List Mgmt. Trade & F/A - 2017/2018 - Refreshed (cont in part 2)

[Scodog10]

a pick in the teens is unders for me and even though I like Short (I've watched alot of his footy) he is the definition of steaknives and isn't worth a 2nd & 3rd.

In 12 weeks time it might be a different story re Short. For instance 12 weeks ago I’d have said similar for Phillips whereas now an opposition club wouldn’t get change out of a 1st rounder if they came knocking and Short is following a similar trajectory. Even then we’re giving Moore and a pick circa 50 for a guy that walks straight into our best 22 and a potential top 15 pick. Short also has the added advantage of coming across from a club with a similarish system to ours.

We also won’t hold the whip hand on Darcy which will impact on his trade currency. Right now Short is performing and Darcy isn’t. To be blunt Darcy is rated highly on potential, genetics and draft position. With his injury history and production so far all that justifies the deal I speculated on would be the contract offer from Sydney. It really is in our best interests to retain him because I wouldn’t even lock in a 1st round pick coming our way at this stage.

 

[jackcass]

Which means we potentially give up a Isaac Quaynor or Will Kelly.

I'm assuming you're referring to the 2x 1st rounders taking available list spots making it hard for us to also add Quaynor and Kelly, but we could simply lose another player already on the list to make the room for them.

 

[danielnajdek]

Darcy isn’t a 500k a year player. He can’t stay fit atm. Also DeGoey isn’t worth 700k either.

 

[sr36]

To be blunt Darcy is rated highly on potential, genetics and draft position. With his injury history and production so far all that justifies the deal I speculated on would be the contract offer from Sydney. It really is in our best interests to retain him because I wouldn’t even lock in a 1st round pick coming our way at this stage.

Darcy's one player where I can't really see a trade getting done, even if he requests it. I reckon our club rates him really highly and would be expecting a similar price to what we got for Beams - a first rounder, a second rounder + steak knives with a decent chance of making it, but I don't see how any club could justify paying that much for him, considering his injuries and output.

 

[sr36]

Darcy isn’t a 500k a year player. He can’t stay fit atm. Also DeGoey isn’t worth 700k either.

Agree. With draft picks you pay for potential, but salaries should be based on performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work this way, but as far as I'm concerned all of the following players deserve considerably higher salaries than those 2: Pendles, Sidebottom, Howe, Crisp, Treloar, Grundy, Adams.
Degoey and Moore should be on similar salaries to: Shaz, Phillips, Maynard, Langdon, Elliott, WHE, Varcoe, Dunn

 

[partypie]

Jake Lloyd

... and their first round pick in exchange for the third they gave us in the Murray trade.

Works out to be Moore and our 2nd for Lloyd, Murray and their first.

Moore is easily the equal of any of the KPF's at the top of this draft (his agility and speed sets him apart) and he is ready to play now.

I certainly won't want Moore to (or think he will) leave, but if we walked away with two first rounders in this draft plus Lloyd and Murray it would definitely help ease the pain of losing Moore.

 

[Apex36]

Might be time to do some community work or help your neighbours

Your posting is not healthy for you

He’s right in this instance though. Allir is very ordinary. One trick pony who’s trick is no good anymore since clubs have twigged on to his play on at all costs mentality.

 

[Gone Critical]

Agree. With draft picks you pay for potential, but salaries should be based on performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work this way, but as far as I'm concerned all of the following players deserve considerably higher salaries than those 2: Pendles, Sidebottom, Howe, Crisp, Treloar, Grundy, Adams.
Degoey and Moore should be on similar salaries to: Shaz, Phillips, Maynard, Langdon, Elliott, WHE, Varcoe, Dunn

Sounds nice in theory but all you will do is shoot yourself in the foot if you dont include potential in the salaries IMHO. There is a balance but if you only pay De Goey on performance to date someone will trump you with a bigger and really more appropriate offer and you lose a potential star. Its not an even playing field and the players understand that. They know those with star quality are going to be more highly sought.

 

[Horaceg]

Agree. With draft picks you pay for potential, but salaries should be based on performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to work this way, but as far as I'm concerned all of the following players deserve considerably higher salaries than those 2: Pendles, Sidebottom, Howe, Crisp, Treloar, Grundy, Adams.
Degoey and Moore should be on similar salaries to: Shaz, Phillips, Maynard, Langdon, Elliott, WHE, Varcoe, Dunn

Dunn wouldn't be on much, wasn't Collingwood a life line for him, was out at Melbourne.

I would prefer to keep Moore than take a first round DP, we know he has the potential in the world just needs to be on the park more. I have no doubt he will be a Superstar. Keep the faith, same with JDG, he has shown enough to justify his pick at 5 and will get better.

 

[good4footy]

He's right in this instance though. Allir is very ordinary. One trick pony who’s trick is no good anymore since clubs have twigged on to his play on at all costs mentality.

So is WalterBlaknWhte with his post.

 

[TW Sherrin]

In 12 weeks time it might be a different story re Short. For instance 12 weeks ago I’d have said similar for Phillips whereas now an opposition club wouldn’t get change out of a 1st rounder if they came knocking and Short is following a similar trajectory. Even then we’re giving Moore and a pick circa 50 for a guy that walks straight into our best 22 and a potential top 15 pick. Short also has the added advantage of coming across from a club with a similarish system to ours.

We also won’t hold the whip hand on Darcy which will impact on his trade currency. Right now Short is performing and Darcy isn’t. To be blunt Darcy is rated highly on potential, genetics and draft position. With his injury history and production so far all that justifies the deal I speculated on would be the contract offer from Sydney. It really is in our best interests to retain him because I wouldn’t even lock in a 1st round pick coming our way at this stage.

as I said I like Short. he might've been a better pick up than Murray. he is quick and his kicking is above average. he is also out of contract this year.

The issue with Short is his ironically his 'shortness'. 178cm. they are much easier to find (he was a rookie) than 200cm KPP's. Moore will attract the 6'5" premium.

TBh I don't think Moore leaves. 2 years @ 500k with triggers for more if he performs leaves him entering his prime for a major contract. I also think he will be a superstar at CHB.

 

[Apex36]

So is WalterBlaknWhte with his post.

Wasn’t arguing with that. One of the worst posters on this board, overly abusive. Clearly hasn’t learned his lesson since he was banned last time.

 

[sr36]

Sounds nice in theory but all you will do is shoot yourself in the foot if you dont include potential in the salaries IMHO. There is a balance but if you only pay De Goey on performance to date someone will trump you with a bigger and really more appropriate offer and you lose a potential star. Its not an even playing field and the players understand that. They know those with star quality are going to be more highly sought.

I agree with all of that. I'm being idealistic, but someone like Moore, who is yet to produce much, getting paid a heap more than someone like Crisp is just downright wrong in my eyes.

 

[Scodog10]

as I said I like Short. he might've been a better pick up than Murray. he is quick and his kicking is above average. he is also out of contract this year.

The issue with Short is his ironically his 'shortness'. 178cm. they are much easier to find (he was a rookie) than 200cm KPP's. Moore will attract the 6'5" premium.

TBh I don't think Moore leaves. 2 years @ 500k with triggers for more if he performs leaves him entering his prime for a major contract. I also think he will be a superstar at CHB.

In the case I presented that premium was paid as an upgrade in the draft from the 3rd to 1st round which, IMO, is reasonable given their respective career outputs, experience, potential and injury histories.

It feels to me like a 60-40 move where we lose, but I’d be confident any lurking Sydney or Richmond fan would feel similarly about it. Sydney pay a 1st and 2nd for a speculative Moore and Richmond lose a best 22 player for two picks post 30!

FWIW I think he stays too. It seemed to me Browne was playing a round of darts to get a follow up exclusive. It’s either genuis or more of the usual from him.

 

[TW Sherrin]

I agree with all of that. I'm being idealistic, but someone like Moore, who is yet to produce much, getting paid a heap more than someone like Crisp is just downright wrong in my eyes.

you cant compare a half back with a KPP.

A KPP will always get more money.

 

[adammania9]

... and their first round pick in exchange for the third they gave us in the Murray trade.

Works out to be Moore and our 2nd for Lloyd, Murray and their first.

Moore is easily the equal of any of the KPF's at the top of this draft (his agility and speed sets him apart) and he is ready to play now.

I certainly won't want Moore to (or think he will) leave, but if we walked away with two first rounders in this draft plus Lloyd and Murray it would definitely help ease the pain of losing Moore.

That’s a shocking trade for Sydney. At least be somewhat realistic.

 

[Matt_352]

Isn't Short a defender. If Moore is to leave I want a first rounder and a decent quality crumbing fwd

 

[sr36]

you cant compare a half back with a KPP.

A KPP will always get more money.

OK I'll compare Moore to Dunn then. I don't like that the bloke who performs better now is likely to be paid much less than the other bloke, who is highly paid on future expectations rather than present output.

Basically, I just have to accept that footy is an unjust industry in this way.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

OK I'll compare Moore to Dunn then. I don't like that the bloke who performs better now is likely to be paid much less than the other bloke, who is highly paid on future expectations rather than present output.

Basically, I just have to accept that footy is an unjust industry in this way.

But its also about long term gain/cost.

Dunn has likely got 1 year left. He also doesnt have other teams knocking the door down for him. Its not a huge loss long term if we lose him (it might create a gap where we need to find a replacement this offseason - but that gap was coming a year later anyway).
Having said that - I don't think he's leaving. I think he's also lined up to have a coaching career, so he knows that any playing contract will also transition him to that next stage.

Moore is completely different.
By not keeping him its not just 2019 Moore that you lose, its the chance of what he might become over the next 5-10years. Now that is an unknown, and he hasnt produced a great amount to date, but there are definitely signs there of the potential and theres a reason clubs would be interested.
How much you offer becomes a balancing act between those things.

 

[didaksrightfoot]

We also won’t hold the whip hand on Darcy which will impact on his trade currency. Right now Short is performing and Darcy isn’t. To be blunt Darcy is rated highly on potential, genetics and draft position. With his injury history and production so far all that justifies the deal I speculated on would be the contract offer from Sydney. It really is in our best interests to retain him because I wouldn’t even lock in a 1st round pick coming our way at this stage.

But isnt there a contradiction there?

We want to keep him. I think it was announced that before the season he had a 500k contract in front of him. I think we would easily offer up to 600-650k if needed to kepp him (which is clearly overpaying him, but IMO worth it because of the opportunity cost of losing him and his potential)

Sydney (or whoever) want him. You would expect that they would have to be offering significantly more than our offer to get him to move. (Unles Peter and Darcy are just done with Collingwood and leaving no matter what).

If Sydney want to offer a contract in the kind of range that is rumoured - and a contract that would need to trump us - then surely we would expect that they put their money where there mouth is and offer the same at the trade table?
It is laughable if he becomes one of their highest paid players (possibly 2nd after Buddy) and they expect to not give up a 1st rounder for him?

He is not a UFA or a RFA. He does not have Schache or McCarthy (after his yr off) kind of concerns where we would be happy to let him walk in a trade for cheap.

He is a highly wanted young player, and Eddies sentiments reflect as such.
I dont think we will agree to grossly overpay him, and will not try to match a 700k-plus offer if another club offers it, but we would be demanding his worth in a trade, or look towards other clubs.

 

[MagpieBat]

But isnt there a contradiction there?

We want to keep him. I think it was announced that before the season he had a 500k contract in front of him. I think we would easily offer up to 600-650k if needed to kepp him (which is clearly overpaying him, but IMO worth it because of the opportunity cost of losing him and his potential)

Sydney (or whoever) want him. You would expect that they would have to be offering significantly more than our offer to get him to move. (Unles Peter and Darcy are just done with Collingwood and leaving no matter what).

If Sydney want to offer a contract in the kind of range that is rumoured - and a contract that would need to trump us - then surely we would expect that they put their money where there mouth is and offer the same at the trade table?
It is laughable if he becomes one of their highest paid players (possibly 2nd after Buddy) and they expect to not give up a 1st rounder for him?

He is not a UFA or a RFA. He does not have Schache or McCarthy (after his yr off) kind of concerns where we would be happy to let him walk in a trade for cheap.

He is a highly wanted young player, and Eddies sentiments reflect as such.
I dont think we will agree to grossly overpay him, and will not try to match a 700k-plus offer if another club offers it, but we would be demanding his worth in a trade, or look towards other clubs.

It was reported by that man Tom Browne at the time that we had a trigger-based 600k deal on the table.

 

[Scodog10]

But isnt there a contradiction there?

We want to keep him. I think it was announced that before the season he had a 500k contract in front of him. I think we would easily offer up to 600-650k if needed to kepp him (which is clearly overpaying him, but IMO worth it because of the opportunity cost of losing him and his potential)

Sydney (or whoever) want him. You would expect that they would have to be offering significantly more than our offer to get him to move. (Unles Peter and Darcy are just done with Collingwood and leaving no matter what).

If Sydney want to offer a contract in the kind of range that is rumoured - and a contract that would need to trump us - then surely we would expect that they put their money where there mouth is and offer the same at the trade table?
It is laughable if he becomes one of their highest paid players (possibly 2nd after Buddy) and they expect to not give up a 1st rounder for him?

He is not a UFA or a RFA. He does not have Schache or McCarthy (after his yr off) kind of concerns where we would be happy to let him walk in a trade for cheap.

He is a highly wanted young player, and Eddies sentiments reflect as such.
I dont think we will agree to grossly overpay him, and will not try to match a 700k-plus offer if another club offers it, but we would be demanding his worth in a trade, or look towards other clubs.

The whole Moore scenario is an “it is what it is” one. He doesn’t deserve good money, but he’ll get it. He doesn’t deserve a high trade cost should he leave, but we’ll get it. That’s the industry. One question though what was your opinion of Schache this time last year?..

 

[mike123]

In 12 weeks time it might be a different story re Short. For instance 12 weeks ago I’d have said similar for Phillips whereas now an opposition club wouldn’t get change out of a 1st rounder if they came knocking and Short is following a similar trajectory. Even then we’re giving Moore and a pick circa 50 for a guy that walks straight into our best 22 and a potential top 15 pick. Short also has the added advantage of coming across from a club with a similarish system to ours.

We also won’t hold the whip hand on Darcy which will impact on his trade currency. Right now Short is performing and Darcy isn’t. To be blunt Darcy is rated highly on potential, genetics and draft position. With his injury history and production so far all that justifies the deal I speculated on would be the contract offer from Sydney. It really is in our best interests to retain him because I wouldn’t even lock in a 1st round pick coming our way at this stage.

Where would Short fit into our side?

 

[Bored_Pie]

I would take Papley, Florent and Newman for Moore.
Bang. Bang. Bang.

Except not even Ned Guy would even think of that.

 

[Bored_Pie]

Wasn’t arguing with that. One of the worst posters on this board, overly abusive. Clearly hasn’t learned his lesson since he was banned last time.

Naww.