Strategy Trade and List Management thread 3 (...The pining for the departed. Edition)

[stefoid]

Would we look at Scott Thompson from Norf?

Article on afl.com.au that he hasn't been offered a new contract, could get a few years out of him to keep some experience in the backline.

I make a point not to attack other posters, but you are on thin ice my friend

 

[threenewpadlocks]

FWIW, it does happen occasionally.

http://www.afc.com.au/news/2015-10-12/shock-and-gore-for-new-recruit

The Dangerfield trade is its own special case, involving the best player in the league and free agency influencing the dynamic of the trade. I don't think you can really use it as an example of what's typical in list management, though I take your point - we got Tom Boyd in-contract, after all.

But the principle remains the same - you can't just go around trading in-contract players, and you don't show yourself to be a club that is a good morale manager/people manager if you're attempting to offload them to other clubs the very same season you extend their contract by multiple years. And if you try it, you just end off pissing the players, which is what happened to Rischitelli and the Fevola deal. Brisbane tried to trade an in-contract Rischitelli, he refused the trade, he got pissed off but played out the final year of his contract, won their B&F, but refused to stay at Brisbane and ended up leaving for Gold Coast when they entered the league at the end of the year. Brisbane then became royally screwed up in the whole deal, where Rischitelli would have been better than them in the last 7 years than draft picks, they had to trade away different young talent (Henderson) to make the Fevola deal work, and Brisbane have been a basket case ever since. If we don't want to be like Brisbane - don't piss off your in-contract players by trying to trade them when they're initially happy to stay.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

It can fall down like it did with Hrovat apparently. Contracted, he was allegedly worth two second rd picks but he was happy at our club and refused the trade. A year later and uncontracted he was worth a pissy pick upgrade.

It's up to the club and player manager to convince contracted players that sometimes it's better to move on. Take Campbell and Roberts, both re-signed in the last year and contracted into the future, but dropped multiple times since - discussions should be occurring. Take Jong, knocks back a longer contract on good money and promptly does his knee and will be coming back from a knee in the last year of his contract next year.

So are you suggesting that it's good for the club that we suggest Williams to move on? I don't understand your logic here.

In reality, it will go something like this:

• We offer contract to Lever, Lever accepts it and publicly requests a trade to the Dogs
• Our first pick this year (say pick 9) is the starting point, now we just need to work around the edges.
• Adelaide ask for Williams as well as pick 9. We say no, we rate him as a talent, he's contracted until 2019, and he wants to stay. Adelaide should give up because there's no way he would want to move (or the amount of money he would want to leave his mates at the Bulldogs are way overs for Adelaide from a salary cap point of view)
• We then negotiate a trade that involves another pick or out-of-contract player, like Lukas Webb or Clay Smith or something

Instead, is what you're suggesting

• We offer contract to Lever, Lever accepts it and publicly requests a trade to the Dogs
• Our first pick this year (say pick 9) is the starting point, now we just need to work around the edges.
• Adelaide ask for Williams as well as pick 9. We then try to tell Williams, hold on mate, we know that we re-signed you back in May to 2019, but you're from Adelaide, we really need you to move back to Adelaide here to make this trade work.
• Williams holds his ground. He likes it at the Dogs (why else did he re-sign back in May?), and refuses.
• We pressure him and turn the screws. We work with Adelaide to try and convince him to move over there, make disparaging comments in public, and have the appropriate staff members have emergency meetings with his club and manager - this is what would need to be done to convince him to leave, if we were so determined to get "full value" out of him or some of your logic
• Williams either a) leaves, but is pissed at the club, we cease to be a destination club for other players because we've now got a reputation for treating players badly, and Williams' better mates who are still at the club are pissed off at how we treated him, or b) uses his in-contract rights to stay, but is pissed at the club, and leaves in free agency in 2019 (that will have a shorter amount of years) where we will get no compensaiton for him at the time

Sometimes you lose out with the Hrovat deal, but that's life - I'm glad that we didn't put the pressure on him to be traded at the end of 2015, because that would mean we would have a reputation of trying to pressure in-contract players out of the club and other players managers wouldn't encourage their players to come here. It's all about building a club culture where players' contracts and rights are respected, and that ultimately helps the team more than 2 second round picks ever could, by a) helping us be a destination club that players want to play for and b) players re-sign for less money and help our salary cap, because they like the fact that once they sign such a deal, its length and terms will be respected, and it's a club they want to play for.

And in any case, it's not exactly a like-for-like example. Hrovat was extended in 2013? until 2016, and we tried to trade him in 2015. Williams re-signed this very year, and by trying to trade him out the very year that we re-signed him, sends a fundamentally different message than trading out a player who is still in-contract even if that contract was signed a year or two ago.

 

[Pugz89]

Could a player sign a new contract for security, then if an offer comes up to return to his home state then he would look at it? He might be happy at the Dogs but returning to SA could make him just as happy. Devils advocate but I would have thought first and foremost, signing a contract guarantees you an income and is not necessarily the strongest indication you would be open to leaving a club.

Not sure if i'm articulating my point well but basically, a contract isn't the be all and end all.

 

[Charlie Bucket]

irrelevant talk i reckon. we were not losing games because of Webb.

How good is my man bailey dale? the new Stevie j!

Dale is flying. Far from Stevie J though.

 

[BRWB]

So are you suggesting that it's good for the club that we suggest Williams to move on? I don't understand your logic here.

In reality, it will go something like this:

• We offer contract to Lever, Lever accepts it and publicly requests a trade to the Dogs
• Our first pick this year (say pick 9) is the starting point, now we just need to work around the edges.
• Adelaide ask for Williams as well as pick 9. We say no, we rate him as a talent, he's contracted until 2019, and he wants to stay. Adelaide should give up because there's no way he would want to move (or the amount of money he would want to leave his mates at the Bulldogs are way overs for Adelaide from a salary cap point of view)
• We then negotiate a trade that involves another pick or out-of-contract player, like Lukas Webb or Clay Smith or something

Instead, is what you're suggesting

• We offer contract to Lever, Lever accepts it and publicly requests a trade to the Dogs
• Our first pick this year (say pick 9) is the starting point, now we just need to work around the edges.
• Adelaide ask for Williams as well as pick 9. We then try to tell Williams, hold on mate, we know that we re-signed you back in May to 2019, but you're from Adelaide, we really need you to move back to Adelaide here to make this trade work.
• Williams holds his ground. He likes it at the Dogs (why else did he re-sign back in May?), and refuses.
• We pressure him and turn the screws. We work with Adelaide to try and convince him to move over there, make disparaging comments in public, and have the appropriate staff members have emergency meetings with his club and manager - this is what would need to be done to convince him to leave, if we were so determined to get "full value" out of him or some of your logic
• Williams either a) leaves, but is pissed at the club, we cease to be a destination club for other players because we've now got a reputation for treating players badly, and Williams' better mates who are still at the club are pissed off at how we treated him, or b) uses his in-contract rights to stay, but is pissed at the club, and leaves in free agency in 2019 (that will have a shorter amount of years) where we will get no compensaiton for him at the time

Sometimes you lose out with the Hrovat deal, but that's life - I'm glad that we didn't put the pressure on him to be traded at the end of 2015, because that would mean we would have a reputation of trying to pressure in-contract players out of the club and other players managers wouldn't encourage their players to come here. It's all about building a club culture where players' contracts and rights are respected, and that ultimately helps the team more than 2 second round picks ever could, by a) helping us be a destination club that players want to play for and b) players re-sign for less money and help our salary cap, because they like the fact that once they sign such a deal, its length and terms will be respected, and it's a club they want to play for.

And in any case, it's not exactly a like-for-like example. Hrovat was extended in 2013? until 2016, and we tried to trade him in 2015. Williams re-signed this very year, and by trying to trade him out the very year that we re-signed him, sends a fundamentally different message than trading out a player who is still in-contract even if that contract was signed a year or two ago.

I don't want to trade Williams. I don't actually agree with trading good or potentially players. I prefer to trade low potential fringe players

I do think that it is possible to encourage contracted players to leave in a way that leaves all parties satisfied. And I recall Fronk running through exactly how it's done.

I do agree that it's rare to trade players out in the same year they re-sign. But it can happen and we shouldn't let that rareness stop us attempting to move on fringe players with limited potential (not Williams) if say it meant us getting say a Dangerfield, like Geelong did with Gore.

 

[Testekill]

Could a player sign a new contract for security, then if an offer comes up to return to his home state then he would look at it? He might be happy at the Dogs but returning to SA could make him just as happy. Devils advocate but I would have thought first and foremost, signing a contract guarantees you an income and is not necessarily the strongest indication you would be open to leaving a club.

Not sure if i'm articulating my point well but basically, a contract isn't the be all and end all.

Still, that's not the club approaching a player and going "there's this star that we're trading for that has nominated us and they want you plus a pick in return so see ya" since it's still something that trashes player morale since they'll feel that their contracts are no longer worth the paper that they're written on. This pisses off the player in question and would send ripples through the club since that shit ruins player cohesion.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I don't want to trade Williams. I don't actually agree with trading good or potentially players. I prefer to trade low potential fringe players

I do think that it is possible to encourage contracted players to leave in a way that leaves all parties satisfied. And I recall Fronk running through exactly how it's done.

I do agree that it's rare to trade players out in the same year they re-sign. But it can happen and we shouldn't let that rareness stop us attempting to move on fringe players with limited potential (not Williams) if say it meant us getting say a Dangerfield, like Geelong did with Gore.

Yeah, but those sort of in-contract trades are typical of players who extended a lengthy contract at least the year before, then the contract isn't good for all parties - see Cloke signing a 5 year deal, then being traded in-contract after 4 of them, 4 years after the original extension. I'm not saying it doesn't happen overall, but it typically doesn't happen the very same year the players extend as Williams had this year, and typically happens when there's just the 1 year left, not 2 after this one as with Williams.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Still, that's not the club approaching a player and going "there's this star that we're trading for that has nominated us and they want you plus a pick in return so see ya" since it's still something that trashes player morale since they'll feel that their contracts are no longer worth the paper that they're written on. This pisses off the player in question and would send ripples through the club since that shit ruins player cohesion.

Yep, and Brisbane and Rischitelli is the perfect example of that in practice.

 

[BRWB]

Still, that's not the club approaching a player and going "there's this star that we're trading for that has nominated us and they want you plus a pick in return so see ya" since it's still something that trashes player morale since they'll feel that their contracts are no longer worth the paper that they're written on. This pisses off the player in question and would send ripples through the club since that shit ruins player cohesion.

It's not done that way. Player manager would be used who'd say 'club X is interested and wants to double your contract length and salary. Interested?'

With the advent of FA and players increase of movement, I'm not so sure that clubs moving on players is as devastating to morale as you think.

Carlton has moved on something like 30 players in a couple of years and their morale seems fine.

Geelong has prematurely moved on triple premiership champs like Kelly and SJ and still seem fine.

Footy is a business and as long as player movement is done with tact and care, there shouldn't be morale problems with player movement. More and more it's becoming a bit of an antiquated notion IMO.

 

[ScragCity]

Yeah, but those sort of in-contract trades are typical of players who extended a lengthy contract at least the year before, then the contract isn't good for all parties - see Cloke signing a 5 year deal, then being traded in-contract after 4 of them, 4 years after the original extension. I'm not saying it doesn't happen overall, but it typically doesn't happen the very same year the players extend as Williams had this year, and typically happens when there's just the 1 year left, not 2 after this one as with Williams.

Mate, the whole premise of your argument is based on the assumption that Williams wants to be at the Dogs more than he would want to go home. Just because he signed an extension with us does not mean that he wants to be at the Dogs, it just means he wants to be on an AFL list. If Adelaide want him as part of the Lever deal there's no reason the club wouldn't run it by him and I'd be shocked if he wouldn't rather live at home and play footy on the same money he's on now or more.

 

[ScragCity]

Still, that's not the club approaching a player and going "there's this star that we're trading for that has nominated us and they want you plus a pick in return so see ya" since it's still something that trashes player morale since they'll feel that their contracts are no longer worth the paper that they're written on. This pisses off the player in question and would send ripples through the club since that shit ruins player cohesion.

I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but clubs can't actually trade contracted players without that players consent.

 

[bresker]

Players rarely want to 'return home' to Adelaide. Once they've experienced Brunswick & Chapel Streets they can never see Rundle Mall through the same naive eyes.

 

[The Original Swooper]

If Williams DID want to go home, surely his manager would have put out some feelers before re-signing at the kennel. ?
Or, as all clubs know who is coming out of contract, if one of the 2 SA clubs had a desire for his services a call to his manager would have been made ?

 

[The Original Swooper]

Players rarely want to 'return home' to Adelaide. Once they've experienced Brunswick & Chapel Streets they can never see Rundle Mall through the same naive eyes.

I remember all the outlandish comments emanating from Crows supporters on Cooney regarding his inevitable desire to return home. Absolutely PML'd when Cooney said it took him 18 years s to get out of the place, or words to that effect.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

If Williams DID want to go home, surely his manager would have put out some feelers before re-signing at the kennel. ?
Or, as all clubs know who is coming out of contract, if one of the 2 SA clubs had a desire for his services a call to his manager would have been made ?

We have more at the trade table if he's contracted.

 

[The Original Swooper]

We have more at the trade table if he's contracted.

Yeah I understand all that, and probably sit in the middle of the "moral" conundrum. Whilst I don't believe trying to trade off a recent re-signing is healthy, I do respect the advantage of trading a player whilst still contracted.

 

[The Original Swooper]

We need to get rid of our entire recruiting team and seek staff that have the key ingredient missing from the incumbents. Hindsight.

 

[VogonProsthetnic]

Trading Williams would be one of our worst trading mistakes ever.

He played senior footy in his first season and looked immediately at home. He played in a VFL premiership team also in his first senior season and was one of the best players in the PF and GF. But for his knee injury he probably would have played in an AFL premiership.

This when he barely scraped into the draft and barely 18 when he turned up at WO.

Don't care if he went 40 in the draft, his development last year has been up there with all the first rounders despite the fact that he is younger and never played above SANFL under 18 s before last year.

 

[Southern 8]

Players rarely want to 'return home' to Adelaide. Once they've experienced Brunswick & Chapel Streets they can never see Rundle Mall through the same naive eyes.

Personally Melbourne way to busy for me avoid it like the plague. If I were still the age and good enough (unfortunately I wasn't) getting a wage to play footy and living in a smaller city would suit me. Unless of course the Dogs drafted me or wanted to trade for me. Another life maybe sigh.

 

[Southern 8]

If we can get Lever fantastic but I think we need to get another quality ruck to help Roughead as well. That way Toyd can stay forward where we most need him and Roughy can play some forward or back where needed and ruck. Campbell if could stay fit could do it but too injury prone so need more ruck cover. I know we have English but gives him time to develop like Darcy did when Wynd played most of game in ruck. English can learn forward or back while developing in ruck, did Darcy no harm becoming league MVP when matured. I say quality but wouldn't want to spend to much ie Goldy. State leagues maybe so we have extra cover if our injury prone rucks Roughy, Campbell get injured.

 

[fronkalicious]

If we can get Lever fantastic but I think we need to get another quality ruck to help Roughead as well. That way Toyd can stay forward where we most need him and Roughy can play some forward or back where needed and ruck. Campbell if could stay fit could do it but too injury prone so need more ruck cover. I know we have English but gives him time to develop like Darcy did when Wynd played most of game in ruck. English can learn forward or back while developing in ruck, did Darcy no harm becoming league MVP when matured. I say quality but wouldn't want to spend to much ie Goldy. State leagues maybe so we have extra cover if our injury prone rucks Roughy, Campbell get injured.

Will Boyd ever be a quality forward though?? I have serious doubts.

 

[Southern 8]

Will Boyd ever be a quality forward though?? I have serious doubts.

I bloody hope so Fronk. I have faith.

 

[The Original Swooper]

Will Boyd ever be a quality forward though?? I have serious doubts.

I know the Toyd debate has gone around and around.
Initially I thought playing him ruck would increase his confidence, sense of belonging, flexibility and tank, and in a couple of years when Tim "winger" English is ready, we'd have a mature KPF ready to go.
But taking into account recent health issues, do we really know what we have. I'm hoping he's like a Christmas present that we took the pretty ribbon off, but the wrapping is still on the parcel. All will be revealed, hopefully in 2018

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Lewis Young's got "athletic forward as a junior, but will be converted to a defender in the AFL" written all over him.

His athletic testing was off the charts, and if he doesn't really improve his kicking/vision/ball use, but improves how he reads the game and his defensive skills, imagine him using his pace to get to the ball and his leaping ability to spoil away defenders. Hey, players like Jeremy McGovern were recruited as forwards...

I called it by the way!