Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion

[Smegger]

Then let's cut a deal with port Adelaide

On SM-G935F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Speculation will (understandably) go on all year re Gibbs. SOS will look at all available options.

 

[passmark]

If neither live up to the potential we signed them for in the first place, then they aren't worth anything the trade period.

Pretty sure I said that.

 

[Funk]

Whenever I see the suggestion of trading away our 2018 first in anticipation of Ben Silvagni, I cringe close to the point of permanently disfiguring myself.

Here's how that scenario plays out if Ben is bid on at #5, and we finish 10th:

Points required to match: 1502
Points from (pre-draft) #27: 703
Points from (pre-draft) #45: 347
Points from (pre-draft) #63: 112

Remaining points: 340

So that means we need another second round pick to prevent it from wiping out the entire draft. Personally, I don't think Ben will go that high, nor will we necessarily finish that low, but regardless we'd want what we get from trading our first away to be pretty good because we don't want to be tossing away multiple top 40 selections in most drafts.

This is also an interesting dilemma for other clubs.

Say EFC bid on Ben at pick 4 to be smart arses like they did with Jack?

SOS says "fine - you can have him" because he's coming back to us in 2 years for sweet FA.

EFC (or some other club) will have wasted pick 4 for virtually no return.

So at what point would another club bid on Ben?

Will be fascinating to see how it plays out.

 

[Funk]

I think it's garbage personally. Why should the swans or any club for that matter be penalised if a player quits or retires mid contract?
They have made a commitment to pay a certain amount for a certain amount of years service, if you don't do the service why should you get paid?

So we offer Hopper and Shiel $1M per year for 20 years.

No one will match that!

When they retire the deal is up.

The whole trading market would be a joke - and that is your answer.

 

[Funk]

Could our man Rowe have any currency?

Straight trade for Steven May?

 

[Funk]

I'd be rocking up every year putting my hand up.

I'd be doing laps in a wheelchair!!

 

[Pafloyul]

If neither live up to the potential we signed them for in the first place, then they aren't worth anything the trade period.

It's a bit more complicated than that. 'Not living up to potential' might not necessarily mean complete flop. You'd have to weigh what their potential was as compared to what we'd get in return. I'd say one of those two names is a fraction more likely than the other. Let's hope it doesn't come to that but it might be a daring move to get us a quality midfielder.

 

[katmanblue]

Straight trade for Steven May?

Not Steven. Maybe for James from Top Gear

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

That would mean that Adelaide get him for nothing. No guarantee the AFL would give us a band 1 compo, we are not Melbourne.

I would not care that Adelaide got him for free if it meant we got pick 2 or 3 in return.

 

[Funk]

No way are we going to get a first and second rounder for Gibbs. Don't see it happening. If we didn't get it last year, we aren't getting it for a Gibbs who is a year older.

Depends where Crows finish this year.

If they make the GF then those picks are worth much less than last year.

 

[Metalcrusher]

Not Steven. Maybe for James from Top Gear

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

Stig or GTFO

 

[katmanblue]

Stig or GTFO

Some say....

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Still don't get the rule. If Franklin plays 9 years he gets $1mil a year, if he quits after 7 of his own choice why should the swans still have to pay the last 2 years. The player hasn't fulfilled his duties so why does the club?

See post #3144.

 

[ITCHY EYEBALLS]

Hawthorn are apparently very interested in Steven May.

That's good
We'll take Tom Lynch

 

[GapInIkonPark]

I definitely don't think a player who walks away half way through a contract should be paid out.

The risk is after 4-5 seasons buddy's output turns to garbage and they are stuck paying him $1 million for a further 4 years.
If he quits early I'm saying he shouldn't be paid out at all.

It's not about paying out the contract. Club and player might work out a severance pay.
It is about the club being able to outbid everyone for Buddy, then spend a million dollars a year again too soon to outbid every other club again for the competition's best player.
So, if a club outbid everybody to get Buddy for 9 years to when he turns 35 and he finishes at 31, or whatever, then there should be no immediate salary cap room to outbid everyone again.
Got it?

 

[GapInIkonPark]

Is there any reason why Carlton can not re-negotiate Gibbs contract to end at 2017 so he can go to Adelaide as a free agent and we would get band 1 compensation, likely to be pick 2 or 3? Would be a better result than getting Crows 1st pick likely to be 15-18 and loose change.

A 5 year contract protects both club and player.
Hartlett could not be forced to leave Port Adelaide. The club was desperate for salary cap dollars and a trade / draft picks.
Gibbs could not just walk from Carlton mid contract unless Carlton agreed, and Carlton will only agree if Carlton is adequately compensated.
Now perhaps some players in mid 20s might be better off taking a 2-3 year contract to test out FA afterwards rather than a 4-5 year contract, and maybe some clubs might not want to offer as many years as FA might be attractive in a couple of years time ... but then another club might offer 6 years when Carlton wants to offer 3 ...

But, cannot mutually agree to terminate contract so player becomes a FA and club gets FA compensation pick. Rules don't allow it.

 

[skadoosh]

I made the call about Hopper last trade period

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/thre...id-last-sumner.1142913/page-317#post-47180674

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Well.. I'll probably be corrected here but my understanding is his salary will still form part of the TPP until the end of his contact.. Even though he may not get paid the final few years of that deal..

It appears to be the way to really ham string the club with the star.. No one will convince me that AFL red necks in their meetings years ago never saw this coming when they gave GWS all those draft concessions..



On SM-G935F using BigFooty.com mobile app

There is something inherently wrong with that. I understand the club not being able to just cut and run but if the player retires, why should it count against the cap?

 

[SkyhorseTamer]

There is something inherently wrong with that. I understand the club not being able to just cut and run but if the player retires, why should it count against the cap?

Because they took that risk when they signed the player and used a larger riskier contract as a lure. I'm all for the player being looked after but if a club beats out other clubs with a massive (risk filled) contract, they deserve the consequence when that risk is realised.

 

[DangerousD]

Wouldn't surprise.

A key defender should be pretty high up on their list of priorities.

They also have no first round pick, do they have a 2nd? Are they even able to trade a future first?

 

[DangerousD]

So we offer Hopper and Shiel $1M per year for 20 years.

No one will match that!

When they retire the deal is up.

The whole trading market would be a joke - and that is your answer.

No mate that's not my answer, that's your opinion.
If we offered that we would be taking huge risk, we would have to pay that until they retire. Their output in their last 2-5 years could be mediocre at best, they can both do a knee, shoulders, groins and miss seasons of footy.
That is where I see the risk and I think that's risk enough.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

No mate that's not my answer, that's your opinion.
If we offered that we would be taking huge risk, we would have to pay that until they retire. Their output in their last 2-5 years could be mediocre at best, they can both do a knee, shoulders, groins and miss seasons of footy.
That is where I see the risk and I think that's risk enough.

It's not just the money that stops their original club from matching, it's also the length of contract they have to match. In Buddy's case, Hawthorn would have had to keep paying him until he was 35 to match the offer.

Really though Buddy was going to GWS for the money and Sydney swooped in and turned his head with a 9 year contract that no responsible club would offer someone of his age.

If clubs are going to make ridiculous offers to snare a player and cut others out of the market, they should be made an example of.

 

[GapInIkonPark]

No mate that's not my answer, that's your opinion.
If we offered that we would be taking huge risk, we would have to pay that until they retire. Their output in their last 2-5 years could be mediocre at best, they can both do a knee, shoulders, groins and miss seasons of footy.
That is where I see the risk and I think that's risk enough.

Club and player - Don't provide service, don't get paid. Maybe a severance pay.
Club and other clubs / AFL - Offer a 9 year contract and player retires after say 6 years, then Club wears the risk in its salary cap. Can't just get free run at another $1 million per year player. The balance is included in the Club's cap in year 7 of this scenario, and then the Club is good to go again in Year 8.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Because they took that risk when they signed the player and used a larger riskier contract as a lure. I'm all for the player being looked after but if a club beats out other clubs with a massive (risk filled) contract, they deserve the consequence when that risk is realised.

Sure and they should be held to the contract as long as the player wants to play. The lure is long term certainty.

But if the player themselves retires, the player has effectively breached the contract. There is no way the clubs should be punished for that. What are they supposed to do? Force the player to keep playing?

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

It's not just the money that stops their original club from matching, it's also the length of contract they have to match. In Buddy's case, Hawthorn would have had to keep paying him until he was 35 to match the offer.

Really though Buddy was going to GWS for the money and Sydney swooped in and turned his head with a 9 year contract that no responsible club would offer someone of his age.

If clubs are going to make ridiculous offers to snare a player and cut others out of the market, they should be made an example of.

I don't understand why they should be made an example of? They've made a choice. Like all choices it comes with risks and benefits. Either it works or it doesn't.