Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 7 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[TiAn_]

Even Norf are trying to bend us over

More of the "you're pushing him out" bullshit i guess

They’re offering pick 25 for a bloke who’s clearly not first choice in any position for us so I’d say they’re being quite reasonable.

 

[_Cerberus_]

Dunno why Saints and North want us to pay some salary. They are stuck on the bottom, who are they even paying that they cannot cover it themselves?

I thought us turning down 25 for Daniel and 48 was interesting, as its a good deal. So knew there had to be something else behind it, that the media seldom share. As its better to make us look like idiots than spill the truth I guess.

 

[goodcop badcop]

That's great in theory but the system that we labour under doesn't allow you to trade players based on the club's will and against their preferences.

I've got no doubt that after Smith's form dropped considerably throughout the 2023 season that there would have been enquiries from other clubs but they can't go anywhere unless Smith and his management entertain them.

They aren't going to do that when he becomes and out of contract player in 12 months and can completely call the shots on where he is traded to.

Smith's management never requested a trade last year because we were never going to entertain offers. At least that's what it sounded like to me. It was well reported that Smith was unhappy with not getting much midfield minutes and Hawthorn and Geelong were the teams keen on him. We just chose not to entertain it.

 

[Doggy]

They’re offering pick 25 for a bloke who’s clearly not first choice in any position for us so I’d say they’re being quite reasonable.

After picks come in and out it's nowhere near as appetising as you might think. Especially if we are also paying some of his salary

 

[GetDimmaBack]

Really need a Dogs supporter with deep pockets to buy out Cotton On.

Chris Hemsworth?

Clive Palmer?

I've been wondering lately...

How would the Cats' recruiting "strategies" change if the owners of Cotton On were made a godfather offer from an international company that had no interest in Australian sporting teams/clubs?

Would be fun viewing, I'd think

 

[Sharpiesadog]

I won’t be at all upset if Macrae stays. If Libba or (gods preserve us!) Bont go down injured he will have a role to play in the guts.

 

[Bald]

They’re offering pick 25 for a bloke who’s clearly not first choice in any position for us so I’d say they’re being quite reasonable.

If they were offering pick 25 for Caleb Daniel then we'd probably take that deal, but that's not what is being asked for.

 

[Scottish Bob]

The Danial deal seems to be completely driven by North being opportunistic , from what I’ve heard Caleb wants to stay. The club won’t let him go for a pick upgrade and will not pay a cent of his contract if he leaves. If he goes it will be for a straight 2nd and north paying 100% of his contract .

 

[TiAn_]

After picks come in and out it's nowhere near as appetising as you might think. Especially if we are also paying some of his salary

People always overstate how much those later picks “come in”. I’d be surprised if 48 ends up any higher than 41-42. Otherwise we may as well just take 44 outright for Daniel if it’s going to move up that much.

If they were offering pick 25 for Caleb Daniel then we'd probably take that deal, but that's not what is being asked for.

Yes, I realise that. I was responding to someone saying North offering that was “trying to bend us over”. It really isn’t. Compare that to the Saints, pursuing a better player and offering peanuts.

 

[Doggy]

People always overstate how much those later picks “come in”. I’d be surprised if 48 ends up any higher than 41-42. Otherwise we may as well just take 44 outright for Daniel if it’s going to move up that much.



Yes, I realise that. I was responding to someone saying North offering that was “trying to bend us over”. It really isn’t. Compare that to the Saints, pursuing a better player and offering peanuts.

It would likely be somewhere in the vicinity of a 15 pick upgrade and paying some salary.

That isn't a good deal.

 

[Bald]

Yes, I realise that. I was responding to someone saying North offering that was “trying to bend us over”. It really isn’t. Compare that to the Saints, pursuing a better player and offering peanuts.

If we're trading contracted players we should be getting overs, not unders. Anything other than overs coming our way is a club trying to bend us over in my opinion, and in my opinion, the offer from North is well and truly unders for Daniel.

 

[Sentinel]

Slightly off topic, but for all the talk about how lucky we were to land Darcy for cheap (which we were), we really did overpay compared to what Brisbane are likely to do for landing Levi Ashcroft under this completely ridiculous system.

• To acquire the points needed to match the Darcy bid, we gave up all of pick 17, pick 75, a future 3rd plus Pat Lipinski and Lewis Young
  33

  Lewis Young

  Age

  25

  Ht

  202cm

  Wt

  99kg

  Pos.

  Def

  Career

  Season

  Last 5

  D

  11.6

  3star

  K

  7.5

  3star

  HB

  4.1

  3star

  M

  4.4

  4star

  T

  1.6

  4star

  MG

  197.9

  3star

  D

  4.0

  1star

  K

  3.0

  1star

  HB

  1.0

  1star

  M

  3.0

  3star

  T

  0.0

  1star

  MG

  26.0

  1star

  D

  14.4

  4star

  K

  8.2

  4star

  HB

  6.2

  4star

  M

  6.4

  5star

  T

  2.0

  4star

  MG

  181.6

  3star

  .
• Last week Brisbane traded their pick 20 to Richmond for picks 32, 42, 43 and 45 (I still don't know why the AFL allowed it given how objectively lopsided it was). If a bid for Ashcroft comes at pick 2 like it did for Darcy, to match they'll need to only add a pick 48 on top of those 4 picks, meaning Brisbane's total cost would be pick 20 + pick 48.

 

[Hoges64]

Narrator: it was not around the mark

Love it, well played...

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Geelong's posturing to land Bailey in the ND is ridiculous. There are several Melbourne based clubs with the ability to trade up or down on the night to get ahead of their pick and take Bailey, should they want. Geelong would also put themselves in the position of being extorted on the night by an opportunistic club. For instance, a club with pick 14 could say to Geelong, we are taking Smith, but we'll happily swap 14 and 18 if you throw in a future first.

Essendon is trading away pick 9 on the off chance that a bid comes for Kako before that - other clubs have created enough noise about drafting Kako that Essendon don't have a lot of choice.

I wouldn't want to be in a vulnerable position like that if I were Geelong. Much better to agree a price now, than get extorted at the last minute.

Ignore the theatre and posturing, Geelong have every reason to add a 2nd - or more - to the deal to avoid a more dangerous situation.

The deal will get done 100%.

Yes, which is why literally no player has ever had a trade failed to be traded and some reasonable amount has been traded.

Even Jordan Dawson, who it was far easier for Adelaide to walk to the draft than Geelong and Smith (given Adelaide finished fourth-bottom that year and had better draft picks), was traded for pick 18, and at the time of the trade, was not considered as good as a trade asset as Smith is now (impossible to know that Dawson would improve the way that he did at Adelaide at the time).

Geelong are thinking that they're smarter than similar scenarios in the rest of the league, and don't have to pay up in the trade, there's a risk that it comes back to bite them, the thing that literally every other club has tried to avoid.

All for what? So they can keep their F1 pick. I get their caution - Carlton traded for a pick in the teens and their F1 eventually became pick 4 - but the whole purpose of recruiting a good player like Smith is that he himself might be the difference of a few ladder positions. It's like Brisbane and Dunkley - Brisbane didn't want to trade their F1 but understood that recruiting Dunkley meant that their F1 was not likely to be that good a pick, which ultimately proved to be true - Dunkley himself was a factor in Brisbane ultimately making the GF.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Stated on SEN this morning that it’s up to the Cats to make this work. They’ve courted for 18mths, have got him onboard, so need to cough up.

And it's obvious that we're not being unreasonable in the context of Smith's contract, his predicted form as a player into the future, etc.

Ultimately, pick 17 (becoming 21) is not that good of a pick. Smith as a player is expected to significantly outperform that draft pick for the rest of his career. His contract amount is proof of that belief by Geelong and by general understanding of how well we can predict the future.

If Geelong were offering a F1 and 17 or whatever and we were still rejecting it, everyone would understand that we were being unreasonable, Twomey predicted - because ultimately he's not that good of a player, and his contract is not that amount.

The fair amount, for how good of a player he is, and the value of a given draft pick, is more than pick 17.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Feels weird being the unreasonable club for once

I think it's silly for us in terms of expected output for the club trying to maximise its list management assets (treating players and draft picks as a collective), but I think we can argue there's not ever any concept of being unreasonable for any contracted player.

We're entitled to hold a contracted player to his contract if we desire, even if North were offering pick 2 for him, and there's nothing unreasonable about that desire.

 

[Westerndog11]

I wonder if this is damaging Sniffs ego that he is only being rated as worthy of a pick 17. Definitely a hit to his ‘brand’ that he’s being considered as only worth that by the media.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Slightly off topic, but for all the talk about how lucky we were to land Darcy for cheap (which we were), we really did overpay compared to what Brisbane are likely to do for landing Levi Ashcroft under this completely ridiculous system.

• To acquire the points needed to match the Darcy bid, we gave up all of pick 17, pick 75, a future 3rd plus Pat Lipinski and Lewis Young.
• Last week Brisbane traded their pick 20 to Richmond for picks 32, 42, 43 and 45 (I still don't know why the AFL allowed it given how objectively lopsided it was). If a bid for Ashcroft comes at pick 2 like it did for Darcy, to match they'll need to only add a pick 48 on top of those 4 picks, meaning Brisbane's total cost would be pick 20 + pick 48.

Which is why we don't want to cough up pick 48 in the Daniel trade.

Pick 25 looks good on paper but if the picks used to match bids for academy/FS players come exclusively between 25 and 48, it's not a 23 pick upgrade, it's far less.

Say that 8 picks get used for 3 players, and those 8 picks are all currently between those two picks.

25 gets pushed back to 28 and 48 gets pushed up to 43.

Suddenly it's not Daniel and 48 for 25, it's Daniel and 43 for 28.

We give up Daniel and instead of having a crack at the 43rd best young talent in the league, we get a crack at the 28th.

Maybe we still should do that trade, but it's fair less impressive when you spell it out the reality of what will happen.

 

[Libbaaaa]

I wonder if this is damaging Sniffs ego that he is only being rated as worthy of a pick 17. Definitely a hit to his ‘brand’ that he’s being considered as only worth that by the media.

His brand is comprised 95% of teens who don't move the needle when it comes to anything really.

 

[TiAn_]

It would likely be somewhere in the vicinity of a 15 pick upgrade and paying some salary.

That isn't a good deal.

I think it’s thereabouts and nothing to get upset about. It’s essentially the inclusion of a third rounder away from being a great deal for us. It’s certainly not a bad deal for a highly paid 19-25 depth player.

If we're trading contracted players we should be getting overs, not unders.

As a general concept that’s fine, it’s subjective though. You can’t expect a first round pick for every player under contract.

Anything other than overs coming our way is a club trying to bend us over in my opinion,

By definition this means a “fair” deal is also trying to “bend us over”. You’re entitled to feel that way, I just don’t think it’s reasonable and you’re setting yourself up for perpetual disappointment.

and in my opinion, the offer from North is well and truly unders for Daniel.

As above, it’s a middle of third round pick and a small amount of salary from being an amazing offer for Daniel and one we’d likely jump at in a heartbeat.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think it’s thereabouts and nothing to get upset about. It’s essentially the inclusion of a third rounder away from being a great deal for us. It’s certainly not a bad deal for a highly paid 19-25 depth player.



As a general concept that’s fine, it’s subjective though. You can’t expect a first round pick for every player under contract.



By definition this means a “fair” deal is also trying to “bend us over”. You’re entitled to feel that way, I just don’t think it’s reasonable and you’re setting yourself up for perpetual disappointment.



As above, it’s a middle of third round pick and a small amount of salary from being an amazing offer for Daniel and one we’d likely jump at in a heartbeat.

I anticipate that we're happy to make the trade for Daniel, we're just trying to squeeze more out of North because of the fact that Daniel is happy to stay and while the offloading of salary would be beneficial, it is not strictly necessary under the salary cap, so the downside for us is minimised.

 

[TiAn_]

I anticipate that we're happy to make the trade for Daniel, we're just trying to squeeze more out of North because of the fact that Daniel is happy to stay and while the offloading of salary would be beneficial, it is not strictly necessary under the salary cap, so the downside for us is minimised.

I think we’d be rightfully pumping our fists if 25 comes our way outright. Daniel’s contract might not break our books, but $700k is a huge amount for a bloke who played 8 VFL games, was sub or subbed out of 8 AFL games and only played 8 full AFL games this year.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I think we’d be rightfully pumping our fists if 25 comes our way outright. Daniel’s contract might not break our books, but $700k is a huge amount for a bloke who played 8 VFL games, was sub or subbed out of 8 AFL games and only played 8 full AFL games this year.

Agreed.

Just no need to make the trade today when we can make the trade with five minutes to go on deadline day, assuming that North don't yank the trade offer completely.

 

[cleveland]

I think we’d be rightfully pumping our fists if 25 comes our way outright. Daniel’s contract might not break our books, but $700k is a huge amount for a bloke who played 8 VFL games, was sub or subbed out of 8 AFL games and only played 8 full AFL games this year.

No way we get 25 outright

 

[JTCWBFC]

The talk of clearing space being our focus shits me.

The best clubs keep their stars and attract new high end talent.

We need to do more.