair bit of form in the back half of this season. He won’t be playing VFL if he stays.

I maintain that pick 8 AND Nick Haynes for pick 17 is unworthy, even given the stupidity of some of the crap you read on this board.

 

[Orange crush]

even if you discount him as a player (and as an AA defender I don’t think you can) you’re still suggesting we give up pick 8 for 17 - which is beyond stupid.

also, after a lean 18 months with injury - he’s refound a fair bit of form in the back half of this season. He won’t be playing VFL if he stays.

I maintain that pick 8 AND Nick Haynes for pick 17 is unworthy, even given the stupidity of some of the crap you read on this board.

Noodle, you must give more credit to these north supporters …. They have shown again and again EXACTLY how to run a club

 

[The Filth Wizard]

I think there's probably a disconnect in here - the southern states would be looking at Hayne as a pure salary dump (so are comparing the trade to the Bowes move) but clearly the GWS gang don't feel there needs to be a dump and should trade on pure value.

IMO Haynes should get the chance if he wants to stay a one club player, if there was any salary cap strain they could just hedge him over a couple of extra years.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Okay Ichabod Noodle Orange crush - given there are media reports suggesting he could be traded this year, what do you think represents fair trade value?

The giants have never - as far as I've seen - come out and disputed that his contract is backended on $1m. It seems fair to assume that is close to the mark, given those figures have been reported by multiple different outlets, and afl.com.au has reported that he's one of the Giants top 4 earners.

With all that in mind, would you expect that if the Giants are open to trading him out, the expectation is that the destination club would be stumping up for his whole salary? And if so, what picks do you imagine are changing hands in that scenario?

 

[FB19]

Fair enough.

The AFL was really angry at Gold Coast and their Jack Bowes trade with Geelong last year, i get the feeling they are probably going to try veto or introduce a new rule against any future potential 'salary dump' deals.

It's veering upon clubs being able to buy first round picks from other clubs for money (cap space relief) territory, which I am not really keen on.

Paying for picks has to come in. It’s the only way to balance out free agency which has skewed list management in favour of those at the top end. When you are good you need players and cap relief, players come via trading out picks you don’t need now or free agents who only go to the clubs in contention. CAP relief currently is done in the shadows or through crap like the bowes deal.
when you are bad you need the best draft picks available and you should be able to trade out cap space you don’t need now to achieve it. The opposite of trading out picks you don’t need now for players. It’s an absolute necessity and makes it more transparent which can only be an improvement.

 

[GinniAndTonic]

Let's get one thing clear.

GWS are not Gold Coast. They are not throwing in one of the first round picks in any potential trade involving Haynes so they can get his contract off their books.

That makes no sense whatsoever with him out of contract at the next season.

If.he goes to Hawthorn, it's just likely a direct swap for the Hawks second round pick (with maybe GWS chucking back a later round pick)

You ain't dealing with amateurs at GWS, unlike Gold Coast.

Let’s get one thing clear. You actually have no idea about footy.

Absolutely 0 clubs will take Haynes for a second round pick.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

Let’s get one thing clear. You actually have no idea about footy.

Absolutely 0 clubs will take Haynes for a second round pick.

Maybe. But the Giants are definitely not going to add a first round pick to off load him. GWS are more than happy to keep him.

 

[Makeshift Park]

Maybe. But the Giants are definitely not going to add a first round pick to off load him. GWS are more than happy to keep him.

According to Jon Ralph, he's the equal 12th highest paid player in the comp this year, and will be paid even more next year.

No one who has criticised the salary dump suggestions in this thread have suggested an alternative trade that any other club would agree to.

What do you think a fair deal for him looks like? As in, something that GWS and another team would agree to?

 

[Orange crush]

According to Jon Ralph, he's the equal 12th highest paid player in the comp this year, and will be paid even more next year.

No one who has criticised the salary dump suggestions in this thread have suggested an alternative trade that any other club would agree to.

What do you think a fair deal for him looks like? As in, something that GWS and another team would agree to?

Nothing needs to be done …. That’s the point

 

[Nugett]

Fair enough.

The AFL was really angry at Gold Coast and their Jack Bowes trade with Geelong last year, i get the feeling they are probably going to try veto or introduce a new rule against any future potential 'salary dump' deals.

It's veering upon clubs being able to buy first round picks from other clubs for money (cap space relief) territory, which I am not really keen on.

Geelong restructured the contract by extending it by 2 years and adding an extra $50k. rather than honouring the original contract terms. which makes it more of a trade than a salary dump.

For a salary dump deal to work correctly the original contract should be honoured. If you alter the terms of the contract then it should be considered a trade. Different criteria should be applied to differentiate the two.

The Bowes deal was a farce

 

[sydney_gws]

Let's get one thing clear.

GWS are not Gold Coast. They are not throwing in one of the first round picks in any potential trade involving Haynes so they can get his contract off their books.

That makes no sense whatsoever with him out of contract at the next season.

If.he goes to Hawthorn, it's just likely a direct swap for the Hawks second round pick (with maybe GWS chucking back a later round pick)

You ain't dealing with amateurs at GWS, unlike Gold Coast.

Last year trading 3 12 for 1 was amateurish ( to get a player rated 5th at best), as was trading 21,2023r2 for 15 only for 15 to get used in a bid on Rowston.

 

[sydney_gws]

Geelong restructured the contract by extending it by 2 years and adding an extra $50k. rather than honouring the original contract terms. which makes it more of a trade than a salary dump.

For a salary dump deal to work correctly the original contract should be honoured. If you alter the terms of the contract then it should be considered a trade. Different criteria should be applied to differentiate the two.

The Bowes deal was a farce

Afl should have told Gold coast to trade 7 for 18, Geelongs 2023r1, then traded 18 with Bowes.

 

[sydney_gws]

Maybe. But the Giants are definitely not going to add a first round pick to off load him. GWS are more than happy to keep him.

What about if gws have picks 7,11,12.
Who would take Haynes, 11 12 for 2024r1?
Probably st kilda, Hawthorn, essendon would do it. Probably only Hawthorn would be acceptable to GWS.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

What about if gws have picks 7,11,12.
Who would take Haynes, 11 12 for 2024r1?
Probably st kilda, Hawthorn, essendon would do it. Probably only Hawthorn would be acceptable to GWS.

I don't think Hawthorn would do that unless they feel confident they could trade up for Harley Reid.

 

[FB19]

What about if gws have picks 7,11,12.
Who would take Haynes, 11 12 for 2024r1?
Probably st kilda, Hawthorn, essendon would do it. Probably only Hawthorn would be acceptable to GWS.

I don’t think we would do it. If you take Twomeys July top 20 as a guide and adjust for 3 academy and dogs father son, those picks fall after the bid for McCabe. Even if they were prior, all the top rung of players are gone. It would need to be Haynes (we take full salary) and pick 7 and 12 (which we could on trade) so likely more than a 2 club scenario to make it work. We ideally want suns first or next best dogs first to get ahead of our FS bid match.

 

[Makeshift Park]

What about if gws have picks 7,11,12.
Who would take Haynes, 11 12 for 2024r1?
Probably st kilda, Hawthorn, essendon would do it. Probably only Hawthorn would be acceptable to GWS.

If HH left and you got band 1 compo, it would change things too.

Any idea who GWS would be looking at in the top 10 of the draft?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Let's get one thing clear.

GWS are not Gold Coast. They are not throwing in one of the first round picks in any potential trade involving Haynes so they can get his contract off their books.

That makes no sense whatsoever with him out of contract at the next season.

If.he goes to Hawthorn, it's just likely a direct swap for the Hawks second round pick (with maybe GWS chucking back a later round pick)

You ain't dealing with amateurs at GWS, unlike Gold Coast.

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

[chopflop]

It would be a dump or he will stay. Pretty simple. To clear a mill you better believe one of those first round piccies would be involved.

 

[Elmer_Hauser]

It would be a dump or he will stay. Pretty simple. To clear a mill you better believe one of those first round piccies would be involved.

Nah, not if he is only contracted for one more year.