Trading of future picks approved

[go you pups]

Nah it's always the poorly run clubs that get themselves into strife and try and dig themselves out of mediocrity by trading away their future picks.

Yes perhaps and Melbourne and Brisbane must not fall into this trap both ways by either gaining a player or losing a player. They must retain players and they need to keep attacking the draft and have strong list management.

 

[master bate]

I would've allowed trading of picks for at least 2 years, if not maybe 3. But no consecutive trading of 1st round picks.

That way I'd also allow teams to put their own protections of draft picks. Instead of the top 5 pick rule. If a club wants to offer up an unprotected pick then good luck to them.

Free agency isn't opening up, the salary cap isn't tightening down, player aren't getting traded against their will, draftee contracts will only be 2 years still and besides Father Son and Academy there isn't any draft day trading.

All those factors mean bottom clubs will still value draft picks enormously and top players won't be in line to go to bottom clubs very often. Teams won't be selling their future any time soon.

 

[go you pups]

All those factors mean bottom clubs will still value draft picks enormously and top players won't be in line to go to bottom clubs very often. Teams won't be selling their future any time soon.

And that is why the gap will continue to grow and more problems will occur

Teams at the top will trade their future away for success

 

[Tas]

Essendon and Norf will shoot themselves in the foot if they think they can push for a flag next year

What picks have we traded to date?

Wouldn't expect a poster who can'e spell 'North' to understand the difference between trading and free agency.

 

[hutchy31]

I'd hope there is also some consideration to amending the salary cap requirement to pay 95% - if a team goes full rebuild mode and trades their four highest earners for half a dozen future draft picks, who do they pay the 95% too? And why should they have to?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

This should have been brought in years ago. It means that if Dangerfield does leave, the Crows should match it. Force Geelong to cough up 2 first rounders at the least.

 

[MightyHawks]

And that is why the gap will continue to grow and more problems will occur

Teams at the top will trade their future away for success

Only poorly managed clubs will make those errors

Often proposed trades fail because clubs agree a player might be worth 2 second round picks or 2 first round picks but a club is unable to secure a second first round pick

 

[MightyHawks]

This should have been brought in years ago. It means that if Dangerfield does leave, the Crows should match it. Force Geelong to cough up 2 first rounders at the least.

Yes I'd be happy for Hawthorn to give 2 first rounders to Adelaide for Dangerfield

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Yes I'd be happy for Hawthorn to give 2 first rounders to Adelaide for Dangerfield

He is AT LEAST worth that. It isn't much and it is unders but 1 first rounder is flat out laughable despite how 'early' it is depending on where Adelaide finish. 2 first rounders is about where the value is, similarly Adam Treloar is around that value too. It allows clubs who are losing their very top players to get reasonable value. Now no club will get 100% fair value on these players but this is a good step. Use Ryder from last year if Port said pick 17 + their first from this year (say pick 7) that would be a lot fairer.

 

[go you pups]

Yes I'd be happy for Hawthorn to give 2 first rounders to Adelaide for Dangerfield

But the pipe dream all along is Hawthorn to give 2 1st rounders to Gold Coast for O'Meara And will probably happen also

 

[LukeParkerno1]

But the pipe dream all along is Hawthorn to give 2 1st rounders to Gold Coast for O'Meara And will probably happen also

For a guy coming off an ACL that is probably more than fair despite how good O'Meara might be

 

[MightyHawks]

But the pipe dream all along is Hawthorn to give 2 1st rounders to Gold Coast for O'Meara And will probably happen also

Maybe we can trade the same 2 first rounders to both Adelaide and Gold Coast without anyone realising

That'd be genius

 

[Dagless]

Makes the role of team list manager that much more important which is only a good thing.

People are still ignoring salary cap in all the hubbub of 'successful teams continuing to top up'. Half of the value of good draft picks isn't that the player is exceedingly talented, but for around four - six years, they don't cost nearly what the veterans on a list do.

If anyone wants a current example from the NFL (somewhat comparable), look at Russell Wilson. The Seahawks have an elite defense and running game, and Wilson during his four year rookie contract performed exceedingly well. Now, however, his contract is running out and he wants to be paid accordingly for the position he plays, which has induced fear that the team won't be able to hold the rest of the team together because what was a very cheap elite option at an expensive position will become a very expensive elite option at an expensive position.

You can't just continue to add elite and high performance veterans to a salary capped squad.

 

[go you pups]

I'd hope there is also some consideration to amending the salary cap requirement to pay 95% - if a team goes full rebuild mode and trades their four highest earners for half a dozen future draft picks, who do they pay the 95% too? And why should they have to?

Oh man I've heard that before from somewhere but that team obviously didn't trade future picks. So a top young prospect who was traded in from one of those high-earners leaving got overpaid because of the salary cap conundrum and cops an absurd amount of criticism everywhere now.

Not sure if that team is in full rebuilding mode currently though

 

[Dagless]

I'd hope there is also some consideration to amending the salary cap requirement to pay 95% - if a team goes full rebuild mode and trades their four highest earners for half a dozen future draft picks, who do they pay the 95% too? And why should they have to?

That's a lot of extra cap space to entice high end free agents. This is a good thing mind you. Scale the free agent contract you offer to the typical draftee contract/pay scale increase. If you trade in six first round draft picks know you won't be paying them elite wages for four years, you move the money elsewhere, whilst not losing the fact you're rebuilding.

 

[go you pups]

For a guy coming off an ACL that is probably more than fair despite how good O'Meara might be

Doesn't have an ACL problem, it was a bad knee cap issue IIRC, it's something similar to what Adam Cooney has had to manage over the last 4-5 years.

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Doesn't have an ACL problem, it was a bad knee cap issue IIRC, it's something similar to what Adam Cooney has had to manage over the last 4-5 years.

Yeah...how good has Cooney gone with it after his Brownlow year...Exactly. 2 first rounders is more than plenty especially if one is linked to Hawthorn's position which will slowly fall over the next year or so.

 

[spudmaster]

In all seriousness imagine Freo circa 2004 with this. We'd still be a mess now as a result potentially.

You mean without a flag?

 

[LukeParkerno1]

Imagine if it came in last year and Collingwood asked for 2 first round picks for Beams but the fail safe would come into effect probably so pick 5 would have been all Collingwood would have got I would think

The future pick would surely just roll forward a year if it is safeguarded. So Collingwood in that instance would get the pick in 2016/17 (whenever Brisbane are out of the bottom 5)

 

[HoneyBadger35]

Any word on whether they'll have protection (top 3, top 5, whatever) like in the NBA or will it be absolute?

 

[go you pups]

That's a lot of extra cap space to entice high end free agents. This is a good thing mind you. Scale the free agent contract you offer to the typical draftee contract/pay scale increase. If you trade in six first round draft picks know you won't be paying them elite wages for four years, you move the money elsewhere, whilst not losing the fact you're rebuilding.

Dude, no player in his prime will want to go to a team who just lost a heap of players even with the monetary reward to go there. It is detrimental to rebuilding clubs not having a plan b other than to overpay youngsters and duds to make up the minimum AFL salary requirements, then spend all the next year targeting someone who is of better use of the money instead of dud deadwood types.

We saw it last year with the Dogs, they threw money at a lot of KPPs including Tom Lonergan, Levi Casboult (thank **** he re-signed) and Lachie Henderson as they needed to replace Jones somehow who told the club he wanted out and had the money free due to Higgins leaving also, then the Griffen bombshell came and Tom Boyd/Liam Pickering capitalised on our situation with GWS getting Griffen effectively for free this year due to no one else wanting to come in to the club. You'd think that even if Griffen walked out still last year Boyd wouldn't be on as much if we got a Lonergan or someone in, he'd still be on a lot, but he wouldn't have this massive front loading that he will get next season, the payment would be more consistent. As a flow on effect, GWS have been able to re-sign many talents this season including Cameron's massive pay day, with a year of Griffen's salary being paid for by us significantly helpful with only Treloar likely to leave GWS. Remember Richmond were heavily into Dylan Shiel? I'm sure one of Hoskin-Elliott or Shiel would've remained unsigned also if GWS weren't given Griffen's salary space by us who needed to free up the cap after being rejected by many others.

You have to pay 100% of the salary cap over a 3 year period now, we are at 95% this year (losing, Gia, Williams, Cooney and Tutt also on top of Higgins, Jones and Griffen) and will be 105% next year due to Boyd's front load. Now this year has been successful with a number of long-term contract extensions to young stars like Stringer, Macrae and Dahlhaus with everyone who was out of contract re-signing except Jarrad Grant and Michael Talia so far, they are potentially trade bait if they don't re-sign but we would expect them to re-sign. Most of the younger demographic are well paid due to the lack of these elite cheap options that you mentioned that are not available to us like a successful club like Hawthorn would have around and the current salary cap goes against us this way. Hopefully we can build a successful culture and will have elite cheap talent going forward however but right now, strong list management will keep our talented youngsters together and this year has been a good sign of intent.

 

[MightyHawks]

Makes the role of team list manager that much more important which is only a good thing.

People are still ignoring salary cap in all the hubbub of 'successful teams continuing to top up'. Half of the value of good draft picks isn't that the player is exceedingly talented, but for around four - six years, they don't cost nearly what the veterans on a list do.

If anyone wants a current example from the NFL (somewhat comparable), look at Russell Wilson. The Seahawks have an elite defense and running game, and Wilson during his four year rookie contract performed exceedingly well. Now, however, his contract is running out and he wants to be paid accordingly for the position he plays, which has induced fear that the team won't be able to hold the rest of the team together because what was a very cheap elite option at an expensive position will become a very expensive elite option at an expensive position.

You can't just continue to add elite and high performance veterans to a salary capped squad.

What if you have $3million in assets so you've set yourself up, are worth $900,000 on the open market but you are happy to take $550,000 to play at the club of your choice

$550,000 is a pretty good salary still

 

[Freomaniac]

Thank **** we no longer have Schwab and Cuddles in charge.

My thoughts exactly. Trading 2 1st round picks for Chris Tarrant or Josh Carr would drive me nuts.

 

[Freomaniac]

You mean without a flag?

Remember when Freo traded picks 1, 20 and 36 for Croad and McPharlin? Imagine if the hawks got 1, 20 and 36 for 2 years in a row?

 

[go you pups]

Yeah...how good has Cooney gone with it after his Brownlow year...Exactly. 2 first rounders is more than plenty especially if one is linked to Hawthorn's position which will slowly fall over the next year or so.

Wasn't commenting on the injury, it was moreso why should Hawthorn be able to sign him potentially for starters without giving something significant up in return for an elite young talent, now it makes it even easier for them and gives them a significant advantage.

Since 2009 Hawthorn's significant trading in history
2009: Williams (made redundant by Buddy and Roughy) and pick 9 for Burgoyne (Geelong had to help out to get that deal over the line). Gibson and pick 69 for picks 25 and 41 (2nd and 3rd rounders). Massive win for Hawthorn here.
2010: Hale and pick 52 (3rd rounder) for the Campbell Brown end of 1st round compensation (basically a 2nd rounder that year) and pick 71 (4th rounder)
2011: Gunston and pick downgrades 53 (3rd rounder) and 71 (4th rounder) for Picks 24, 46 and 64 (1st, 2nd and 3rd rounders), Adelaide bottomed out a little in 2011 also and were able to get Crouch in the mini-draft.
2012: Brian Lake and pick 27 (2nd rounder) for 21 and 43 (1st and 2nd rounders), that was a good trade however for both teams as we got Hrovat at 21 and traded for Stevens with 43. Lakes gets a Norm Smith the next year, looks win-win.
2013: McEvoy for Savage and pick 18. Buddy left that year so Hawthorn traded its Buddy compensation (19) to St Kilda for 24 and 59
2014: O'Rourke and 43 (3rd rounder) for 19 and 40 (1st and 2nd rounders)

Only in 2010 Hawthorn took a 1st rounder to the draft in the last 6 years which they absolutely nailed with Isaac Smith at pick 19 in a expansion draft, they always go to the trade table and never have to give anything significant up instead of draft picks, they trade role players out and that is it. Being able to trade future picks will make their trading position stronger regardless of where they finish and won't have to give up an arm and a leg to get more elite talent in.