Just a few thoughts and observations
Pretty much every thread on this board quickly descends into a shitfight re what a player is worth.
Pretty obvious why, every player has a different value to every club.
Whilst the player's performance history or "potential" is what takes up endless pages on here, really it's only a small part of his value in any trade deal (unless we're talking about a player who is genuinely one of the best in the league, as they have value to everybody - yet they are rarely traded).
I think more relevant to trade value is:
Contract status: a player under contract is worth more than the same player when out of contract, as the current club faces no marginal consequences should the deal not happen. This factor is increased the longer the player is contracted for.
Current club: what are their stocks in that position? Despite performance (or lack of), how important is the player to their structure? Would they need to replace him? How could they replace him? How close are they to challenging for a flag?
Destination club: how desperate are they for a player of this kind? Is he possibly the difference between pushing for a flag and not? Is it more a case of the player just wants a move - the club doesn't really need him?
Ryder is a good example: he worth a shitload to Essendon, as he's far and away our best ruckman, and also provides a viable option as a pinch hitting key forward, which is important to us as it's an area where we lack mature players. Brisbane? They're well served for ruckman, and are clearly in a rebuilding phase - a mature ruck like Ryder isn't worth anywhere near as much as getting in a quality kid with a very high draft pick.
Were we talking a club lacking a ruckman, who were close to challenging, Ryder may well be worth a very high draft pick to them: it all depends on the deal. He's still under contract, so Essendon don't need to deal - hence it would take a huge offer to make them even think about it.
Sounds stupidly simple but its amazing how quickly most threads descend into the "player X is not as good as [insert random player from random club, totally unrelated to proposed deal], hence he's not worth this". It's not the point - what's important is the status of the player and the positions of the two clubs.
If people really do want to discuss potential trades, maybe they'd be better served focussing on the deal, rather than the player. Not as frustrating as the inevitable dick measuring contest when every random poster gets involved and gives their point of view, which is inevitably looking through the glasses of their own club and their own prejudices.
Pretty much every thread on this board quickly descends into a shitfight re what a player is worth.
Pretty obvious why, every player has a different value to every club.
Whilst the player's performance history or "potential" is what takes up endless pages on here, really it's only a small part of his value in any trade deal (unless we're talking about a player who is genuinely one of the best in the league, as they have value to everybody - yet they are rarely traded).
I think more relevant to trade value is:
Contract status: a player under contract is worth more than the same player when out of contract, as the current club faces no marginal consequences should the deal not happen. This factor is increased the longer the player is contracted for.
Current club: what are their stocks in that position? Despite performance (or lack of), how important is the player to their structure? Would they need to replace him? How could they replace him? How close are they to challenging for a flag?
Destination club: how desperate are they for a player of this kind? Is he possibly the difference between pushing for a flag and not? Is it more a case of the player just wants a move - the club doesn't really need him?
Ryder is a good example: he worth a shitload to Essendon, as he's far and away our best ruckman, and also provides a viable option as a pinch hitting key forward, which is important to us as it's an area where we lack mature players. Brisbane? They're well served for ruckman, and are clearly in a rebuilding phase - a mature ruck like Ryder isn't worth anywhere near as much as getting in a quality kid with a very high draft pick.
Were we talking a club lacking a ruckman, who were close to challenging, Ryder may well be worth a very high draft pick to them: it all depends on the deal. He's still under contract, so Essendon don't need to deal - hence it would take a huge offer to make them even think about it.
Sounds stupidly simple but its amazing how quickly most threads descend into the "player X is not as good as [insert random player from random club, totally unrelated to proposed deal], hence he's not worth this". It's not the point - what's important is the status of the player and the positions of the two clubs.
If people really do want to discuss potential trades, maybe they'd be better served focussing on the deal, rather than the player. Not as frustrating as the inevitable dick measuring contest when every random poster gets involved and gives their point of view, which is inevitably looking through the glasses of their own club and their own prejudices.
