Mega Thread Trade and List Management discussion

[nathy]

Carlisle will most likely stay but was a big Bulldogs supporter as a kid and still loves the club , fonk is a player agent so has heard rumours carlisle wants out another poster a richmond supporter has said its essendon or us have faith mate

Thats good to hear so if he comes how much would he be worth?

 

[farstrider]

But surely that is each clubs prerogative?

List management has come a huge distance in the last ten years. I think all clubs would be confident of not shooting themselves in the foot.

As an alternate hypothetical, imagine Fyfe or Bontempelli requesting a trade to Hawthorn. How on earth would you get a commensurate deal when their first round pick is 18 and their second is 36?

Must suck it up and trade a player then. The Judd deal got done.

 

[Dogsman16]

Thats good to hear so if he comes how much would he be worth?

700k +. We offered Henderson that so it would be at least that, maybe a tad higher. With salary cap increases more stars would be on those figures soon.

 

[TedDougChris]

But surely that is each clubs prerogative?

List management has come a huge distance in the last ten years. I think all clubs would be confident of not shooting themselves in the foot.

As an alternate hypothetical, imagine Fyfe or Bontempelli requesting a trade to Hawthorn. How on earth would you get a commensurate deal when their first round pick is 18 and their second is 36?

And we've seen clubs go decades without success, based upon poor decisions and management. In the last decade alone, Dogs, Dee's, Richmond, Carlton, Saints have been shown to make poor decisions on the assessment of their list.

I understand your last point, but if it's really needed, clubs will find a way to get the deal done. See the Judd deal.

I understand others will have different points of view on this, but I can't see mine changing - this is fraught with danger for the poorer clubs.

 

[TedDougChris]

I would love trading future picks. I reckon trade week and interest in the season would go up ten fold.

Heres a good example/hypothetical.

Lets just say Melbourne persuaded Fyfe to leave the dockers for a big money contract at the end of the season. Freo would rightly demand Judd like compensation. So lets say Melbourne gave up a top 4 pick + jeremy howe and to add to that they also gave up their 2016 first rounder.

Freo fans would take great interest in where that first rounder was to land, Melbourne could easily rise up the ladder with the best player in the game, or they could lose a couple of players to injury, Fyfe underperforms and they get the spoon.

So essentially Freo get say 2015 (pick 3), Howe and 2016 (pick 1). If you want to steal the best player in the game you should be forced to take a big gamble. Freo could make a killing out of a bad situation. Also the dees wouldn't want to be near the bottom of the ladder. Tanking could be somewhat removed as Melbourne wouldn't want to give freo a huge legup. Dee's would be determined to make sure that pick falls outside the top 10.

I'd love for it to happen.

And the risk is, Melbourne offer Fyfe a huge deal, sell the farm for a few years - he get's injured, depression and threatens to retire unless he is traded to the club of his choice....

Sound familiar... Melbourne then spend another decade at the foot of the table, ask for priority picks for the next 20 years and all are outraged and ask the obvious question - why did we ****ing change the system ?

 

[Dogs Rule]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...ialSF&utm_source=HeraldSun&utm_medium=Twitter

Thoughts? $650k is far too much imo

Basically $650k for a player who goes for Mark of the Year every week and not much else. Wowsers.

 

[Dogsman16]

And the risk is, Melbourne offer Fyfe a huge deal, sell the farm for a few years - he get's injured, depression and threatens to retire unless he is traded to the club of his choice....

Sound familiar... Melbourne then spend another decade at the foot of the table, ask for priority picks for the next 20 years and all are outraged and ask the obvious question - why did we ******* change the system ?

I think trading future draft picks would suit teams lower on the ladder.
For example P/A a top 3 team last year successfully landed ryder and all that had to offer Essendon was a very late round first pick and steak knives (late 30's pick). Obviously P/A aren't going to want to give up anything remotely of value on their list because they are in premiership contention. A first round pick and a depth player is all they have to give and will not give anything remotely fair to what Ryders worth.

Heres an example that could happen this year.

Bryce Gibbs wants out of Carlton and lets say for example his worth is around pick 6 - 8. Obviously with player power being all the rage these days obviously Gibbs isn't going to want to go to a bottom 10 team. St Kilda, Melbourne etc are all out the question. So then he decides to jump ship to say North Melbourne who are firmly entrenched in their peak time as a club. Yet they may only have say a late first round pick (which could go even later if there is F/A first round compo for other teams) and they obviously aren't going to give up any best 22 players so they will offer steak knives which effectively a dud deal for Carlton.

So then Carlton say ok thats not good enough so we will take your late first rounder from 2015 and your 2016 first rounder wherever that may fall. North then go ok because we now have Gibbs we should perform just as well this season if not better so that 2016 first rounder shouldn't be a top 10 pick but rather could go in the 15 - 20 range.

Effectively the trade is pick 16 and 18 for Gibbs, which in my view is a fair trade and that 2016 pick could fall lower depending on how North play during that season. This not only gives Carlton the picks to rebuild their list but it also restricts north melbourne either maintaining their list through a high draft pick in 2016, but also gives them little currency to trade a good player in, in 2016. The only way North Melbourne keep their team high on the ladder after trading in a gun is drafting gems later in the draft.

Player power has forced teams accepting deals that aren't the true value of a fair trade. Trading future picks will also force the high teams to trade more first rounders out of their side so that eventually their list will decline although with the gun they trade in, their chances of a flag increase.

If a lower team tries to trade in a gun but for whatever circumstances it doesn't work out so be it. It should be best put to use for teams (like us) who have done the bulk of preparing a list worthy to have the title shot and need to fill a couple of holes on their list with a big gun, but also giving the team you poach the gun off, a fair trade.

 

[TBOW]

And we've seen clubs go decades without success, based upon poor decisions and management. In the last decade alone, Dogs, Dee's, Richmond, Carlton, Saints have been shown to make poor decisions on the assessment of their list.

I understand your last point, but if it's really needed, clubs will find a way to get the deal done. See the Judd deal.

I understand others will have different points of view on this, but I can't see mine changing - this is fraught with danger for the poorer clubs.

Carlton screwed up worse on the Judd deal because they couldn't trade future picks. If they had they could have kept Kennedy and only missed out on Yarran in the following draft.

Poorly run clubs will always find a way to screw up anyway, even the shimmering oasis of free agency has tripped clubs up. Teams scrambling to get a player for free have put themselves in terrible contract positions.

Essendon snatching up Goddard has left them unable to match contracts for Crameri, Ryder? (not sure what part money played in his decision) and now they can't match offers on Carlisle.

Carlton have paid Daisy Thomas nearly 3 million dollars to prance around unconvincingly on the bow of a sinking ship for 4 years.

All trading future picks will do is allow clubs to get the same deals done easier and in a fairer way.

 

[doggies ftw]

Basically $650k for a player who goes for Mark of the Year every week and not much else. Wowsers.

Puts the Boyd deal in perspective.

 

[BRWB]

Puts the Boyd deal in perspective.

Boyd should sack Pickers, he's been screwed.

 

[Yojimbo]

Puts the Boyd deal in perspective.

How ?

 

[TedDougChris]

I think trading future draft picks would suit teams lower on the ladder.
For example P/A a top 3 team last year successfully landed ryder and all that had to offer Essendon was a very late round first pick and steak knives (late 30's pick). Obviously P/A aren't going to want to give up anything remotely of value on their list because they are in premiership contention. A first round pick and a depth player is all they have to give and will not give anything remotely fair to what Ryders worth.

Heres an example that could happen this year.

Bryce Gibbs wants out of Carlton and lets say for example his worth is around pick 6 - 8. Obviously with player power being all the rage these days obviously Gibbs isn't going to want to go to a bottom 10 team. St Kilda, Melbourne etc are all out the question. So then he decides to jump ship to say North Melbourne who are firmly entrenched in their peak time as a club. Yet they may only have say a late first round pick (which could go even later if there is F/A first round compo for other teams) and they obviously aren't going to give up any best 22 players so they will offer steak knives which effectively a dud deal for Carlton.

So then Carlton say ok thats not good enough so we will take your late first rounder from 2015 and your 2016 first rounder wherever that may fall. North then go ok because we now have Gibbs we should perform just as well this season if not better so that 2016 first rounder shouldn't be a top 10 pick but rather could go in the 15 - 20 range.

Effectively the trade is pick 16 and 18 for Gibbs, which in my view is a fair trade and that 2016 pick could fall lower depending on how North play during that season. This not only gives Carlton the picks to rebuild their list but it also restricts north melbourne either maintaining their list through a high draft pick in 2016, but also gives them little currency to trade a good player in, in 2016. The only way North Melbourne keep their team high on the ladder after trading in a gun is drafting gems later in the draft.

Player power has forced teams accepting deals that aren't the true value of a fair trade. Trading future picks will also force the high teams to trade more first rounders out of their side so that eventually their list will decline although with the gun they trade in, their chances of a flag increase.

If a lower team tries to trade in a gun but for whatever circumstances it doesn't work out so be it. It should be best put to use for teams (like us) who have done the bulk of preparing a list worthy to have the title shot and need to fill a couple of holes on their list with a big gun, but also giving the team you poach the gun off, a fair trade.

Carlton screwed up worse on the Judd deal because they couldn't trade future picks. If they had they could have kept Kennedy and only missed out on Yarran in the following draft.

Poorly run clubs will always find a way to screw up anyway, even the shimmering oasis of free agency has tripped clubs up. Teams scrambling to get a player for free have put themselves in terrible contract positions.

Essendon snatching up Goddard has left them unable to match contracts for Crameri, Ryder? (not sure what part money played in his decision) and now they can't match offers on Carlisle.

Carlton have paid Daisy Thomas nearly 3 million dollars to prance around unconvincingly on the bow of a sinking ship for 4 years.

All trading future picks will do is allow clubs to get the same deals done easier and in a fairer way.

Guys - good answers and I understand the points you are making. But as I said earlier, I'm opposed and you won't be able to change my position. What I can see happening is the same I saw when FA was introduced. The clubs at the top and the rich and powerful will exploit this and it'll continue to enlarge the divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots..'

Bottom clubs will offer desperation stakes offers to clubs for fringe players, and throw in future picks just to get a deal over the line. I'm not a fan and hope it's never introduced...

 

[BRWB]

Guys - good answers and I understand the points you are making. But as I said earlier, I'm opposed and you won't be able to change my position. What I can see happening is the same I saw when FA was introduced. The clubs at the top and the rich and powerful will exploit this and it'll continue to enlarge the divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots..'

Bottom clubs will offer desperation stakes offers to clubs for fringe players, and throw in future picks just to get a deal over the line. I'm not a fan and hope it's never introduced...

Totally disagree, this is a way bottom clubs can be properly compensated with future drafts for good players. Brisbane would have got more for Polec, etc. Its also a way for clubs on the rise to cash in. For instance say WHE and Carlisle both want to come. Both young and would be playing good footy in our window. No way we have the draft picks to compensate both clubs adequately. With future picks we would. Future picks could give us a leg up.

I am against FA in its current form (top 4 clubs should have to pay the pick after the designated comp pick). So for instance, the Hawks would have had to pay P19 for Frawley, meaning they wouldn't have been able to get O'Rourke.

Like anything, clubs like Melbourne will find ways to f@ck things up. We shouldn't be writing rules to protect the likes of Melbourne from their own incompetence.

 

[Gmod23]

Guys - good answers and I understand the points you are making. But as I said earlier, I'm opposed and you won't be able to change my position. What I can see happening is the same I saw when FA was introduced. The clubs at the top and the rich and powerful will exploit this and it'll continue to enlarge the divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots..'

Bottom clubs will offer desperation stakes offers to clubs for fringe players, and throw in future picks just to get a deal over the line. I'm not a fan and hope it's never introduced...

How about having a commission that identifies trade value and makes a team pay fair value.
This allows conditional pick trading which I love (NFL does this well):
Carlton bring in L Jones for a third rounder this year plus a conditional future pick.
If L Jones plays more than 15 games at Carlton OR leads their goal kicking the following year, then a extra third round pick is sent to the Bulldogs or fourth round pick if he doesn't reach these targets.

 

[doggies ftw]

How ?

Well if a role player like Howe can command 650k surely the 800 - 900 odd k were spending on Boyd isn't huge overs.

 

[BRWB]

Well if a role player like Howe can command 650k surely the 800 - 900 odd k were spending on Boyd isn't huge overs.

My understanding is that it was closer to 700k per yr for Boyd plus incentives, could be wrong though. But definitely would rather Boyd at say $800k than Howe at $650k. Absolute no brainer.

 

[Dogsman16]

Guys - good answers and I understand the points you are making. But as I said earlier, I'm opposed and you won't be able to change my position. What I can see happening is the same I saw when FA was introduced. The clubs at the top and the rich and powerful will exploit this and it'll continue to enlarge the divide between the 'haves' and 'have nots..'

Bottom clubs will offer desperation stakes offers to clubs for fringe players, and throw in future picks just to get a deal over the line. I'm not a fan and hope it's never introduced...

Clubs that are smart that have already gone through a couple of years of rebuild and have the first rounders in the bank will be able to make a quicker rise up the ladder and the high teams will not be able to maintain continuous trading of guns in which they give the lower teams less than market value. A club such as Carlton who are destined for a couple years at the foot of the ladder shouldn't be throwing hail marys such as the big name trade but for a club like ours/st kilda/melbourne it will allow us to get the big gun without throwing away good players. Also it restricts the hold big clubs can have over smaller clubs with the bull**** late first rounder + steak knives trades that are already starting to happen. I bet you another one will rear its filthy head in this years offseason.

This is a method of a good rebuild and then drive teams up the ladder. If a club wants to make a hail mary from the bottom of the ladder and throw a stack of cash at a star good luck to them. But it won't allow big clubs holding sway over the small ones. It allows bottom clubs options to trade out the big gun and get the picks. Who knows that team that poached the big gun could have a horrendous year and gift that side another top ten draft pick.

It actually makes the big clubs/top sides more if they want to go harder after premierships and top up their list.

 

[Hrovat24]

My understanding is that it was closer to 700k per yr for Boyd plus incentives, could be wrong though. But definitely would rather Boyd at say $800k than Howe at $650k. Absolute no brainer.

If Howe is requesting 650 I would pay boyd 2.5 mil

 

[Unorth]

There are rules that can be put in place that can disallow for clubs to trade future first rounders to an extent that if it goes wrong the club is screwed for ten years. The AFL could set limits on how many can be traded; for example clubs might not be allowed to trade away picks in consecutive years (ie trading 2016+2017 first round picks). Or that a club can only trade a certain amount of picks in a period of time; like 3 in 5 years, or 1 every 3 years, something to that effect.

Point is that trading first rounders does not equal having the potential for a club to trade away the next ten years for a couple of players that might get injured, or don't work out. There will always be a risk with trading future picks, but there's a risk attached to trading present picks. It's on the clubs to understand the risk of trading future picks and to have compete list managers. Measures are taken in other sports to prevent clubs screwing themselves over for 10 years; the AFL might even set more limits on trading future picks than other sports to make it uncommon. They are a great tool for teams on the cusp of contending (ie if the Hawks didn't want to trade their 2012 pick they could have given us their 2013 or 2014 pick for Lake), and they can be used for rebuilding clubs like the Dogs to snare high profile players without selling the farm to get them in terms of existing players. For example, let's say Carlisle requests a trade to the Dogs. We all know what Dodoro is like. He'll request our first round pick+Stringer, or something like that. But instead we could offer our 2015 and 2016 first round picks, allowing us to get Carlisle without giving up on any sure, AFL-established talent, like Stringer or Macrae.

 

[Yojimbo]

Well if a role player like Howe can command 650k surely the 800 - 900 odd k were spending on Boyd isn't huge overs.

How ? or Howe ? Play on words, straight through to Brad Haddin.

 

[doggies ftw]

How ? or Howe ? Play on words, straight through to Brad Haddin.

Its past knock off time on friday, I'm slightly pissed give us a break

 

[Easty]

Well if a role player like Howe can command 650k surely the 800 - 900 odd k were spending on Boyd isn't huge overs.

Exactly.

I've heard plenty of teams go "if only we had a gun key forward we'd be a premiership threat" but I've never heard "if only we have a HBF who can jump real good we'd be a premiership threat".

 

[Hrovat24]

Exactly.

I've heard plenty of teams go "if only we had a gun key forward we'd be a premiership threat" but I've never heard "if only we have a HBF who can jump real good we'd be a premiership threat".

Unless you ask hawthorn fans about hodge

 

[fronkalicious]

Can't trade first round picks in consecutive years. NBA rule. Simple

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Whilst I'm not really for any radical changes to the trading system, I'm all for balancing out anything where the players have more control and flexibility (Free Agency) with where the clubs have more control and flexibility (trading future picks).

I've always thought that it's pointless to have a half-baked free agency system. Make any player our of contract who has been in the league at least 4 years a free agent, thus making free agency a proper free agency and not half-baked, but make the salary cap more flexible and having salary cap room actually worth more by allowing players to be traded against their will. If the players association wants to take with more free agency, they might have to give by allowing trades to be down without them agreeing to it. No-trade clauses can still be in contracts if both the player and club agrees to it. Obviously it would make salaries public but I really don't see the issue with that.