Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 6 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Snarls Barkley]

Quicker and seems a little more "defence first" in the way he plays.

I'd love to see advanced stats at VFL level (e.g. DE, TOG, pressure acts) but I can't seem to find them.

Our resident stats guru Oliver G is probably the only chance of finding those CD numbers

 

[JTCWBFC]

I was hoping we’d have something up our sleeve to move beyond vdm and McNeil

We need more from our small forwards in this day and age

 

[GetDimmaBack]

So we can rejuvenate the midfield and bring Butters and Merrett home

Be careful using the word ''home'' in a football context, Foxy.

I believe Geelong have the copyright on it

 

[threenewpadlocks]

We're still after a good mid-forward like either Rachele or Rayner. Not necessarily All-Australian quality but one that we can plop on our half-forward line in R1 next year but if we sign to a long-term deal we'd have no issue moving them to full-time mid over the subsequent years if our midfield ages out, like many are predicting.

Pretty sure this has been mentioned a few times on this thread and we're just being good and quiet about it.

 

[Norm De Guerre]

I wrote this missive in the Beveridge thread, but thought it marginally more apt for this one.

So please forgive the disjointed start as it was in reply to where that hamster wheel of a thread is going.

Anyways...

Blaming the coach for our historic inability to attract recruits is probably the most asinine excuse of them all.

For all of the off-field improvement in management and facilities that we've made. We are constantly fighting against where the biggest pool of AFL talent of elite junior talent is derived from. The Geographic heart of Melbourne and an APS system that is predominately one based in the Inner East. Bayside suburbs of Melbourne and Geelong. When players return to or want to be traded it's typically to be closer to friends and family in familiar territory. We may scoff and moan about contra deals that Geelong use to lure players that may or may not have ties to the town, but the reality is that when players get to choose the club they want to go to instead of the one that the draft indentures them to, then for the most part they tend to gravitate back to their roots.

There are of course exceptions to this rule, but they are typically guys who are more about their personal brand and enriching themselves than geography. Fortunately those guys are an infantisamlny small subset of the player pool and aren't really relevant to us as they are never coming to as small a club as ours anyway. I think an argument could be made that guys like that Nathan Brown

22

Nathan Brown

Age

36

Ht

196cm

Wt

99kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

8.8

2star

K

3.9

2star

HB

4.9

4star

M

2.7

3star

T

1.8

4star

No current season stats available

D

6.4

2star

K

3.2

2star

HB

3.2

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.8

5star

and now Bailey Smith

3

Bailey Smith

Age

24

Ht

185cm

Wt

86kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

18.3

5star

K

8.5

3star

HB

9.8

5star

M

2.3

2star

T

3.8

5star

CL

2.7

4star

D

19.8

5star

K

9.6

4star

HB

10.2

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

3.2

4star

CL

3.2

4star

D

14.8

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

7.2

5star

M

2.0

3star

T

3.4

5star

CL

1.6

4star

were destined to leave almost as soon as they arrive. Indeed Brown signalled as much in his very first public utterances when arriving at Whitten Oval. When he said words to teh effect that he was in it to make as much money as he could. A mantra that still seems to be at his very core today, but I digress.

Now, I have no idea what state of grassroots or school football in our geographical heartland the Western Suburbs of Melbourne is like, but it doesn't seem to be anything like the aforementioned footy factories in the east or in Geelong. For mine no matter where we play, how good our facilities are, gentrification of the inner west or whomever happens to be coach. We will continue to battle against these forces when it comes to attracting the elite talent to the club. When you combine all of this with historic perception of our lowly club, then it makes for a potent mix of negativity when it comes to attracting talent.

We may on occasion have unexpected wins on this front, but a case can be made that those are mere flukes or the result of happenstance as we saw in the two biggest recruiting coups in recent memory when Tom Boyd and Adam Treloar

1

Adam Treloar

Age

31

Ht

185cm

Wt

84kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

28.2

5star

K

12.9

5star

HB

15.3

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

4.9

5star

CL

4.6

5star

D

30.3

5star

K

16.3

5star

HB

14.0

5star

M

2.0

2star

T

3.3

4star

CL

5.8

5star

D

18.0

5star

K

11.2

4star

HB

6.8

5star

M

4.2

4star

T

2.6

4star

CL

1.6

4star

fell into our laps.

Let it sink in that there was ≈ 8 years between these two coups and the only other recruit of note was a journeyman that nobody was clamouring for who may have finally fallen into a position on the field that suited his unique set of skills at the age of 31. It remains to be seen if that success will continue. Indeed it remains to be see whether he will be at the club next year!

But Norm! I hear you think. St.Kilda are located at the heart of all of this and they have the same problems attracting top end talent as we do. Yes indeed this is true. But they also have to deal with historical reality of turmoil and being chronically shit. And no amount of geographic advantage can counter that.

A Premiership and stability are all very nice, but they won't tip the scale on geography and perception when it comes to attracting top end talent.

Its why investing time into this recruiting possibility or that recruiting possibility or listening to the absolute click-bait garbage of trade radio during trade week(s) will only result in a giant set of epididymal hypertension for the gents or blue vulva syndrome for the ladies out there.

 

[Unorth]

We're still after a good mid-forward like either Rachele or Rayner. Not necessarily All-Australian quality but one that we can plop on our half-forward line in R1 next year but if we sign to a long-term deal we'd have no issue moving them to full-time mid over the subsequent years if our midfield ages out, like many are predicting.

Pretty sure this has been mentioned a few times on this thread and we're just being good and quiet about it.

Yep, the absence of information doesn’t mean much at this stage. It just seems incredibly obvious that’s a place where we can improve that we’d be crazy to pin our hopes on internal development.

We should be very into Rachele if he is disgruntled. He’s not a star but does what we need. Rayner would be better but obviously much harder to get.

Been an issue, along with one or two other positions, for awhile though and if we don’t address it I kind of question where Power is thinking the list is at.

But we shall see what emerges/what smiley boy inevitably drops…

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yep, the absence of information doesn’t mean much at this stage. It just seems incredibly obvious that’s a place where we can improve that we’d be crazy to pin our hopes on internal development.

We should be very into Rachele if he is disgruntled. He’s not a star but does what we need. Rayner would be better but obviously much harder to get.

Been an issue, along with one or two other positions, for awhile though and if we don’t address it I kind of question where Power is thinking the list is at.

But we shall see what emerges/what smiley boy inevitably drops…

Yep, this idea that the club thinks that McNeil/Gallagher/Vandermeer across half forward isn't primed for obvious upgrades is wrong.

They got games because it was clear across 2022-23 our weaknesses were the effectiveness of team structure/press/finess/sprint, where for all the deficiencies of these players in winning and using the ball, they played a part in a hard-to-measure sense in our improvement in points against and preventing opposition teams moving the ball in the length of the ground (as well as supporting our own ball movement off the ball by using athletic traits and understanding of space).

But clearly if we could find a player that offers a similar or better level of those running/fitness/offball traits, we would clearly want to upgrade to a better ball winner/user. We just can't afford to put in a better ball winner/user if it exposes us structurally which is why we left out Daniel and Macrae (and Sanders) at half-forward for so many games in 2024 despite the fact that they appeared to be better players in a vacuum than those other types (which they are, you just need a balance of attributes on the field).

 

[_Mike_]

Not if we want the Saints to pay anything close to his remaining owed salary worth over $2 million.

Macrae is asking to be moved, thats different from the club moving him on.

Macrae seeks to terminate his playing contract with the Dogs, move to another club, enter a new player agreement with another club. In comparison, Collingwood terminated Adz fixed term contract, Adz wanted to stay. As a result of termination Collingwood were forced to pay the balance of his contract, which is what he would have earned in total had he remained at Collingwood.

With Macrae seeking a trade mid contract, because Macrae seeks to give notice, the club wont have to pay out his contract.

AFL Standard Player Contract

section 7.3 Termination without cause
In addition to the termination rights at 7.1 (player in breach of obligations) and 7.2 (Company is in default) above, either Party to this Agreement may terminate it without cause in writing to the other Party, with immediate effect.

section 7.5 Fees after termination

(c) If the Player terminates without cause under clause 7.3: the Player must pay the Company the Fee the Company is duly entitled to under clause 5.1 of this Agreement for the Term, unless the Player could have otherwise terminated pursuant to 7.2, in which case, the Player will cease to have any obligation to pay any fees under this Agreement on and from the date on which the Player could have relied on those clauses to terminate this Agreement.

Nothing there that the club has to pay out the remaining agreement

 

[Thunderoad]

I wrote this missive in the Beveridge thread, but thought it marginally more apt for this one.

So please forgive the disjointed start as it was in reply to where that hamster wheel of a thread is going.

Anyways...

Blaming the coach for our historic inability to attract recruits is probably the most asinine excuse of them all.

For all of the off-field improvement in management and facilities that we've made. We are constantly fighting against where the biggest pool of AFL talent of elite junior talent is derived from. The Geographic heart of Melbourne and an APS system that is predominately one based in the Inner East. Bayside suburbs of Melbourne and Geelong. When players return to or want to be traded it's typically to be closer to friends and family in familiar territory. We may scoff and moan about contra deals that Geelong use to lure players that may or may not have ties to the town, but the reality is that when players get to choose the club they want to go to instead of the one that the draft indentures them to, then for the most part they tend to gravitate back to their roots.

There are of course exceptions to this rule, but they are typically guys who are more about their personal brand and enriching themselves than geography. Fortunately those guys are an infantisamlny small subset of the player pool and aren't really relevant to us as they are never coming to as small a club as ours anyway. I think an argument could be made that guys like that Nathan Brown and now Bailey Smith were destined to leave almost as soon as they arrive. Indeed Brown signalled as much in his very first public utterances when arriving at Whitten Oval. When he said words to teh effect that he was in it to make as much money as he could. A mantra that still seems to be at his very core today, but I digress.

Now, I have no idea what state of grassroots or school football in our geographical heartland the Western Suburbs of Melbourne is like, but it doesn't seem to be anything like the aforementioned footy factories in the east or in Geelong. For mine no matter where we play, how good our facilities are, gentrification of the inner west or whomever happens to be coach. We will continue to battle against these forces when it comes to attracting the elite talent to the club. When you combine all of this with historic perception of our lowly club, then it makes for a potent mix of negativity when it comes to attracting talent.

We may on occasion have unexpected wins on this front, but a case can be made that those are mere flukes or the result of happenstance as we saw in the two biggest recruiting coups in recent memory when Tom Boyd and Adam Treloar fell into our laps.

Let it sink in that there was ≈ 8 years between these two coups and the only other recruit of note was a journeyman that nobody was clamouring for who may have finally fallen into a position on the field that suited his unique set of skills at the age of 31. It remains to be seen if that success will continue. Indeed it remains to be see whether he will be at the club next year!

But Norm! I hear you think. St.Kilda are located at the heart of all of this and they have the same problems attracting top end talent as we do. Yes indeed this is true. But they also have to deal with historical reality of turmoil and being chronically shit. And no amount of geographic advantage can counter that.

A Premiership and stability are all very nice, but they won't tip the scale on geography and perception when it comes to attracting top end talent.

Its why investing time into this recruiting possibility or that recruiting possibility or listening to the absolute click-bait garbage of trade radio during trade week(s) will only result in a giant set of epididymal hypertension for the gents or blue vulva syndrome for the ladies out there.

Would like this reality check ten times if I could.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Macrae is asking to be moved, thats different from the club moving him on.

Macrae seeks to terminate his playing contract with the Dogs, move to another club, enter a new player agreement with another club. In comparison, Collingwood terminated Adz fixed term contract, Adz wanted to stay. As a result of termination Collingwood were forced to pay the balance of his contract, which is what he would have earned in total had he remained at Collingwood.

With Macrae seeking a trade mid contract, because Macrae seeks to give notice, the club wont have to pay out his contract.

AFL Standard Player Contract

section 7.3 Termination without cause
In addition to the termination rights at 7.1 (player in breach of obligations) and 7.2 (Company is in default) above, either Party to this Agreement may terminate it without cause in writing to the other Party, with immediate effect.

section 7.5 Fees after termination

(c) If the Player terminates without cause under clause 7.3: the Player must pay the Company the Fee the Company is duly entitled to under clause 5.1 of this Agreement for the Term, unless the Player could have otherwise terminated pursuant to 7.2, in which case, the Player will cease to have any obligation to pay any fees under this Agreement on and from the date on which the Player could have relied on those clauses to terminate this Agreement.

Nothing there that the club has to pay out the remaining agreement

Practically speaking though players don't seek to terminate the contract unless they have a guarantee they would earn close to the same amount they are guaranteed for.

Macrae's doesn't have to spell out the fact that the Dogs would be looking to save salary cap room, or that the Dogs and Saints would between them look to pay an amount similar to what Macrae is guaranteed by the Dogs, that's understood by all parties as common sense. Macrae has requested a trade but he's not going to terminate his $2 million plus guaranteed to sign a one-year, minimum deal at another club, clearly, and everyone understands that without having to even verbalise it. Macrae wants to get AFL games, but if the alternative is a significantly worse contract (or no guarantee that he can still be on an AFL list somewhere 3 years from now), naturally he'd just withdraw his trade request, accept that the Dogs have told him he does not remain in their best 22 plans for next year (let alone the two after that) stay at the Dogs for 3 years, fulfil all of his contract obligations for keeping himself fit and turning up to training and accept that he Dogs may still give him 0 AFL games for that time, and collect his $2 million over those three years minus any match-selection or performance related bonuses or elements as part of that deal.

Macrae may be willing to lop off some salary, a small amount (less than a quarter of what he's owed over three years), to help smooth things along and guarantee a deal gets done, but it's hardly a full termination of his existing money.

Dogs and Saints can still agree on a trade in principle and it not go through because Macrae doesn't formally sign on the dotted line at the new club. He would not terminate his own contract at the Dogs until he does so, and asking for a trade doesn't breach the terms of his contract or void it.

 

[_Mike_]

We may scoff and moan about contra deals that Geelong use to lure players that may or may not have ties to the town, but the reality is that when players get to choose the club they want to go to instead of the one that the draft indentures them to, then for the most part they tend to gravitate back to their roots.

Freedom to make and break contracts, that is what life in Western countries is about. Player agreements are set on equitable terms, and conditions give rise to actions for breach/termination.

That is life...

We will continue to battle against these forces when it comes to attracting the elite talent to the club. When you combine all of this with historic perception of our lowly club, then it makes for a potent mix of negativity when it comes to attracting talent.

This is the crux of the issue... Think small & inferior club mentality and that's what it will always be.

 

[_Mike_]

Macrae may be willing to lop off some salary, a small amount (less than a quarter of what he's owed over three years), to help smooth things along and guarantee a deal gets done, but it's hardly a full termination of his existing money.

This is a risk that players take at that time of their career, when they're not getting the amount of game time they feel they've worked hard for. Taking nothing away from Macrae, he got the Dogs into a GF, players have a short window of opportunities for earning and you can argue he's entering the twilight of what has been a fantastic career. The decisions around how much time he was spending on the ground comes down to the selection committee and coach. Had he been getting more game time would he still be seeking a trade? we'd need to ask Jack.

In the absence of comments from either party you can only speculate reasons for doing so, incentives, and what has been put on the table. Another club may offer to pick up the remaining contract value if they see it as worthwhile investment.

Remember back to Toyd, he was on a multi million dollar deal. While he did not go to another club because he wasnt in the right space he didnt seek to hamstring the club and hold them to the agreement. Tom went out on his terms, good terms. If Macrae wants to leave and hold the club to his agreement, you cant have your cake.... With the club's current financial position and $5.9M AUD settlement over the negligence case I don't believe the club is in a position to do this with Macrae. Would the club pay hardball with Jack? Don't know, guess we're going to find out.

 

[JohnnySteel]

Sanders after another preseason, will be set to explode. Back end of next year with 30 games under his belt, I think we’ll see a more adjusted and confident player.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Mojorisin]

Practically speaking though players don't seek to terminate the contract unless they have a guarantee they would earn close to the same amount they are guaranteed for.

Macrae's doesn't have to spell out the fact that the Dogs would be looking to save salary cap room, or that the Dogs and Saints would between them look to pay an amount similar to what Macrae is guaranteed by the Dogs, that's understood by all parties as common sense. Macrae has requested a trade but he's not going to terminate his $2 million plus guaranteed to sign a one-year, minimum deal at another club, clearly, and everyone understands that without having to even verbalise it. Macrae wants to get AFL games, but if the alternative is a significantly worse contract (or no guarantee that he can still be on an AFL list somewhere 3 years from now), naturally he'd just withdraw his trade request, accept that the Dogs have told him he does not remain in their best 22 plans for next year (let alone the two after that) stay at the Dogs for 3 years, fulfil all of his contract obligations for keeping himself fit and turning up to training and accept that he Dogs may still give him 0 AFL games for that time, and collect his $2 million over those three years minus any match-selection or performance related bonuses or elements as part of that deal.

Macrae may be willing to lop off some salary, a small amount (less than a quarter of what he's owed over three years), to help smooth things along and guarantee a deal gets done, but it's hardly a full termination of his existing money.

Dogs and Saints can still agree on a trade in principle and it not go through because Macrae doesn't formally sign on the dotted line at the new club. He would not terminate his own contract at the Dogs until he does so, and asking for a trade doesn't breach the terms of his contract or void it.

He will not be foregoing any of the money owed to him, likely a restructure though.

 

[_Mike_]

He will not be foregoing any of the money owed to him, likely a restructure though.

You terminate an agreement, you cant be expected to be compensated for the remainder of the term you're not working. Any position achieved will be via negotiation, he doesnt hold all the cards

 

[threenewpadlocks]

This is a risk that players take at that time of their career, when they're not getting the amount of game time they feel they've worked hard for. Taking nothing away from Macrae, he got the Dogs into a GF, players have a short window of opportunities for earning and you can argue he's entering the twilight of what has been a fantastic career. The decisions around how much time he was spending on the ground comes down to the selection committee and coach. Had he been getting more game time would he still be seeking a trade? we'd need to ask Jack.

I don't think Macrae necessarily disagrees with the club's footballing decisions to not select him. There's no suggestion he thinks that he's good enough to get picked more for the Dogs or whatever and seems accepting of the reality. The request for his trade is simply he would like to be on an AFL field more in 2025 and beyond, while remaining in the city of Melbourne, than what the Dogs have told him are likely.

In the absence of comments from either party you can only speculate reasons for doing so, incentives, and what has been put on the table. Another club may offer to pick up the remaining contract value if they see it as worthwhile investment.

We can speculate but it's pretty common sense - Macrae would like to be selected for AFL fixtures at an AFL club somewhere, and the Dogs have a strategic benefit in opening up salary cap room, a list spot, and an improvement in their draft hand, while losing a player that is not likely to be selected for a majority of games for us in 2025 should he stay. Nobody has come out and said it but I would be incredibly surprised if the above isn't true, as it seems self-evidently obvious as to what all parties have to gain from a trade.

Remember back to Toyd, he was on a multi million dollar deal. While he did not go to another club because he wasnt in the right space he didnt seek to hamstring the club and hold them to the agreement.

Tom was respectful to the club in not demanding the money he was owed, because he was appreciative of the work that the club did with his physical and mental health and supporting him and giving him the recovery and time that he needed.

In any case, it's unlikely that the club would have been forced to guarantee to pay his money to 2021, because Toyd was in such a difficult place that he physically didn't want to go to trainings and keep himself fit anymore. He may have tried to a minimum level to get himself that money but that would have led to a battle over whether it was technically met that neither party wanted. Standard contract terms to get paid still require players uphold minimum standards such as making themselves avaliable for training and fitness standards. When players fail to meet them most clubs agree on a partial payout rather than battle over it (see: Luke Goetz). Toyd also seems like he has some moral guidance and might have felt like he didn't deserve that money morally even if he was legally entitled to it, so he gave it up, but that's not to say that Macrae's circumstances are anywhere near similar, nor does he have the same moral viewpoint of it all.

If Macrae wants to leave and hold the club to his agreement, you cant have your cake.... With the club's current financial position and $5.9M AUD settlement over the negligence case I don't believe the club is in a position to do this with Macrae. Would the club pay hardball with Jack? Don't know, guess we're going to find out.

But it goes both ways. Macrae's entitled to the money because clubs don't have to pay players who exceed their expected performance per contract terms additional money. We didn't pay Josh Dunkley any more than the $400k per year he got in 2021-22 despite the fact that he was winning best and fairests and had demanded he wanted out to Essendon at the end of 2020. Macrae didn't seek to test the trade market when he was out of contract before he signed his five-year deal, and that gave the club certainty. I don't see the fact that Macare would like both his entitled money and to play elsewhere as having your cake and eating it too ... because he's giving the Dogs the advantages in salary cap room, list spaces and draft upgrades that we would not otherwise have should he demand to stay at the Dogs. Our financial position and settlement is irrelevant - all clubs pay between 95% and 105% of the salary cap and can afford to do so because it roughly lines up with the AFL's distribution of television rights to the club, and is considered a separate expense from both the football department costs (which has its own soft cap) and all other expenses.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

He will not be foregoing any of the money owed to him, likely a restructure though.

I'm sure that's his intention now but I know of similar trades at other non-Melbourne clubs where a trade is somewhat difficult but then the player just lops off $20k or whatever in the final year of their new deal in a salary dump to get it over the line (e.g. Matthew Lobbe having two years at $500k a year dumped to Carlton, I think he just shaved off a small amount off the second year of that deal because he was basically unwanted by Port but Carlton were not that keen to take on his entire salary).

 

[CarnTheScray]

The sooner we accept we will never win anything of note again, the better!

 

[Mojorisin]

You terminate an agreement, you cant be expected to be compensated for the remainder of the term you're not working. Any position achieved will be via negotiation, he doesnt hold all the cards

No, but when a club is luring a player across they wouldn't have much luck if they expected the player to take a pay cut.
We won't be covering any of his contract but if we wanted to offer to cover some of the contract in exchange of a better draft pick we could.
Edit to add. I agree Macrae doesn't hold all the cards but alot of the contract negotiation won't impact him. He will still be seeing the 1.75 he was set to get from the dogs just in a different manner (wether it be further front ended or smoothed out or although unlikely, Split between the two clubs.

I'm sure that's his intention now but I know of similar trades at other non-Melbourne clubs where a trade is somewhat difficult but then the player just lops off $20k or whatever in the final year of their new deal in a salary dump to get it over the line (e.g. Matthew Lobbe having two years at $500k a year dumped to Carlton, I think he just shaved off a small amount off the second year of that deal because he was basically unwanted by Port but Carlton were not that keen to take on his entire salary).

It is a different scenario and Saints have no shortage of cap space. 20k in the grand scheme of things isn't much to a footballer, Butters spends more then that on fines . I was more meaning 6 figure cuts, I think in the Lobbe case (and to a less extent macrae aswell) 20k is nothing compared to regular games especially after match payments.

 

[maddog37]

Still coming to grips with the idea of Jacko in Saints colours.

 

[ossie_21]

I’m just annoyed that we look to have wasted years of prime Bont and not used it to our advantage to turn us into one of the “big clubs”. Players should have been hammering down the door to get the chance to play in his team, we’ve done ok, but should have done better to land some big names.

Aside from Adz who kind of fell into our lap anyway, our big names were draftees. We’ve always “hit the draft”, always wanted to take at least a first rounder in, but pretty much all recent premiers have been bold and traded in talent with high picks.

I’ve been asking us to do it for years, have we just not been able to, or have we not been bold enough?

 

[Mutt]

This thread is now more than 900 pages long and it is time that we open Part 7 in a new thread:

Trades and List Management Part 7

 

[_Mike_]

I don't see the fact that Macare would like both his entitled money and to play elsewhere as having your cake and eating it too ... because he's giving the Dogs the advantages in salary cap room, list spaces and draft upgrades that we would not otherwise have should he demand to stay at the Dogs.

This is where the separation from emotion comes into play.

Everyone would love to be able to leave their job, through their choice, work elsewhere and have your former employer pay the gap because you didnt feel that your skills were being utilised to their capability.

He worked his previous playing contracts and was compensated accordingly