Oppo Camp OTHER CLUB Trade and F/A Discussion

[sr36]

Players ensconced in their senior team, in the top 10-12, aren’t moving to Tasmania. Collingwood aren’t clearing a Josh Daicos or Quaynor.

Yeah, you've just got to be patient and accept that the team is going to be crap early on. I actually think what KM is suggesting is the worst way of both attracting and retaining talent, which are his two big goals. All you've got to get signatures is cash. With the GWS opening, they had cash, but in terms of attracting players, they could also go to Callan Ward with the sales pitch of you are going to be a leader of the best group of youngsters in the league. The first few years, we'll struggle, but if you're patient, in 5 years time, you've got the opportunity to be leading the best team in the league. You can be part of building something great. Ditto Davis, Scully. They were actually in a position to attract some quality... And you're going to retain more because there's that lure of the genuine potential to be part of something awesome. Imagine how much higher a percentage of their talent would have wanted to go home, if they were crap, but not loaded with so many exciting youngsters offering realistic hope. I think GWS did most things right and rather than showing us how not to build a club, it was how to build a club. I'm hoping that the next new club, if there is one, doesn't get quite as many concessions, as with a better recruiting manager and a better coach, I think they would have created an unstoppable juggernaut.

 

[Knightmare]

Good point. Knightmare, they did pretty much have the blueprint you were describing. A list of more than 18 blokes with VFL senior experience, including fringe players from decent teams. A mixed age demographic. Blokes with leadership experience, including two captains, a young Brownlow medalist, another hugely hyped youngster who would have had one of the highest trade values in the league, a bloke who had won a bnf in a premiership team, a fair few mature state league players (these were probably the best of their inaugural team) and not many highly rated talented kids. They were awful for years and had an awful retention rate.

It really takes good ID to do it properly, whether you're selecting from opposition AFL sides or from the VFL. Talent ID until really 25 years ago was pretty poor, and gradually improves.

If you tell a whole recruiting team to focus on state league talent and AFL talent across all lists, you'd hope they can get it right and find good talent, because there is more than enough there.

But under your suggestion, the start up club wouldn't be getting 18 Brayden Maynard. They'd be getting the right to sign, but he has to agree to it, or trade 18 Maynards.

Chances are they are trading those Maynards and not getting Maynards back - a mix of fringe players and draft picks is what they'd probably become. My point is they're more likely to get what you want though trading draft picks for senior players. I personally don't think what you want is the way to go. Tassie have waited long enough for a team,that they can wait the extra 5 years for a team that is challenging - like with GWS, because that way has shown that it can get you a challenging team. It really should have gotten them a dominating team, but their recruiting wasn't great, nor their coaching.

You're right it would be hard to get that Maynard calibre piece back. For that reason, the onus for it to work would have to be on the Collingwood in this example to actively trade for Maynard to re-gain his rights, as otherwise he would be a contracted player to Tasmania.

This is of course only one method of securing a player.

And as an alternative to a top-5 and then clubs can take that 6th guy, maybe instead of clubs being able to retain their top-5 players, maybe it's 8 each club can choose to retain instead (and that could among those numbers not include first or second year players so as to protect the rebuilding clubs). Then Tasmania can have that 9th most valuable player from every team. So for Collingwood maybe that's Brody Mihocek (De Goey/Quaynor/Grundy/Adams/Crisp/Moore/Maynard/N.Daicos are the ones prioritised). Then there is the decision around whether a trade is attempted to get him back.

Alternative models with clubs choosing 16 to retain, and then the new club being able to snag x2 from each club, or maybe a choice of any one outside that 8 or any two outside that 16 could be a possibility.

They're all among the numbers I've played around with, with that methodology of securing opposition talent. There are some fun combinations and teams that could be created in really any of the scenarios I've explored from this discussion.

 

[sr36]

You're right it would be hard to get that Maynard calibre piece back. For that reason, the onus for it to work would have to be on the Collingwood in this example to actively trade for Maynard to re-gain his rights, as otherwise he would be a contracted player to Tasmania.

This is of course only one method of securing a player.

And as an alternative to a top-5 and then clubs can take that 6th guy, maybe instead of clubs being able to retain their top-5 players, maybe it's 8 each club can choose to retain instead (and that could among those numbers not include first or second year players so as to protect the rebuilding clubs). Then Tasmania can have that 9th most valuable player from every team. So for Collingwood maybe that's Brody Mihocek (De Goey/Quaynor/Grundy/Adams/Crisp/Moore/Maynard/N.Daicos are the ones prioritised). Then there is the decision around whether a trade is attempted to get him back.

Alternative models with clubs choosing 16 to retain, and then the new club being able to snag x2 from each club, or maybe a choice of any one outside that 8 or any two outside that 16 could be a possibility.

They're all among the numbers I've played around with, with that methodology of securing opposition talent. There are some fun combinations and teams that could be created in really any of the scenarios I've explored from this discussion.

But under this scenario, where the onus would be on Collingwood to meet Tassie demands, you're no longer giving the player the option to sign with Tassie or not. You're telling senior players, some married with kids who've just bought their dream house, that they'll have to uproot and move to Tassie if their club can't meet the Tassie trade price? Which would surely involve your club somehow convincing another quality player to move to Tassie? And this is a strategy designed to help with retention rates?

No one is going to tick off on it and it would also undermine your goals. I can't think of a worse way to build a club and a culture than forcing players to play there, who don't want to play there. Whilst it's an interesting exercise to consider how you could take something from each club to build a new immediately competitive club. It's just not a realistic idea that would benefit anyone.

 

[Knightmare]

But under this scenario, where the onus would be on Collingwood to meet Tassie demands, you're no longer giving the player the option to sign with Tassie or not. You're telling senior players, some married with kids who've just bought their dream house, that they'll have to uproot and move to Tassie if their club can't meet the Tassie trade price? Which would surely involve your club somehow convincing another quality player to move to Tassie? And this is a strategy designed to help with retention rates?

No one is going to tick off on it and it would also undermine your goals. I can't think of a worse way to build a club and a culture than forcing players to play there, who don't want to play there. Whilst it's an interesting exercise to consider how you could take something from each club to build a new immediately competitive club. It's just not a realistic idea that would benefit anyone.

Under that kind of scenario, it would be up to the clubs to satisfy Tasmania's trade demands if the club genuinely wants to ensure the player remains with them. And if a Collingwood were to lose a say Maynard, they'd no doubt be aggressively looking to bring him back via trade. When you're talking high level footballers, clubs would be looking to satisfy Tasmania's trade demands to ensure they keep their most required footballers. And it would mean a lot of player and pick for that original player type trading.

It would mean all the clubs would have to talk to their playing groups and ask the question - anyone wanting to go to Tasmania? And there should be some putting up their hands - whether they're playing who have lacked opportunity or would like expanded or more prominent roles. And there would be players internally the clubs themselves would talk to about a potential move beyond those to ensure the deals get done.

Other than going full socialist and basically taking established players off the hands of opposition clubs by force, there isn't any way that I can see to launch a new club from an adequate level, other than through some kind of voluntary salary dump system where clubs get picks as compensation, and that on its own isn't nearly enough.

If a new team has just picks, they're not going to move them. And even if they're forced to, clubs are too conservative to be giving up enough meaningful players for that to work either.

 

[sr36]

Under that kind of scenario, it would be up to the clubs to satisfy Tasmania's trade demands if the club genuinely wants to ensure the player remains with them. And if a Collingwood were to lose a say Maynard, they'd no doubt be aggressively looking to bring him back via trade. When you're talking high level footballers, clubs would be looking to satisfy Tasmania's trade demands to ensure they keep their most required footballers. And it would mean a lot of player and pick for that original player type trading.

When Maynard says no to moving to Tassie, how do you stop the onus being on Tassie to get whatever they can for him? If there was a mechanism that forced him to play for Tassie if no trade is done (there is no chance of this), Tassie would be crazy to begin a club by forcing the hand of a raft of players who don't want to play for them. What a terrible way to form a club. What a terrible culture you'd be beginning with. They'd have to sell Maynard for as much as they could get.

Like you've said, clubs don't want to lose valued players, so they're not offering a similar level player - they'd offer a combination of draft picks and fringe players and they could only offer players willing to move to Tassie - the most value in terms of players that Tassie could hope for in this scenario is a talented, not yet realised kid, and a draft pick - which is the exact thing that your scheme is trying to avoid.

Or more to the point, Tassie, like every other start up, will end up with the blokes who want to move to a start up in Tassie, which is likely to be a pretty poor pool in terms of quality. You haven't addressed this key component - getting players to want to move there. In fact you've given less reason for players to move, as without a swag of early picks, where's the realistic hope. It'd be the Brisbane Bears all over again - a start up club actively trying to recruit whoever is willing to come, without even having access to many highly rated kids to help sell the move and give players and supporters hope for the future.

So I don't think your plan is going to produce a competitive team straight away, nor will it help with retention. All you've really done is strip the new club and its supporters of the future hope that comes with a raft of highly rated kids. As well as pissing off the whole AFL - the players, supporters and the existing clubs.

 

[Knightmare]

When Maynard says no to moving to Tassie, how do you stop the onus being on Tassie to get whatever they can for him? If there was a mechanism that forced him to play for Tassie if no trade is done (there is no chance of this), Tassie would be crazy to begin a club by forcing the hand of a raft of players who don't want to play for them. What a terrible way to form a club. What a terrible culture you'd be beginning with. They'd have to sell Maynard for as much as they could get.

Like you've said, clubs don't want to lose valued players, so they're not offering a similar level player - they'd offer a combination of draft picks and fringe players and they could only offer players willing to move to Tassie - the most value in terms of players that Tassie could hope for in this scenario is a talented, not yet realised kid, and a draft pick - which is the exact thing that your scheme is trying to avoid.

Or more to the point, Tassie, like every other start up, will end up with the blokes who want to move to a start up in Tassie, which is likely to be a pretty poor pool in terms of quality. You haven't addressed this key component - getting players to want to move there. In fact you've given less reason for players to move, as without a swag of early picks, where's the realistic hope. It'd be the Brisbane Bears all over again - a start up club actively trying to recruit whoever is willing to come, without even having access to many highly rated kids to help sell the move and give players and supporters hope for the future.

So I don't think your plan is going to produce a competitive team straight away, nor will it help with retention. All you've really done is strip the new club and its supporters of the future hope that comes with a raft of highly rated kids. As well as pissing off the whole AFL - the players, supporters and the existing clubs.

When clubs are winning clubs, that's what makes people want to be there. Most footballers want premierships or at least to be in contention where possible, whereas on the other hand, clubs that continually go around in circles rebuilding don't put themselves in position to be either a destination club for rival talent, nor a club that can retain their existing talent. So player retention is not only possible, but probable when you have a list that is on paper from a win-now perspective as strong as any.

What do you believe to be the best method for securing 18 or more good established AFL footballers from season one?

My suggestion isn't that the snag one from every team outside of the top-5 or top-8, and make rival clubs trade to get them back is the best option, but it's one among a long list I'd be talking about as one of the scenarios where sufficient talent to build a winning team could be certainly built from, particularly if complemented by a strong mix of state leaguers and some early picks.

 

[sr36]

When clubs are winning clubs, that's what makes people want to be there. Most footballers want premierships or at least to be in contention where possible, whereas on the other hand, clubs that continually go around in circles rebuilding don't put themselves in position to be either a destination club for rival talent, nor a club that can retain their existing talent. So player retention is not only possible, but probable when you have a list that is on paper from a win-now perspective as strong as any.

What do you believe to be the best method for securing 18 or more good established AFL footballers from season one?

My suggestion isn't that the snag one from every team outside of the top-5 or top-8, and make rival clubs trade to get them back is the best option, but it's one among a long list I'd be talking about as one of the scenarios where sufficient talent to build a winning team could be certainly built from, particularly if complemented by a strong mix of state leaguers and some early picks.

I think a blank chequebook and no salary cap is the only way to do it. If that's what you want to do.

If your goal is 18 or more good established players. Everything has to be about insentivising players to go there, because players wanting to move will always be the stumbling block. Before you've signed anyone, money is the only carrot you've got. (There might be 1 or 2 who want to move to Hobart, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's none) Allow them to sign any player - contracted or not - give them a massive war chest and make some ridiculously huge offers. Get a few stars across the board early with outrageous payments. Sign a high profile coach. And then with those stars and the coach, start selling the story of this club with hope that's going places, whilst continuing to offer ridiculous contracts.

However, I'd follow the GWS template and have them build with draft picks and a few well selected good players and accept that they're going to suck for a few years. I think GWS has been really well built. Like you, I'd would go with more mature state league players than GWS went with and a few more fringe players/veteran leaders. But I'd be aiming for the future and not the present.

 

[Knightmare]

I think a blank chequebook and no salary cap is the only way to do it. If that's what you want to do.

If your goal is 18 or more good established players. Everything has to be about insentivising players to go there, because players wanting to move will always be the stumbling block. Before you've signed anyone, money is the only carrot you've got. (There might be 1 or 2 who want to move to Hobart, but I wouldn't be surprised if there's none) Allow them to sign any player - contracted or not - give them a massive war chest and make some ridiculously huge offers. Get a few stars across the board early with outrageous payments. Sign a high profile coach. And then with those stars and the coach, start selling the story of this club with hope that's going places, whilst continuing to offer ridiculous contracts.

However, I'd follow the GWS template and have them build with draft picks and a few well selected good players and accept that they're going to suck for a few years. I think GWS has been really well built. Like you, I'd would go with more mature state league players than GWS went with and a few more fringe players/veteran leaders. But I'd be aiming for the future and not the present.

The bolded would certainly be something. I can't say I'd have a problem with the methodology. Would be fascinating to see if it would bring in at least one player from each team.

 

[sr36]

The bolded would certainly be something. I can't say I'd have a problem with the methodology. Would be fascinating to see if it would bring in at least one player from each team.

If you were paying enough, I think it would work. The advantage that a new start up would have over previous ones is that the culture has changed and moving for money isnt as stigmatised as it once was.

 

[TradeDraft]

 

[sr36]

Are there any decent uncontracted Vics playing for WA clubs? I think that WA's covid vigilance may make some more gettable than normal.

 

[whiskeytown]

Dogs don’t need him and the 500k he’s on could go someway to retaining others

 

[Jen2310]

Are there any decent uncontracted Vics playing for WA clubs? I think that WA's covid vigilance may make some more gettable than normal.

Alex Witherden?

Not the sort of defender we need.

Some of these contracts are right. I doubt Jordan Clark has a 1 year contract.

We can getb Aish back haha jk

AFL Out of Contract Players in 2022

List of AFL players coming out of contract at the end of 2022.

www.footywire.com

 

[AmericanMustard]

What we thinking Ben King

34

Ben King

Age

23

Ht

202cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

7.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

2.2

2star

M

3.5

4star

T

0.5

3star

G

1.3

5star

D

7.5

2star

K

5.6

2star

HB

1.9

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.5

5star

D

6.8

2star

K

4.4

2star

HB

2.4

3star

M

3.2

4star

T

0.2

3star

G

1.0

4star

signed for? 4 years, 10 million?

 

[Babylove]

Don’t get me wrong I would have loved Ben King

34

Ben King

Age

23

Ht

202cm

Wt

98kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

7.2

2star

K

5.0

2star

HB

2.2

2star

M

3.5

4star

T

0.5

3star

G

1.3

5star

D

7.5

2star

K

5.6

2star

HB

1.9

1star

M

3.6

4star

T

0.3

1star

G

1.5

5star

D

6.8

2star

K

4.4

2star

HB

2.4

3star

M

3.2

4star

T

0.2

3star

G

1.0

4star

at Collingwood, but it’s probably good for footy that he stays at the Gold Coast.

 

[TradeDraft]

Don’t get me wrong I would have loved Ben King at Collingwood, but it’s probably good for footy that he stays at the Gold Coast.

AFL will love it

 

[PREETY_FLY]

Don’t get me wrong I would have loved Ben King at Collingwood, but it’s probably good for footy that he stays at the Gold Coast.

good for the gold coast too

 

[Jen2310]

Don’t get me wrong I would have loved Ben King at Collingwood, but it’s probably good for footy that he stays at the Gold Coast.

And looks like he wants to be a 1 club player.

Luko and Rankine keen to sign on too.

If they can keep all these kids long term, great for the club, the comp. That much talent could become scary tbh. Especially with Touk as captain. Not many you want to play under than him.

 

[sr36]

Don’t get me wrong I would have loved Ben King at Collingwood, but it’s probably good for footy that he stays at the Gold Coast.

I wouldn't have loved him for the prices being bandied around. Exciting talent, but clubs would be paying a superstar wage for a bloke who next year will be entering his 5th year without that many runs on the board.

 

[Quicky]

I wouldn't have loved him for the prices being bandied around. Exciting talent, but clubs would be paying a superstar wage for a bloke who next year will be entering his 5th year without that many runs on the board.

I think Kings output has been pretty impressive for such a young key forward. To stay he'll be remunerated above what he deserves but not by too much.

 

[sr36]

I think Kings output has been pretty impressive for such a young key forward. To stay he'll be remunerated above what he deserves but not by too much.

Articles were talking about $900,000. Yes he's been impressive - for a kid, but I think us signing Stepho for $600,000 when he'd been impressive for a kid was ridiculous. King for $900,000 would be a whole other level of crazy - even if KPFs are hard to find.

 

[Jen2310]

Articles were talking about $900,000. Yes he's been impressive - for a kid, but I think us signing Stepho for $600,000 when he'd been impressive for a kid was ridiculous. King for $900,000 would be a whole other level of crazy - even if KPFs are hard to find.

1.5 over 2 years would be about 750k.

 

[sr36]

1.5 over 2 years would be about 750k.

I don't mean what he has signed for - I haven't read that bit, which I assume is what you are referring to. I'm talking aobut the articles suggesting that poaching clubs were offering 900. Which to me, is beyond crazy - it's a massive chunk of salary cap.

 

[Jen2310]

I don't mean what he has signed for - I haven't read that bit, which I assume is what you are referring to. I'm talking aobut the articles suggesting that poaching clubs were offering 900. Which to me, is beyond crazy - it's a massive chunk of salary cap.

Ahh right, I mis-understood.

Yeah that would be crazy. But rival clubs usually have to offer overs.

From what he said on the news last night... He would rather not play in a footy dominated town. Which is fair enough, the spotlight isn't for everyone.

 

[Quicky]

Articles were talking about $900,000. Yes he's been impressive - for a kid, but I think us signing Stepho for $600,000 when he'd been impressive for a kid was ridiculous. King for $900,000 would be a whole other level of crazy - even if KPFs are hard to find.

I think 47 goals for the year and averaging over 4 marks a game puts him amongst the best key forwards in the game. That's kid or no kid. It doesn't need a qualifier. I shouldn't have added it in my initial post.

I think it's another debate whether key forwards are worth that money but that's how the industry prices them. I know you generally come from the view key forwards are overrated (at least thats the impression i've got from your posts) so I imagine you would be averse to that. Personally I think good ones are pretty important.