Oppo Camp Non Geelong football (AFL) discussion 2024, Part 2

[Gunf]

I have said it before the only way Coll can afford Trac is by trading Daicos.

Or trading Moore and a couple of others to get the picks needed.

Would it really be worth the culture hit to get 1 player late in his career? nope

Now maybe if it was for Reid since he is so young but even then would it really be worth it long term culture wise.

 

[Gunf]

It is all about the circumstances.


Rioli is contracted... and for a long time.

Suns + Hardwick have absolutely targeted him (we've seen what Harwick has done with TT and Hopper when he wanted them).

Suns really need to get rid of their #6 in case there is a bid placed on Lombard before it (it is a chance).

Suns do not need any more kids...they can give up the world for Rioli and still bring in a guy rated inside the top 10 kids (they are blessed)

Suns need to start winning and winning now as they have never made the finals and pressure will be on Hardwick after getting a mulligan in year 1.

The suns gave us Bowes and #7 for basically nothing to help improve their overall list

Rioli is contracted for years at the Tigers... If the Suns don't cough up then the Tiges can just keep him.. It's on the Suns to come to the party and Richmond know this.


Every circumstance is in the Tigers favour and they will cash in bigtime here (similar will happen with Bolton).

It's not about what Rioli is worth compared to other players and past trades.. It's about the circumstances and GC clearly wanting him bigtime.

Rioli is worth about pick 15

Now IF Richmond pick up a substantial amount of the contract for at least 3 years you could bump that to 10

But in no world is he worth pick 6

And even if the Suns are coming hard the Tigers are desperate to get picks before Tassie comes in as they will be screwed otherwise hence everyone is jumping/being pushed out to get as many picks as possible before 2028.

 

[D BRIDGE]

Rioli is worth about pick 15

Now IF Richmond pick up a substantial amount of the contract for at least 3 years you could bump that to 10

But in no world is he worth pick 6

In no world was our future third-rounder worth #7 + Bowes, but it made sense under the circumstances at the time.

I think the Tiges will clean up here.

They have Rioli contracted and the Suns want him.

Richmond won't just hand him over cheaply to be nice... The guy is probably going to win their BnF.

I think the Suns will pay up... It's not about what Rioli is worth, it's about what they are willing to give up to get him.

Time will tell.

 

[Son_Of_God29]

Post has clearly been updated to say pick 20

Pick 20 for John Noble is too much

 

[Son_Of_God29]

In no world was our future third-rounder worth #7 + Bowes, but it made sense under the circumstances at the time.

I think the Tiges will clean up here.

They have Rioli contracted and the Suns want him.

Richmond won't just hand him over cheaply to be nice... The guy is probably going to win their BnF.

I think the Suns will pay up... It's not about what Rioli is worth, it's about what they are willing to give up to get him.

Time will tell.

You forget the million plus dollar contract that came with Bowes - That contract is the reason our Future 3rd rounder was worth Pick 7 + Bowes

 

[D BRIDGE]

You forget the million plus dollar contract that came with Bowes - That contract is the reason our Future 3rd rounder was worth Pick 7 + Bowes

And here I was thinking they just wanted our F3 really badly.

 

[Lana]

And here I was thinking they just wanted our F3 really badly.

Well we asked politely for a refund but they told us to **** off

 

[cats_09]

 

[cats_09]

This moved quickly - any discount cause he'll miss the first 3 rounds next season

 

[Klink]

This moved quickly - any discount cause he'll miss the first 3 rounds next season

All these "homesick" players are happy to sign these long-term deals and lock-in security and the big money that comes with it (Kosi, Bolton etc).

With that comes great commitment and responsibility.

Then only a year or two into the deal, they expect clubs to agree to release them. Clubs have every right to hold them to the contracts they have signed. They were happy to take the money, perhaps these guys should of only signed two-year deals to give them some flexibility, rather than locking themselves into an employer 'long-term'.

When clubs sign these players to long-term deals, a lot of forward planning gets done and it impacts other list management strategies / approaches.

If I am Melbourne / Richmond, I am holding these guys to the commitment and legally binding contract they signed unless they get a seriously 'overs' type of deal heavily weghted in their favour. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, I would only be releasing them for a great deal.

 

[Strange Cat]

All these "homesick" players are happy to sign these long-term deals and lock-in security and the big money that comes with it (Kosi, Bolton etc).

With that comes great commitment and responsibility.

Then only a year or two into the deal, they expect clubs to agree to release them. Clubs have every right to hold them to the contracts they have signed. They were happy to take the money, perhaps these guys should of only signed two-year deals to give them some flexibility, rather than locking themselves into an employer 'long-term'.

When clubs sign these players to long-term deals, a lot of forward planning gets done and it impacts other list management strategies / approaches.

If I am Melbourne / Richmond, I am holding these guys to the commitment and legally binding contract they signed unless they get a seriously 'overs' type of deal heavily weghted in their favour. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, I would only be releasing them for a great deal.

The only issue with all that is that the player may just not be as invested if “forced” to honour the contract , it becomes a question about culture impact of having a player that’s not meeting the standards on a big contract

The short term pain of trading might be better than the long term impact

 

[cats_09]

All these "homesick" players are happy to sign these long-term deals and lock-in security and the big money that comes with it (Kosi, Bolton etc).

With that comes great commitment and responsibility.

Then only a year or two into the deal, they expect clubs to agree to release them. Clubs have every right to hold them to the contracts they have signed. They were happy to take the money, perhaps these guys should of only signed two-year deals to give them some flexibility, rather than locking themselves into an employer 'long-term'.

When clubs sign these players to long-term deals, a lot of forward planning gets done and it impacts other list management strategies / approaches.

If I am Melbourne / Richmond, I am holding these guys to the commitment and legally binding contract they signed unless they get a seriously 'overs' type of deal heavily weghted in their favour. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, I would only be releasing them for a great deal.

I read this from Sam Edmund this morning regarding Pickett - sounds like a trade to SA or WA was always going to an inevitable request at some stage

I guess Melbourne tried signing up for 4 years hoping he'd settle, but seems that was always going to have a question over it

 

[D BRIDGE]

Pickett sounds like he is 50/50 every year to stay at the Dees.

Move the guy on for as much as you can get now, because he will eventually pull the pin... even if he stays this time.

 

[Klink]

The only issue with all that is that the player may just not be as invested if “forced” to honour the contract , it becomes a question about culture impact of having a player that’s not meeting the standards on a big contract

The short term pain of trading might be better than the long term impact

Yes, it will be a serious consideration, but clubs with contracted players (particularly long-term ones), need to be compensated in a manner they consider appropriate.

Dees have all the leverage here - the onus is on the other club(s) to really satify them with an offer that they consider will help their club moving forward, not put them behind.

There have been many players over the years where clubs have made them honour their contract (Papley, O'keefe) to name a couple and they have ended up staying long-term and re-committing after their existing deal.

We made Kelly honour his deal and it paid off. He was professional enough to return to the club and really put in - but he did have only one more year left so probably not comparable.

I must admit, if we have a player that desperately wants out, and still has several years remaining on their current deal, I'd be happy to move them on for the right compensation given they aren't invested in the club and don't want to be a part of the future. But it has to be a great deal in the clubs favour.

Ultimately, clubs are a business and they must make the right decisions for their own best interests, and for that of members and stakeholders.

 

[Strange Cat]

Yes, it will be a serious consideration, but clubs with contracted players (particularly long-term ones), need to be compensated in a manner they consider appropriate.

Dees have all the leverage here - the onus is on the other club(s) to really satify them with an offer that they consider will help their club moving forward, not put them behind.

There have been many players over the years where clubs have made them honour their contract (Papley, O'keefe) to name a couple and they have ended up staying long-term and re-committing after their existing deal.

We made Kelly honour his deal and it paid off. He was professional enough to return to the club and really put in - but he did have only one more year left so probably not comparable.

I must admit, if we have a player that desperately wants out, and still has several years remaining on their current deal, I'd be happy to move them on for the right compensation given they aren't invested in the club and don't want to be a part of the future. But it has to be a great deal in the clubs favour.

Ultimately, clubs are a business and they must make the right decisions for their own best interests, and for that of members and stakeholders.

Not disagreeing to any of those points just pointing out that other considerations will be considered espically the culture and the long term reputation of the club for players welfare for current and future players

It’s not as straightforward as keeping them to their contract in some cases that’s all

 

[Klink]

Not disagreeing to any of those points just pointing out that other considerations will be considered espically the culture and the long term reputation of the club for players welfare for current and future players

It’s not as straightforward as keeping them to their contract in some cases that’s all

Absolutely agree - the best clubs will consider everything (many of those points you mentioned) to make an informed decision.

It's something we do really well.

 

[UnitedWarrior93]

After seeing Richmond win the wooden spoon and facing a mass exodus, and Melbourne just self imploding after winning the flag in 2021 and potentially starting a dynasty, to go out in straight sets in 2022 & 2023 makes me super proud and privileged to follow Geelong.

We didn’t implode or plummet after our dynasty from 07-11, instead kept fronting up making finals and PF’s, and although we missed finals last year after winning the flag in 2022, this year we find ourselves in the top 4 again, truly remarkable club.

 

[My Tilly]

Port will have to give up one of their young gun forwards to get Pickett in.
I doubt they would take Marshall with his recent concussion concerns

 

[Gunf]

All these "homesick" players are happy to sign these long-term deals and lock-in security and the big money that comes with it (Kosi, Bolton etc).

With that comes great commitment and responsibility.

Then only a year or two into the deal, they expect clubs to agree to release them. Clubs have every right to hold them to the contracts they have signed. They were happy to take the money, perhaps these guys should of only signed two-year deals to give them some flexibility, rather than locking themselves into an employer 'long-term'.

When clubs sign these players to long-term deals, a lot of forward planning gets done and it impacts other list management strategies / approaches.

If I am Melbourne / Richmond, I am holding these guys to the commitment and legally binding contract they signed unless they get a seriously 'overs' type of deal heavily weghted in their favour. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, I would only be releasing them for a great deal.

The problem right now is the power balance between club and player is weighted way to much towards the player.


1. Player can take a front loaded contract and then piss off for a better one once the coin dries up on the current one.
From memeory this is exactly what Hill and Lobb did to Freo signed large contracts that were heavily front loaded and bailed once it got to low for them.
2. The club can't backend a contract and tell the player to piss off as it gets more expensive

So many things are in the players favour these days it actually handicaps clubs so much
From front loading to FA to home sickness etc

And yes i am aware a club could hold a player to a contract but that can and will affect culture especially if that contract still has 2-5 years on it.

 

[cats_09]

Port will have to give up one of their young gun forwards to get Pickett in.
I doubt they would take Marshall with his recent concussion concerns

Sounds more like WA rather than SA if Pickett is to be traded this year

 

[Chinacats]

I ****ing hate Ross game style but i love that he had the players up for the last few games which shows he is trying to instil a winning culture.

Everyone says Ross’s game style is horrendous and boring and ultra defensive. Well St.Kilda were rated No.1 for scores from the defensive half in 2024, so their transition/ ball movement game was strong . And we witnessed first hand in the 2nd half their scoring power when they banged in 83 points in that half. His game style has evolved with this crop of players.

 

[Lana]

All these "homesick" players are happy to sign these long-term deals and lock-in security and the big money that comes with it (Kosi, Bolton etc).

With that comes great commitment and responsibility.

Then only a year or two into the deal, they expect clubs to agree to release them. Clubs have every right to hold them to the contracts they have signed. They were happy to take the money, perhaps these guys should of only signed two-year deals to give them some flexibility, rather than locking themselves into an employer 'long-term'.

When clubs sign these players to long-term deals, a lot of forward planning gets done and it impacts other list management strategies / approaches.

If I am Melbourne / Richmond, I am holding these guys to the commitment and legally binding contract they signed unless they get a seriously 'overs' type of deal heavily weghted in their favour. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, I would only be releasing them for a great deal.

These long term contracts protect the club, it is what gives them the leverage to demand overs, and discourages clubs from trying to poach them in the first pace.

 

[Klink]

Looking at Pendles and Sidebottom signing on for next year - I'm not sure the Pies have made the right call.

They're the oldest list in the comp - they need youngsters coming through. Whilst Sidey and Pendles are still contributing well, you need to phase veterans out and get games into young players. It's all a balance but I'm not sure they have it right. They will have a lot of players going in the next year or two at the same time which leaves a gaping hole and youngsters who aren't ready as they haven't had a lot of exposure.

Maybe they think they can compete next year for the flag; I just can't see it.

We have done it well, we did let some guys go that maybe had another year of good footy, but it allowed us to retain young talent and develop the next generation and not lose too many guys at the same time where you're in danger of becoming North or WC.

 

[Strange Cat]

Looking at Pendles and Sidebottom signing on for next year - I'm not sure the Pies have made the right call.

They're the oldest list in the comp - they need youngsters coming through. Whilst Sidey and Pendles are still contributing well, you need to phase veterans out and get games into young players. It's all a balance but I'm not sure they have it right. They will have a lot of players going in the next year or two at the same time which leaves a gaping hole and youngsters who aren't ready as they haven't had a lot of exposure.

Maybe they think they can compete next year for the flag; I just can't see it.

We have done it well, we did let some guys go that maybe had another year of good footy, but it allowed us to retain young talent and develop the next generation and not lose too many guys at the same time where you're in danger of becoming North or WC.

Espically in light of their poor handling of their SC over the last few years , a lot of teams have been very poor in their SC management

Not us

 

[Klink]

Espically in light of their poor handling of their SC over the last few years , a lot of teams have been very poor in their SC management

Not us

Absolutely. We seem to value salary cap as an effective asset like draft capital. We have at times like the Cameron / Danger FA deals been happy to trade draft capital and retain more of our salary cap rather than blow our cap and retain all our draft picks.

It's worked out really well.