List Mgmt. 2016 Trade, Draft and free agency news (no hypothetical trades)

[Bumps"N"Grins]

Okay so the draft just past 2015 was deemed to be shallow, think of

So do the boffins of junior talent think that the 2016 is any deeper? think of

Sorry slow day.

 

[Collins-Langford-Ayres]

Some of the FAs already signing or off the list, Goldie, Hanners, Yarran...

 

[Gohawthorn13]

Here we go boys this who will we pick up I reckon Cripps may be a big chance along with o'meara

O'meara is possible but no chance to get cripps no way carlton would let him go

 

[PhatHQ]

This guy please

View attachment 197119

Perhaps if when we played GC the crowd support for him might need to be in line with the Dangerfield switch to Geelong.... Cheer, drool, praise & promise the world as supporters & convince him he has already made up his mind he is here already.

 

[eldorado]

Jaeger please, the 2016 Free agency period is going to be important for us.

But Jaeger isn't a free agent...

 

[HODGEYROAD]

But Jaeger isn't a free agent...

Is he restricted free agent ?

 

[eldorado]

Is he restricted free agent ?

No, you're only a free agent after 7 (or 8?) years...

Trade only

 

[HODGEYROAD]

No, you're only a free agent after 7 (or 8?) years...

Trade only

Yeah thats right what am I thinking , all good we need to get in his ear when a player wants a trade clubs are pretty much forced to deal.

 

[GerryLewis]

Yeah thats right what am I thinking , all good we need to get in his ear when a player wants a trade clubs are pretty much forced to deal.

Strong word that O'Meara wants to move to Melbourne to further his commercial and post footy prospects. Go this from an interstate club official who are also interested. Agree with previous poster that Hawks have used 2 x first rounders this year which gives them the ability to trade the next three out of necessary. In GW we trust.

 

[cryptor]

Strong word that O'Meara wants to move to Melbourne to further his commercial and post footy prospects. Go this from an interstate club official who are also interested. Agree with previous poster that Hawks have used 2 x first rounders this year which gives them the ability to trade the next three out of necessary. In GW we trust.

Technically we didn't use any first rounders as due to compensation picks and bidding we were pushed out of the first round. Not fair if those things out of our control counted against us. But even if they don't (ie. they do stand as their value before all that sideshow stuff) then I don't think we would be able to bank credit on extra first rounders we traded in.

 

[GerryLewis]

Technically we didn't use any first rounders as due to compensation picks and bidding we were pushed out of the first round. Not fair if those things out of our control counted against us. But even if they don't (ie. they do stand as their value before all that sideshow stuff) then I don't think we would be able to bank credit on extra first rounders we traded in.

Good point. I'm not 100% sure, my understanding was clubs had to use 2 first round selections over a 4 year period. Unsure if there's conditions applied to that. If not it's a stroke of genius by the recruitment team.

 

[Brishawk]

Good point. I'm not 100% sure, my understanding was clubs had to use 2 first round selections over a 4 year period. Unsure if there's conditions applied to that. If not it's a stroke of genius by the recruitment team.

This is what has been published:

AFL general counsel Andrew Dillon said the following rules would govern trading of future draft picks:

- Clubs can trade one year in the future only.

- Clubs must make at least two first-round selections in each four-year period. If they don't, they will face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks.

- If a club trades a future first-round selection, it may not trade any other future selection from that same draft. But if a club keeps its future first-round selection, it can trade any of its future selections from other rounds.

- See more at: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2015-08-...ad-but-with-restrictions#sthash.xZvI3Lpx.dpuf

So by the rules as written here it says nothing about taking two picks in one year and trading out your next three first round picks. However the four year rule sort of guards against that in a way.

Example 1:
Year 1 - trade in a first round pick and use two first round picks in the ND.
Year 2 - trade out first round pick and next years first round pick.
Year 3 - No first round pick. Trade out next years first round pick.
Year 4 - No first round pick. Trade out next years first round pick.
Year 5 - Need to trade in two first round picks to satisfy four year rule.

If clubs new you needed to trade in two first rounders or face sanctions by the AFL then they are not going to offer a fair price if in fact they are willing to trade at all. So even if it is possible in all likelihood you are not going to take it to the extreme.

Example 2:
Year 1 - trade in a first round pick and use two first round picks in the ND.
Year 2 - trade out first round pick and next years first round pick.
Year 3 - No first round pick. Trade out next years first round pick.
Year 4 - No first round pick.
Year 5 - Need to trade in one first round picks to satisfy four year rule.

Even in example 2 you are faced with the proposition of needing to secure an extra first rounder in either year 4 or 5. While the threat of a sanction is not so big in year 4 its unlikely you are going to get a fair deal or at least as good a deal as if you are not facing the threat of a sanction.

 

[cryptor]

Good point. I'm not 100% sure, my understanding was clubs had to use 2 first round selections over a 4 year period. Unsure if there's conditions applied to that. If not it's a stroke of genius by the recruitment team.

I've seen various explanations through the AFL media where the wording can be interpreted various ways. Not sure if the officials laws regarding it are available on the AFL website or not.

 

[Smithdogmaddog]

First round finished at Carltons pick 23 according to AFL websites draft tracker.

http://m.afl.com.au/draft/draft-tracker

 

[cryptor]

This is what has been published:

So by the rules as written here it says nothing about taking two picks in one year and trading out your next three first round picks. However the four year rule sort of guards against that in a way.

Example 1:
Year 1 - trade in a first round pick and use two first round picks in the ND.
Year 2 - trade out first round pick and next years first round pick.
Year 3 - No first round pick. Trade out next years first round pick.
Year 4 - No first round pick. Trade out next years first round pick.
Year 5 - Need to trade in two first round picks to satisfy four year rule.

If clubs new you needed to trade in two first rounders or face sanctions by the AFL then they are not going to offer a fair price if in fact they are willing to trade at all. So even if it is possible in all likelihood you are not going to take it to the extreme.

Example 2:
Year 1 - trade in a first round pick and use two first round picks in the ND.
Year 2 - trade out first round pick and next years first round pick.
Year 3 - No first round pick. Trade out next years first round pick.
Year 4 - No first round pick.
Year 5 - Need to trade in one first round picks to satisfy four year rule.

Even in example 2 you are faced with the proposition of needing to secure an extra first rounder in either year 4 or 5. While the threat of a sanction is not so big in year 4 its unlikely you are going to get a fair deal or at least as good a deal as if you are not facing the threat of a sanction.

Typical ambiguous AFL rules.

 

[Brishawk]

Typical ambiguous AFL rules.

by everything I have read I think the intention is to allow you to trade out first rounders in two years out of four. I think banking etc. are implicitly prohibited. In saying that the whole concept of restricting what first round picks can be traded is a ridiculous notion. Most likely the intent is to stop clubs like Hawthorn trading into ready made players every year i.e. enforce 'equalization' through enforced drafting. even if you don't trade future picks you still can't trade out all your first rounders. Seems highly and necessarily restrictive.

 

[cryptor]

by everything I have read I think the intention is to allow you to trade out first rounders in two years out of four. I think banking etc. are implicitly prohibited. In saying that the whole concept of restricting what first round picks can be traded is a ridiculous notion. Most likely the intent is to stop clubs like Hawthorn trading into ready made players every year i.e. enforce 'equalization' through enforced drafting. even if you don't trade future picks you still can't trade out all your first rounders. Seems highly and necessarily restrictive.

The intention is usually obvious. But the ambiguity in the rules leads to ambiguity in how they are enforced. Clubs are always looking for loop holes to get ahead (eg. Bidding points this year resulting in weird pick trades). No doubt at least one club already has an idea on how they plan to exploit the future trading rule (good chance it's us given we fought to get it in early). It's going to be pretty frustrating to be confronted with a "nah, can't do that" from the AFL if they get blocked on something that wasn't clearly stated as being legal or illegal in their rules.

 

[GerryLewis]

The intention is usually obvious. But the ambiguity in the rules leads to ambiguity in how they are enforced. Clubs are always looking for loop holes to get ahead (eg. Bidding points this year resulting in weird pick trades). No doubt at least one club already has an idea on how they plan to exploit the future trading rule (good chance it's us given we fought to get it in early). It's going to be pretty frustrating to be confronted with a "nah, can't do that" from the AFL if they get blocked on something that wasn't clearly stated as being legal or illegal in their rules.

Agreed. It seems a moveable feast when it comes to the AFL and rules. Having said that, the fact that we pushed so hard for future trading suggests we have some pretty solid planning in place in regards to this. I wouldn't be surprised if we had a big crack at a non-free agent gun mid (O'Meara). It seems in this day and age it matters little if you're a free agent or not, you nominate a club and you end up getting there.

 

[Noel Gallagher]

The whole O'Meara discussion/future trade possibility could soon become moot if his knees are shot. Personally i am highly sceptical that he will be able to fully recover from such serious knee/s surgery without loosing some pace. Good thing is we have one full season to see how well his knees have responded to surgery.

 

[MrPremiership]

How similar is JOM's injury to Ernie (Ryan Burton)?

 

[cryptor]

How similar is JOM's injury to Ernie (Ryan Burton)?

One is a tendon tear while the other a bone fracture. Both around the knee area, both very serious injuries. Would think that's about where the similarities end.

 

[Brishawk]

The intention is usually obvious. But the ambiguity in the rules leads to ambiguity in how they are enforced. Clubs are always looking for loop holes to get ahead (eg. Bidding points this year resulting in weird pick trades). No doubt at least one club already has an idea on how they plan to exploit the future trading rule (good chance it's us given we fought to get it in early). It's going to be pretty frustrating to be confronted with a "nah, can't do that" from the AFL if they get blocked on something that wasn't clearly stated as being legal or illegal in their rules.

Yes but regardless of if it is allowed or not by doing it you end up in a situation where you need to trade in at least one, if not two first rounders which is a great risk to take when their is potentially a significant penalty to fail to comply with the four year rule (penalties have not been made clear). In any case, this is the AFL so basically if it hurts hawthorn to block it, they will. If it advantages a club of the month (expansion sides, freo, Sydney etc.) they will allow it just like they did with freo and the resting players rule.

 

[bradburygold]

Yes but regardless of if it is allowed or not by doing it you end up in a situation where you need to trade in at least one, if not two first rounders which is a great risk to take when their is potentially a significant penalty to fail to comply with the four year rule (penalties have not been made clear). In any case, this is the AFL so basically if it hurts hawthorn to block it, they will. If it advantages a club of the month (expansion sides, freo, Sydney etc.) they will allow it just like they did with freo and the resting players rule.

The rule states the "penalty" is club "will face restrictions from trading any further first-round draft picks." But this is the AFL so you may have a point....

 

[StalkingHawk]

No possibility of trading three out. Can only trade 1 year into the future,.....
Unless you trade for a future rd1 pick, then on trade it the following year.

 

[TyHawk]

Wines and wingard are going to drive a hard bargain at port but port are squeezed up already!!!! Just saying.