Non Lions Discussion 2024

[Lion_LegacyXL]

In what universe is Collingwood's fixture the 3rd most difficult with their double ups and the lack of travel away from the MCG?

 

[Grasshopper17]

View attachment 2094071
In what universe is Collingwood's fixture the 3rd most difficult with their double ups and the lack of travel away from the MCG?

You mean 4 of the top 8?

 

[Lion_LegacyXL]

You mean 4 of the top 8?

My mistake, for some reason I thought they had North Melbourne & West Coast twice. Even still they had way too many home games to be that high.

 

[Grasshopper17]

My mistake, for some reason I thought they had North Melbourne & West Coast twice. Even still they had way too many home games to be that high.

Yeah, that's a fair point. My model (and the AFL website) doesn't really look at travel, rightly or wrongly. Our comp is shocking for accurately being able to determine home ground advantage, when you look at not only the fact we have 9 teams sharing 2 home grounds, but also the fact that many teams play home games at 2 home grounds. So for me that goes in the (far) too hard basket.

 

[braddsey]

View attachment 2094071
In what universe is Collingwood's fixture the 3rd most difficult with their double ups and the lack of travel away from the MCG?

To a degree, this is self-fulfilling.
They're judging the "actual degree of difficulty" based on the finishing positions of the clubs a team played twice, however the teams each team plays twice is weighted by their ladder finishing position (using the top-6 / mid-6 / bottom-6 breakdown). So in an even season the teams in the top of the ladder get a harder fixture and are more likely to fall down the table as a result if they're a little off. Teams in the mid or lower part of the table get an easier fixture and should move up.
Then add travel and the balance of where games are played, stupid shit like opening round, when the 2 byes fall...

The sooner we get to a draw where each team plays every other team only once, the better. Then there's no hard or easy fixture, there's just a fixture!

 

[MadMundy]

Sorry for barging in, seriously hope Neale can help bring home a flag for you guys, always have love for the guy.

C'mon Brissie!!

 

[irel]

Sorry for barging in, seriously hope Neale can help bring home a flag for you guys, always have love for the guy.

C'mon Brissie!!

You haven't much luck with your Buddy. Feel sorry for O'Driscoll now.

 

[Tom14]

The Petracca situation should be one more step to players being traded without agreement from the player. Petracca signed a long-term contract to remain at Melbourne. He got the certainty of financial renumeration for the period of the contract, but he's now (reportedly) demanding out. Melbourne hold the bargaining power only as far as they're willing to have him back at the club - but if reports are correct and he's a destabilising presence with the remainder of the playing group then chances are he'll get his wish... but in these circumstances why should he get to demand to go to a big Melbourne club, where he can further increase his earning potential?
There is also the alternate situation (Grundy, Treloar) who were pushed out against their will. in the end both players could have stuck to their guns and held Collingwood to their contracts - but they would have perhaps been starved of opportunity or other professional ramifications (who knows).

Kane & Bucks were talking about trading against a players wish recently. Basically they suggested a solution that a player was on a 2+ year contract above the median contract value, then they should be able to be traded against their will, or 3+ year contract at lesser money. Alternative for players is to accept a shorter contract length so the player retains the right to chance clubs when uncontracted or accept less money on a longer deal for location security. Doesn't seem outrageous to me.

For me, ultimately in the scope of long contracts, the club takes all the risk. It's not right that a players can demand to be traded if the club wants them to remain, once the players has secured to multi-year, multi-million-dollar contract.

I don’t think players should be traded without their consent, regardless of their wage/conditions.



In America it happens because their players unions were so weak and at least they are earning many more multiples of the median wage.

 

[braddsey]

I don’t think players should be traded without their consent, regardless of their wage/conditions.

In America it happens because their players unions were so weak and at least they are earning many more multiples of the median wage.

I used to think the same, however I've changed my opinion.

So what happens? The players get the clubs to sign them to a large long-term deal. The player gets secured income for 7 years, and the club takes all the risk if the player gets a long term injury or whatever. The club builds their program around the players that are signed to long term deals, and make decision based on the money and position that players contract has consumed. Clubs are signing players to very long deals because free agency makes it very easy for players to walk when they hit their peak.

Then the player wants out and nominates the club they want to go to. When a contracted player holds a club to ransom because they want out, the club has almost no hand. The player gets what they want because no one wants a disgruntled player around if it's going to disrupt the entire football program. Yet the player has also signed a contract to remain at the club for a number of years.

It does go both ways (Treloar, Grundy, both pushed out), but in that instance the player agrees to go to another club, and they are still entitled to their full contract - which their first club often pays.

So what's the solution for players that demand out? Maybe a "buyout clause" which allows players to terminate their contract perhaps? There needs to be something that gives back to the club, or disincentivises players and players agents from signing long term contracts if there a chance it goes sour in the future (which there always is).

 

[p4p1]

I don’t think players should be traded without their consent, regardless of their wage/conditions.



In America it happens because their players unions were so weak and at least they are earning many more multiples of the median wage.View attachment 2094329

They are also paid a bit better than the AFL players.
I think there is a cultural thing as well, it seems from the outside looking in that it is fairly normal for families and single people to move cities, states etc for work, uni etc.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Apart from the lack of a culture of widespread unionisation in America, they other factor that differentiate them from us on the go-home/family front this is:
(a) athletes are far more likely to leave home to attend college and so mentally have to cut the cord in their teens, so to speak. They know they're most likely going to have to attend a college out of state that have decent sports programs.
(b) there are far more teams and at most two in any one city. And their population has a bigger rural:urban split. The odds of being able to facilitate a trade back to your home town or close to are far less
(c) teams there are run way more professionally and are more ruthless as a general rule
(d) American athletes are generally paid far more and can afford to relocate their family if they choose.

So while we attempt to mimic American sports in a lot of ways, geography and money means it's not a fair comparison.

I get the feeling the clubs and players are using long-term contracts largely as a PR exercise and to stop the free agency media circus

 

[p4p1]

Apart from the lack of a culture of widespread unionisation in America, they other factor that differentiate them from us on the go-home/family front this is:
(a) athletes are far more likely to leave home to attend college and so mentally have to cut the cord in their teens, so to speak. They know they're most likely going to have to attend a college out of state that have decent sports programs.
(b) there are far more teams and at most two in any one city. And their population has a bigger rural:urban split. The odds of being able to facilitate a trade back to your home town or close to are far less
(c) teams there are run way more professionally and are more ruthless as a general rule
(d) American athletes are generally paid far more and can afford to relocate their family if they choose.

So while we attempt to mimic American sports in a lot of ways, geography and money means it's not a fair comparison.

I get the feeling the clubs and players are using long-term contracts largely as a PR exercise and to stop the free agency media circus

For the clubs, it does guarantee something extra if a player like Petracca requests/demands a trade. In free agency Melbourne's compo pick would be #6 which is well unders for a player of Petracca's caliber IMO. With years remaining on his contract, Melbourne can at least ask for player/s + draft picks to even up the ledger a little bit.

 

[Tom14]

I used to think the same, however I've changed my opinion.

So what happens? The players get the clubs to sign them to a large long-term deal. The player gets secured income for 7 years, and the club takes all the risk if the player gets a long term injury or whatever. The club builds their program around the players that are signed to long term deals, and make decision based on the money and position that players contract has consumed. Clubs are signing players to very long deals because free agency makes it very easy for players to walk when they hit their peak.

Then the player wants out and nominates the club they want to go to. When a contracted player holds a club to ransom because they want out, the club has almost no hand. The player gets what they want because no one wants a disgruntled player around if it's going to disrupt the entire football program. Yet the player has also signed a contract to remain at the club for a number of years.

It does go both ways (Treloar, Grundy, both pushed out), but in that instance the player agrees to go to another club, and they are still entitled to their full contract - which their first club often pays.

So what's the solution for players that demand out? Maybe a "buyout clause" which allows players to terminate their contract perhaps? There needs to be something that gives back to the club, or disincentivises players and players agents from signing long term contracts if there a chance it goes sour in the future (which there always is).

Don’t trade them. Clubs voluntarily sign up to the risk when they give players that contract. Plenty of players have been made to stay - Dunks and Joe come to mind immediately. Tim Kelly too and the cats got a ransom for him after making him stay for a year. Sometimes it blows up like Cam McCarthy of course. I’d just say - make your club a place people want to stay at and go to, and be realistic about the issues if people want to leave.

Signing a player up to a long contract also ensures that you get more when you trade them, so it’s a benefit to the club. Look at the Dees with Petracca now - if he gets traded it would take way more than if he was in contracted/a free agent.

Worth considering too whether no-consent trades would run into legal issues that the AFL has been skating by on due to no one wanting to rock the boat on the system and make legal challenges.

Also worth considering whether the best players would just negotiate no-trade clauses in their deals, leaving it to fall on those players that don’t actually have the financial means to have a smooth transition to a forced trade. Or the limits to who you can forcibly trade and the possibility of no trade clauses mean that it barely ever happens.

It’s obviously not a perfect situation currently, but I don’t have an issue with players having some power over their employment future. That’s a personal philosophy that I understand not everyone is going to share of course.

 

[StevoJenkins]

Sorry for barging in, seriously hope Neale can help bring home a flag for you guys, always have love for the guy.

C'mon Brissie!!

I believe in Joe Hendry Lachie Neale?

 

[T Rick]

Brent Daniels

16

Brent Daniels

Age

25

Ht

172cm

Wt

75kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

12.9

3star

K

6.4

3star

HB

6.5

4star

M

2.6

3star

T

2.9

4star

G

0.4

3star

D

10.3

3star

K

4.3

2star

HB

6.0

3star

M

1.9

2star

T

1.9

3star

G

0.0

1star

D

9.0

3star

K

3.6

2star

HB

5.4

4star

M

1.6

2star

T

3.0

5star

G

0.8

4star

from GWS has just signed a 6 year contract extension until the end of 2031...7 years in total. I know he still gives me (and Witho) nightmares but that seems like an extraordinarily long time.

 

[mpal6]

Brent Daniels from GWS has just signed a 6 year contract extension until the end of 2031...7 years in total. I know he still gives me (and Witho) nightmares but that seems like an extraordinarily long time.

Likely to be a Hipwood like contract, multiple years and reasonable $$.
Must be a leadership group type player, no fuss and gives 100% every time.

 

[M Malice]

Brent Daniels from GWS has just signed a 6 year contract extension until the end of 2031...7 years in total. I know he still gives me (and Witho) nightmares but that seems like an extraordinarily long time.

Daniels turns 26 before the start of next season, a lot can happen in 7 years.

I'm not a fan of extra long contracts... 5 years maximum IMO.

 

[Tom14]

Brent Daniels from GWS has just signed a 6 year contract extension until the end of 2031...7 years in total. I know he still gives me (and Witho) nightmares but that seems like an extraordinarily long time.

Has genuinely been awesome this year. Had a ridiculous game against Freo a few weeks ago, double digit score involvements.

 

[KissKiss]

He definitely has been awesome but also agree 7 years just seems nuts even if its not big $

 

[mpal6]

Looks like NGA changes are really paying off for Essendon.
this is from 2025 draft discussion thread. Essendon pipeline looking good.

We reckon we are in for a bit of a blessed time with regards to NGA's.

El-Achkar the big name (hazard a guess he'll end up as good as Kako in his draft year), add Adam Sweid who was highly rated before his knee. Back at local level and kicked 6, 5, 3 from his last 3 games (Pascoe Valet 18.5's). I know Tristan Leeds had big wraps and another who has been injured so no football in his underage year

Add on Koby Bewick in 2027 and wow, good times

 

[briztoon]

Looks like NGA changes are really paying off for Essendon.
this is from 2025 draft discussion thread. Essendon pipeline looking good.

The changes will also greatly benefit the WA teams. I believe I read the top one or two WA draftees in next year’s crop are Freo NGA’s, and there’s a couple in West Coasts academy who played in the national championships this year as bottom agers.

 

[Tom14]

Giving the seeds a break this week, but I thought it was worthwhile now that the dust has settled on the regular season, who turned out to have the toughest and easiest draws through 24 rounds.



Toughest Draw - Adelaide. Played each of the top 3 teams twice! As well us of course who finished 5th, and Hawthorn who finished 7th. Rounded out that set with Essendon. 5 of the top 7 teams is a tall order.

#2 - GWS. Great effort to finish 4th despite their draw. Repeat matchups against Sydney, us, the Bulldogs, Hawthorn and Carlton. 5 of the top 8, plus Gold Coast.

#3 - Collingwood. Repeat matchups against Sydney, Brisbane, Hawthorn and Carlton. So 4 of the top 8, plus Essendon and Melbourne.

#4 - Western Bulldogs. Repeat matchups against Sydney, Geelong and the Giants. So 3 of the top 4, plus Freo (who finished #6 in my seedings), Melbourne and North.



Easiest Draw - Gold Coast. Bit ordinary to only manage an 11-12 record despite repeat matchups against all of the bottom 3 teams, as well as Essendon, who I ranked #14 in the seeds. Also played Brisbane and the Giants twice.

#2 - Hawthorn. Took full advantage of their bottom 6 draw, by playing North and Richmond twice. Also drew GWS, Geelong, Adelaide and Collingwood twice.

#3 - Carlton. Slid badly late in the season despite a pretty straightforward draw. Like Hawthorn, repeat matchups against North and Richmond. Also drew GWS, Geelong, Collingwood and Port twice.

#4 - Port Adelaide. On the flipside, their draw was pretty easy for most of the season but they had a tougher draw towards the end of the season and pulled through it impressively. Played Melbourne, Freo, St Kilda, Adelaide, Carlton and Richmond twice.

On Port - in fairness to them their draw being easy is probably influenced by how bad adelaide were to fall to 15th on the ladder (I know you have your own team ratings that you are basing it on of course).

Port went 6-1 in games decided by 2 goals or less. They went 4-0 in games decided by a goal or less. In fairness, that includes the game at GMHBA where they pantsed Geelong before a late cats fightback in the 4th quarter, but not sure that one was ever in doubt. They played an extra home game to the whole competition (bar adelaide) as well.

They pulled a rabbit out of a hat against the hawks in the last 40 seconds and barely stumbled over the line against St Kilda and Melbourne with most of their players missing. On the flipside, you can't ignore their demolition job against the swans.

For me as I've said previously in this thread, I'll still be calling them overrated when Kearn is holding up the cup and doing the Mark Williams Choke. They'll avoid going out straight sets as the Cats are perhaps the weakest top 4 team for a decade, but if we made it to a prelim in adelaide against them I'll be pretty confident.

 

[M Malice]

The exit continues, Fox Sports reporting that Kysaiah Pickett

36

Kysaiah Pickett

Age

23

Ht

171cm

Wt

73kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.0

2star

K

4.7

2star

HB

3.3

3star

M

0.7

1star

T

2.6

4star

G

0.6

4star

D

8.0

2star

K

4.7

2star

HB

3.3

2star

M

0.7

1star

T

2.6

4star

G

0.6

4star

D

8.0

2star

K

4.8

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

0.8

1star

T

2.4

4star

G

0.8

4star

will request a trade out of the Demons, not OOC until 2027.

 

[Dalions]

The exit continues, Fox Sports reporting that Kysaiah Pickett will request a trade out of the Demons, not OOC until 2027.

It is shaping up as a crazy trade period.
Not expecting us to be too involved but some teams may have a very different look next year.

 

[martinson]

It is shaping up as a crazy trade period.
Not expecting us to be too involved but some teams may have a very different look next year.

This has been coming at Melbourne for a couple of years.