Traded Adam Treloar [traded w/ #28 to Collingwood for #7, #65, 2016 first rounder]

[dlanod]

I thought rookie wages were set at $80k a year (plus any extras for AFL games played)? I can't seem to find anything stating that though so I'm probably wrong. I might have just read it in another thread somewhere and believed it. If that is true though, him retiring won't affect Richmond's salary cap because they'd still have to draft another rookie.

Rookie wages used to be set but when they re-arranged it to allow rookies of an age that no longer applied. IIRC 50% of rookie wages are outside the cap as long as they haven't been elevated, so Knights would have been 50% out of the cap while not playing.

 

[boxy99]

I don't know the Treloar situation but those who take what Robbo says to the bank are fools.

Hahah it's so true he's no clue. Frawley to pies was take it to the bank as well

 

[eastfreo75]

Someone tell inamedthegiants that GWS won't get a first round pick for Treloar. I wanna see another meltdown

Seriously, I bet that $1000 that GWS will get a first round pick unless players are involved.

 

[gandaal]

GWS will get a first rounder... Probably two.

 

[Apex36]

Seriously, I bet that $1000 that GWS will get a first round pick unless players are involved.

Of course they will. You clearly missed the meltdown yesterday when he misread one of my posts and thought I was insisting they wouldn't get it though

 

[RockJobster0312]

I thought rookie wages were set at $80k a year (plus any extras for AFL games played)? I can't seem to find anything stating that though so I'm probably wrong. I might have just read it in another thread somewhere and believed it. If that is true though, him retiring won't affect Richmond's salary cap because they'd still have to draft another rookie.

Passing on what I was told - which is pure speculation in the first instance. My guess is that it would be a fairly incentive based contract. Plus when fit, he would be close too the mark as best 22 (possibly - obviously havebt seen him play for the most part of his time at RFC).

The reason for this line of thought is the timing of KBs announcement.

But pure speculation.

 

[Justlokan]

Lol 17 years difference in age vs 3. A 40 year old defender is clearly past his prime, a 26 year old ruckman is not. If he gets a good run at it he has every chance of being a good player, he still has time. What a ridiculous comment.

of course its a ridiculous comment. It was designed to highlight the flaw of your argument, that Bellchambers who hasn't done anything for 2 years, is a better bet for the future than a younger Witts at the trade table. Bellchambers has peaked and is unlikely to get close to that again, while Witts may exceed what Bellchambers has done. None of us know what Witts' ceiling is, but that's the speculative nature of trading and drafting.

 

[richoatthedisco]

Yep
I wonder if there is any possibility.
Early second rounder might be valuable for tigers while mcbean is better than we can get at that pick.

McBean is more valuable to us than a second-rounder. Very much required, loves the club, grew up a passionate Tigers fan. Not going anywhere.

Not sure why we're talking about McBean and Bellchambers in the Treloar thread.

 

[Theo X]

WHAT!!!!!?????

He's right. You'll get 2 1st rounders.

 

[Bay Pie]

He's right. You'll get 2 1st rounders.

Yeah, I've changed my thinking on this one but with a caveat.

Neither 1st rounder will be a top 10 pick. Not sure that is really what GWS want though. They have a lot of top end quality. I'd prefer another top end quality plus a long shot (or combine 2 long shots for a quality academy player), than 2 players that will likely end up being players 20/22 on your list at best. GWS already have a number of high picks, quite a few top 10ers playing NEAFL.

Most on here are saying quantity of quality, when that'd be the last thing GWS should want.

 

[inamedthegiants]

Pick 2 (Weitering) & pick 10 (to help land your academy boys) , for Treloar and McCarthy ?

Treloar and Stewart and that's a deal my friend.

 

[inamedthegiants]

Yeah, I've changed my thinking on this one but with a caveat.

Neither 1st rounder will be a top 10 pick. Not sure that is really what GWS want though. They have a lot of top end quality. I'd prefer another top end quality plus a long shot (or combine 2 long shots for a quality academy player), than 2 players that will likely end up being players 20/22 on your list at best. GWS already have a number of high picks, quite a few top 10ers playing NEAFL.

Most on here are saying quantity of quality, when that'd be the last thing GWS should want.

The points attributed to the first rounders help us get our academy kids easier. Unless we managed to get 2 more picks inside the top 10, and a pick high enough for Weitering, I dare say we wouldn't go "external" in the draft.

 

[Bay Pie]

The points attributed to the first rounders help us get our academy kids easier. Unless we managed to get 2 more picks inside the top 10, and a pick high enough for Weitering, I dare say we wouldn't go "external" in the draft.

That is what your not understanding, with this whole 2 x 1st rounders thing.

Hopper is rated around pick 5 and Kennedy around pick 10.

Let's say AT chooses Collingwood and we offer up our 1st and 2nd round picks. That's pick 7(after this weekend with GWS and Port wins) and a pick around 26. Will get pushed back some with the academy and compo picks.

Pick 7 gets you Hopper because of the academy player discount from a pick 5 bid.
GWS use their own pick 8 or 9 for another talented kid.
GWS use our pick 26ish and their own 2nd rounder, pick 27ish to secure Kennedy from a pick 10 bid.

GWS have 3 top end talents and finish at the draft. Shallow draft and no need for later picks who'll clog your list.

Now, if you get 2 x 1st rounders in the teens.

GWS use their pick 8 or 9 to secure Hopper.
GWS use their trading in teen pick for Kennedy.
GWS are left with another teens pick to use. This pick is likely to have been pushed back due to Mills, Hopper, Kennedy and Keays all rated in the top 15. Hip wood might force it back further.
GWS are unlikely to use their 2nd rounder when their list is already quite full with talent.

So you're basically tossing up between a top 10 pick (if trade in picks 7 & 26ish) or a high teens pick ( if trade in picks 13 & 15). The 1st scenario throws up better because you are utilising your 2nd round pick to maximise your position. It'll be wasted otherwise because your academy picks will already be done.

 

[inamedthegiants]

That is what your not understanding, with this whole 2 x 1st rounders thing.

Hopper is rated around pick 5 and Kennedy around pick 10.

Let's say AT chooses Collingwood and we offer up our 1st and 2nd round picks. That's pick 7(after this weekend with GWS and Port wins) and a pick around 26. Will get pushed back some with the academy and compo picks.

Pick 7 gets you Hopper because of the academy player discount from a pick 5 bid.
GWS use their own pick 8 or 9 for another talented kid.
GWS use our pick 26ish and their own 2nd rounder, pick 27ish to secure Kennedy from a pick 10 bid.

GWS have 3 top end talents and finish at the draft. Shallow draft and no need for later picks who'll clog your list.

Now, if you get 2 x 1st rounders in the teens.

GWS use their pick 8 or 9 to secure Hopper.
GWS use their trading in teen pick for Kennedy.
GWS are left with another teens pick to use. This pick is likely to have been pushed back due to Mills, Hopper, Kennedy and Keays all rated in the top 15. Hip wood might force it back further.
GWS are unlikely to use their 2nd rounder when their list is already quite full with talent.

So you're basically tossing up between a top 10 pick (if trade in picks 7 & 26ish) or a high teens pick ( if trade in picks 13 & 15). The 1st scenario throws up better because you are utilising your 2nd round pick to maximise your position. It'll be wasted otherwise because your academy picks will already be done.

I would think we'd be getting 2 first rounders.

One in 2015 and one in 2016

I want a second rounder this year too as part of the equation but most people think that is overs.

 

[Tiger_Of_Old]

My money's on Robbo being right.

He was on a winner with his last horse.
James Hird.

 

[TiggerMan22]

I would think we'd be getting 2 first rounders.

One in 2015 and one in 2016

I want a second rounder this year too as part of the equation but most people think that is overs.

Dont think you would get 2 first rounders from Collingwood since there one this year is high already. From someone like Richmond you probably would though.

 

[Defacto]

i think GWS preference will be:
1) a really good player
2) a good player and a first rounder
3) 2 first rounders (one this year, one next year)

 

[DrMike]

i think GWS preference will be:
1) a really good player
2) a good player and a first rounder
3) 2 first rounders (one this year, one next year)

Wrong order

 

[Defacto]

Wrong order

last years draft period says otherwise. they were happy to part with two first rounders for stevie J, likewise for howe. they parted with a first round player KPF for a ready made old mid and another first rounder. this tells me their preference is to get quality players in rather than picks.

given all the stockpiling theyve done, i dont think their preference is to get more picks. i think its their fall back plan, if they cant get something keep collecting to build up more currency to get the ready made players they need

 

[Thewlis Dish]

last years draft period says otherwise. they were happy to part with two first rounders for stevie J, likewise for howe. they parted with a first round player KPF for a ready made old mid and another first rounder. this tells me their preference is to get quality players in rather than picks.

given all the stockpiling theyve done, i dont think their preference is to get more picks. i think its their fall back plan, if they cant get something keep collecting to build up more currency to get the ready made players they need

They want picks for academy kids. This is a really good article on their list management:

http://www.sen.com.au/news/08-15/giants-hold-all-the-aces

 

[Defacto]

They want picks for academy kids. This is a really good article on their list management:

http://www.sen.com.au/news/08-15/giants-hold-all-the-aces

great article but it doesnt say they will look for picks for their academy kids. i think they will be able to get those kids by trading some of the fringe. players like hayne, wilson etc. will get them some good picks 2nd 3rd round picks, which with combined with their normal allotment should be able to get their academy selections

but your point is valid, maybe they think they will need another first rounder to ensure they get all of the academy kids.

 

[DrMike]

but your point is valid, maybe they think they will need another first rounder to ensure they get all of the academy kids.

They have academy kids next year as well

 

[Calcium Man]

They have academy kids next year as well

Yep.

They have 2 top 15 this year and a couple of other decent ones in later rounds and looks like 4 top 20-25 next year. They can't go into deficit 2 years running, so they've either got to pay for them all this year or next. Our two first rounders (or anyones) over the next two years would suit them very well for picking up the academy kids.

 

[legendstatus]

I would think we'd be getting 2 first rounders.

One in 2015 and one in 2016

I want a second rounder this year too as part of the equation but most people think that is overs.

Ha ha ha ha ha footy not rugby mate, right?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Crazy Tails]

This kid showed again today why he is considered one of the best youngsters in the game. If our first this year and next year gets it done I'd do that. Jet.