2015 Draft, Trades and Free Agency rumours.

[Colonial]

Yep, all he needs is 3 years worth of 5+ first round picks and they'll be well on their way to following the GWS set up.

2 years. We earned the 3rd year picks

 

[Red Bull]

Yep, all he needs is 3 years worth of 5+ first round picks and they'll be well on their way to following the GWS set up.

Just keep plugging away with your one A grader ...

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Witts is highly regarded by the Pies and has a lot of potential. In the open market he'd be worth pick 10-15 IMO. Pies 1st draft pick will be around 10-15. Treloar would be worth a pick around 1-3 IMO. Based on those evaluations it's 2 top 15 picks for 1 top 3 pick. Pies might need to add a little something to sweetener it but not a whole lot more.

I'd suggest something like this:
Witts, 1st rounder and 2nd rounder for Treloar and 3rd rounder.

There's not a snowflake's chance in hell Witts is getting 10-15 in the open market. He's a 25-35 all day long.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Swans run a senior list of 38, Tigers have 41. That's a difference of 3 Players, which just paid for Tippo and Hannebery without even trying. learn to list manage.

The base payment for AFL players is $80,815. The base payments for rookies is around the 53K mark. Swans have 3 less senior list players ($80,815 x3 = $242,445) and 2 more rookies ($53,000 x2 = $106,000) leaving the club with an extra $136,445 in the cap. No wonder they can afford Buddy.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

There's not a snowflake's chance in hell Witts is getting 10-15 in the open market. He's a 25-35 all day long.

Disagree he's 25-35. Late convert to football (I think) who's 22, ~208cm and can already lead a team's ruck division and play solid minutes up forward. I definitely think he'd bring in a first rounder. Can see him becoming a serious player as he continues to develop.

 

[fronkalicious]

Disagree he's 25-35. Late convert to football (I think) who's 22, ~208cm and can already lead a team's ruck division and play solid minutes up forward. I definitely think he'd bring in a first rounder. Can see him becoming a serious player as he continues to develop.

Has he shown he can lead a teams ruck division?

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

Has he shown he can lead a teams ruck division?

He's not yet a premier ruckman but I think he's very much shown that he can without being disgraced. More than you'd realistically expect from a 22 year old 208cm ruckman. Stats extremely comparable to Sandilands at the same age which means little other than the fact that he's developing nicely for a guy his size. I really like him.

 

[dlanod]

Has he shown he can lead a teams ruck division?

I'd also question the bit about playing forward. You can put him there, sure, but I'm yet to see talent forward.

 

[Taylor]

I don't think any club should trade Witts away.

He should spend a few years increasing his running ability (as ruckmen usually need) and they will have a 25 year old bull monster, leaving room for the athletic third tall (which there are far more of available).

A team could build a game plan around him once he turns into a tap everything, wrestling clearance ruckman.

 

[Dannnnnnnnnn]

I'd also question the bit about playing forward. You can put him there, sure, but I'm yet to see talent forward.

Fair enough. I think he's shown more than most ruckmen his age there. He pressures, he can present, and save for some poor decisions at times, I don't think he's at all a liability. He's certainly not a forward, but his minutes there aren't empty as they are with many ruckmen.

Hickey plus some later downgrades commanded a top 15 pick and had shown significantly less than Witts in my opinion. If the Pies elected to move him I definitely don't think 25-35 would be the best offer.

 

[Taylor]

Fair enough. I think he's shown more than most ruckmen his age there. He pressures, he can present, and save for some poor decisions at times, I don't think he's at all a liability. He's certainly not a forward, but his minutes there aren't empty as they are with many ruckmen.

Hickey plus some later downgrades commanded a top 15 pick and had shown significantly less than Witts in my opinion. If the Pies elected to move him I definitely don't think 25-35 would be the best offer.

Gold Coast, Essendon, Geelong could all throw up their first.

 

[Fatcat08]

The base payment for AFL players is $80,815. The base payments for rookies is around the 53K mark. Swans have 3 less senior list players ($80,815 x3 = $242,445) and 2 more rookies ($53,000 x2 = $106,000) leaving the club with an extra $136,445 in the cap. No wonder they can afford Buddy.

Not weighing in on the whole argument you've got going here but just wanted to point out that only half of a rookie's contract counts toward the salary cap. That is the reason Scotland was on the rookie list previously for Carlton and why Schneider is on St Kilda's this year.

 

[GarnerSmash]

Not weighing in on the whole argument you've got going here but just wanted to point out that only half of a rookie's contract counts toward the salary cap. That is the reason Scotland was on the rookie list previously for Carlton and why Schneider is on St Kilda's this year.

Cheers man. Did not know that.

So that's $190K extra for Buddy, Hannebury, Tippett and Reid.

 

[Fatcat08]

Cheers man. Did not know that.

So that's $190K extra for Buddy, Hannebury, Tippett and Reid.

I understand the points you're making and don't necessarily disagree with them but you're not doing yourself any favours posting lines like this.

A bit of digging would show that Sydney has 15 players on their senior list who are born in 1993 or later, vs only 9 for North for instance. So thats a lot more of their side on their first or slightly extended first contract. Now that doesn't cover all of their top line big money signings but does account for a few more hundred grand a year.

What this means for them is that they could experience a bit of a age demographic vacuum in a few years with not enough players spread through those middle age groups, especially if they have a few more injuries to key personnel which they've avoided so far.

They've also taken a pretty significant punt that the salary cap will increase quite a bit over the next 5 or so years as I would imagine a fair few of their bg contract players are are on more back ended deals hoping that this goes through.

Whether the dice come up their way will be interesting to see, because if they don't they could be in a bit of strife in 4-5 years time. For instance they've got some dormant issues down back that are going to play out in the next few years as guys like Grundy and Richards get toward the end of their careers and possibly become a bit less reliable injury wise. Their list isn't without holes but those that are there they've papered over superbly so far.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Disagree he's 25-35. Late convert to football (I think) who's 22, ~208cm and can already lead a team's ruck division and play solid minutes up forward. I definitely think he'd bring in a first rounder. Can see him becoming a serious player as he continues to develop.

Come on Dannn. He's behind Grundy. No way he's proven yet. Ryder 17 is your benchmark and he's nowhere near Paddy.

Has he shown he can lead a teams ruck division?

EDIT: agree Fronk.

 

[eth-dog]

I wouldn't give up our first pick for Witts, but I'd be willing to go 2nd (~25 probably) and something else.

 

[GarnerSmash]

I understand the points you're making and don't necessarily disagree with them but you're not doing yourself any favours posting lines like this.

A bit of digging would show that Sydney has 15 players on their senior list who are born in 1993 or later, vs only 9 for North for instance. So thats a lot more of their side on their first or slightly extended first contract. Now that doesn't cover all of their top line big money signings but does account for a few more hundred grand a year.

What this means for them is that they could experience a bit of a age demographic vacuum in a few years with not enough players spread through those middle age groups, especially if they have a few more injuries to key personnel which they've avoided so far.

They've also taken a pretty significant punt that the salary cap will increase quite a bit over the next 5 or so years as I would imagine a fair few of their bg contract players are are on more back ended deals hoping that this goes through.

Whether the dice come up their way will be interesting to see, because if they don't they could be in a bit of strife in 4-5 years time. For instance they've got some dormant issues down back that are going to play out in the next few years as guys like Grundy and Richards get toward the end of their careers and possibly become a bit less reliable injury wise. Their list isn't without holes but those that are there they've papered over superbly so far.

Fair points, but they would still need to have a significant number of senior players on average to below average contracts though or there would need to be some excellent third party agreements going on, because the salaries paid to the top few players would be out of proportion compared to all other clubs.

Their list position is not too dissimilar to many other clubs. Brisbane have 18 players that fit that criteria. Adelaide have 15. Geelong have 14. Hawks have 13. Eagles have 13. Richmond have 12. Port have 16. Surely they too should be able to fork out a significant portion of their cap on a handful of players.

It would be interesting to see the books. If its all above board, then superdooper. I just don't trust the AFL to not blur the lines when it comes to the teams in NSW given the necessity for their expansion mandate to be successful.

 

[Fatcat08]

Fair points, but they would still need to have a significant number of senior players on average to below average contracts though or there would need to be some excellent third party agreements going on, because the salaries paid to the top few players would be out of proportion compared to all other clubs.

Their list position is not too dissimilar to many other clubs. Brisbane have 18 players that fit that criteria. Adelaide have 15. Geelong have 14. Hawks have 13. Eagles have 13. Richmond have 12. Port have 16. Surely they too should be able to fork out a significant portion of their cap on a handful of players.

It would be interesting to see the books. If its all above board, then superdooper. I just don't trust the AFL to not blur the lines when it comes to the teams in NSW given the necessity for their expansion mandate to be successful.

Absolutely, but really thats not much different to most teams that find themselves in an extended premiership window. Hawks and Freo would be exactly the same, Geelong would have had the same when they were at their peak. I know for a fact that Brisbane had a number of guys who were getting paid significantly under during our premiership era, from memory Darryl White was being paid about $150K a season for a while there and he wasn't the only one. Fact is that being a side that's competing for premierships buys you a heck of a lot of loyalty and goodwill as far as wages go, thats for sure but there are always risks involved. Once again Brisbane being the prime example in the fact that back ended contracts and list profile holes left us in a massive mess from about 2005/06 onwards. Sure it was exaggerated by the end of 2009 activity but the underlying issue was still there well before that and its one we're still trying to get out of. Now other sides (aka Geelong) have learnt from our example and have made the tough decisions we didn't. Whether Sydney becomes the former or latter will be interesting.

Lets not forget that Buddy's contract was ridiculous mainly for the term of it. Sure he gets a lot of money but it was the years that got him over the line. It will catch up to Sydney eventually, but it was a ballsy call with more than a little bit of crystal ball gazing and fingers crossed built into it.

As for the thing on forking out a significant portion of the cap, take Bris for an example once more. Everyone knows we've got a tonne of cap space, but having space and being able to actually use it can be two different things. Its further complicated by this artificial marketplace that the 95% mandate has created. In no world is Brisbane or Carlton's list worth 95% of Sydney's, Hawthorns or Freo's but that is the what the rule mandates, therefore there are always going to be situations where we sit here and go "WTF how do hawks, sydney etc pay only 5% more and keep there players?" Is it because they're fudging books or underpaying guys? or is it because we're overpaying? In reality if I was in charge of Bris with our list right now i'd be dissappointed if I was paying 90% of our cap right now, but the rule is there so we tend to overpay.

 

[Go Woods]

Witts and your first?

Depends how badly Pies want/rate Treloar, maybe if we know young giant rookie Cox can make it next year at AFL level and can back up Grundy then Witts might come into equation?
Still don't think Pies would let him ago unless he wanted to return to NSW

 

[Defacto]

Jetta to freo

 

[Moist Biscuit]

Jetta to freo

Is he contracted?

 

[Defacto]

Is he contracted?

out of contract this year. i think hes put off talks

 

[eastfreo75]

Jetta to freo

Which Jetta?

 

[Defacto]

Which Jetta?

lewis

 

[eastfreo75]

Would be likely to move? As our recent attempts to get players to move have failed.