Recommitted Joe Daniher 2019 [requested a trade to Sydney - didn't get there]

[zeggie]

Why Buddy Franklin is almost untradeable

The suggestion that Buddy Franklin could be traded by the Swans is a fantasy. It could only happen if the Swans paid some of the backloaded mega contract

www.theage.com.au

In this case though Joe isn't a free agent until next year, so its an argument that's probably best had once he actually is a free agent, surely.

I wasn't the one who raised that argument that "Swans are better off trading than grabbing him as a RFA". Thus why RFA status was discussed now rather than next year.

I was just clearing up there are no Rules or Regs backing up that poster's claim.

Retirement fund is part of the AFLPA and not the CBA nor falls under TPP. I think that's where that poster got confused.

 

[Loken]

I wasn't the one who raised that argument that "Swans are better off trading than grabbing him as a RFA". Thus why RFA status was discussed now rather than next year.

I was just clearing up there are no Rules or Regs backing up that poster's claim.

Retirement fund is part of the AFLPA and not the CBA nor falls under TPP. I think that's where that poster got confused.

There is also no documentation for the priority pick either but it exists. We have examples of it happening just like we do with Franklin and his salary cap length.

Maybe the rule is a discretionary one as the AFL have to tick off every deal before they are given the all clear or maybe it's just not publicly documented.

 

[zeggie]

There is also no documentation for the priority pick either but it exists. We have examples of it happening just like we do with Franklin and his salary cap length.

Maybe the rule is a discretionary one as the AFL have to tick off every deal before they are given the all clear or maybe it's just not publicly documented.

Huh? Priority picks are clearly stipulated in the AFL Rules. Section 19.2.

Not only wrong, but completely irrelevant to TPP cap.

 

[Loken]

Huh? Priority picks are clearly stipulated in the AFL Rules. Section 19.2.

Not only wrong, but completely irrelevant to TPP cap.

Not the formula of who does or who doesn't get them. Clubs make a submission to the commission and they decide if you get one or not and where it will be.

Of course it was irrelevant to the TPP cap because it was an example of rules that are not stipulated.

You are losing this argument because i can provide an example of where it has applied, Franklin, but you can't provide an example of where it hasn't.

 

[Lore]

I wasn't the one who raised that argument that "Swans are better off trading than grabbing him as a RFA". Thus why RFA status was discussed now rather than next year.

I was just clearing up there are no Rules or Regs backing up that poster's claim.

Retirement fund is part of the AFLPA and not the CBA nor falls under TPP. I think that's where that poster got confused.

I didn't particularly quote anyone, was just adding 2c to the thread.

You are correct that none of the publicly available rules or regulations specifically say that a free agency contract, once signed, must be included in the TPP for each year of the contract regardless of whether or not the player retires.

There does however appear to be some considerable support from people in the media who appear to have got their information directly from the AFL however, such as the article I quoted. He's not just spitballing there, he's specifically referenced information that he's got from AFL House.

The information that is published in those articles specifically talk about Buddy though, so I guess there is leeway to argue that they have made a ruling specifically in his case, rather than including it as a blanket rule for all free agents going forward.

 

[zeggie]

You are losing this argument because i can provide an example of where it has applied, Franklin, but you can't provide an example of where it hasn't.

Losing the argument? Firstly, it's not an argument. There is no such rule that TPP for RFA is different than a regular trade.

Second, your example was terrible as it is specifically in the AFL Rules, despite you avoiding accepting you were wrong:



Third, you are making the "God" argument. We cannot prove God does not exist. You are the one making the claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidence of it's existence.

Your Buddy reference doesn't work as it doesn't even address the point - Buddy or whoever, trade or RFA, the entire amount falls under TPP. You cannot just "retire" a player and pay them out to avoid the TPP cap. If a club could, it would be in the Rules. It's not.

Key recent example: Tippett. He signed a new contract to spread out the money of his final year to keep Sydney under the TPP cap.

So, to go back and address the original point - Whether Sydney trades and signs Daniher this year, or takes him as a RFA next year, will not make one iota of difference to their TPP cap.

so I guess there is leeway to argue that they have made a ruling specifically in his case, rather than including it as a blanket rule for all free agents going forward.

Definitely. The most likely scenario. If any decision was made regarding Buddy's contract, which besides "the media" there is no evidence of such, it is isolated and relevant only to Buddy's contract.

 

[Loken]

Losing the argument? Firstly, it's not an argument. There is no such rule that TPP for RFA is different than a regular trade.

Second, your example was terrible as it is specifically in the AFL Rules, despite you avoiding accepting you were wrong:

View attachment 750140

Third, you are making the "God" argument. We cannot prove God does not exist. You are the one making the claim, so the onus is on you to provide evidence of it's existence.

Your Buddy reference doesn't work as it doesn't even address the point - Buddy or whoever, trade or RFA, the entire amount falls under TPP. You cannot just "retire" a player and pay them out to avoid the TPP cap. If a club could, it would be in the Rules. It's not.

Key recent example: Tippett. He signed a new contract to spread out the money of his final year to keep Sydney under the TPP cap.

So, to go back and address the original point - Whether Sydney trades and signs Daniher this year, or takes him as a RFA next year, will not make one iota of difference to their TPP cap.



Definitely. The most likely scenario. If any decision was made regarding Buddy's contract, which besides "the media" there is no evidence of such, it is isolated and relevant only to Buddy's contract.

That rule in no way states how the criteria is arrived at. The commission decides if a club gets a priority pick and where it will fall in the draft order. There is no rule shown where you can definitively look at your finishing position and number of wins and say "We get priority pick x ".

The example was used to show that not everything is written where you can look it up but is still in play

I can't prove that rule about RFA's exist in black and white and you can't prove it doesn't. So i'm going to stop going round and round in circles.

Happy to concede i am wrong, as i stated earlier, if it can be shown otherwise.

 

[zeggie]

I can't prove that rule about RFA's exist in black and white

That's right. You can't.

you can't prove it doesn't.

I don't have to.

Hitchens's razor.

 

[Red Black and Blue]

Hitchens's razor.

Regardless of the argument at hand there are no rules to arguing. Hitchens razor was simply a mechanism he’d use to frame the discourse in a way it to favour his perspective.

 

[windows1]

That is the Essendon way.

To me it looks like the Sydney/Carlton Papley deal will be done much more quickly and in a more mature way.

Just a straight swap for pick 8?

 

[windows1]

Surely it shouldn't be that complicated?

Carlton/North

OUT: Pick 8/Pick 7
IN: Papley, Pick 40

Essendon

OUT: Daniher
IN: Pick 8/Pick 7, Pick 23

Sydney

OUT: Pick 8/Pick 7, Pick 23, Pick 40
IN: Daniher

****************

Sydney and Carlton can haggle over whether they think 40 needs to be included/changed to a future second or third etc. Then, Essendon and Sydney can haggle over whether Sydney should get something back. Still that seems both fair/unfair for all parties concerned, which is generally about right.

Nailed it in my opinion. Just sort it out.

 

[RUNVS]

Just a straight swap for pick 8?

I think that seems likely. Might be some swapping of some very minor picks but I think pick 8 will get it done.

 

[Vindicater]

I think that seems likely. Might be some swapping of some very minor picks but I think pick 8 will get it done.

8 and future first with our future second going back.

Same as Shiel deal.

 

[RUNVS]

8 and future first with our future second going back.

Same as Shiel deal.

Not going to happen. Would rather wait a year or not get Daniher at all.

 

[Membling]

8 and future first with our future second going back.

Same as Shiel deal.

Looking at the most recent KPF comparison is Hogan.

Essentially Hogan and fourth rounder for 6 and 23.

In his trade year Hogan had played 20 games the previous year at an average of 2.4 goals a game.

This year Daniher has played 4 games averaging 1.8 goals a game

Hogan has averaged more goals and disposals across their careers with .1 less contested marks. Since starting, Hogan has averaged more goals across all season bar 2017 which Daniher was exceptional in.

I can see the value that Daniher could have, but at the bandided about price is a bit of a stretch for mine

 

[Great8]

I do love that the Carlton folk are so invested in this trade happening.
The club wants Joe to stay, Joe still hasn’t come out and asked the club to leave and if he does it will be on our terms or we keep him for another year.

 

[Unfazed]

I do love that the Carlton folk are so invested in this trade happening.
The club wants Joe to stay, Joe still hasn’t come out and asked the club to leave and if he does it will be on our terms or we keep him for another year.

They may be disappointed. I'm hearing some talk of Papley going to Saints. Their pick 5 certainly seems more attractive than Carlton's pick 8.

 

[Unfazed]

Looking at the most recent KPF comparison is Hogan.

Essentially Hogan and fourth rounder for 6 and 23.

In his trade year Hogan had played 20 games the previous year at an average of 2.4 goals a game.

This year Daniher has played 4 games averaging 1.8 goals a game

Hogan has averaged more goals and disposals across their careers with .1 less contested marks. Since starting, Hogan has averaged more goals across all season bar 2017 which Daniher was exceptional in.

I can see the value that Daniher could have, but at the bandided about price is a bit of a stretch for mine

Every trade is determined on it's own merits.In addition to injury issues, Hogan had off-field issues which made him easier to acquire. He also doesn't have Daniher's ceiling and TBH Daniher's main value is his potential which, if realised, would put him in the top 5 of the competition. Plus essendon have indicated they are not letting him go cheaply.

 

[Loken]

Every trade is determined on it's own merits.In addition to injury issues, Hogan had off-field issues which made him easier to acquire. He also doesn't have Daniher's ceiling and TBH Daniher's main value is his potential which, if realised, would put him in the top 5 of the competition. Plus essendon have indicated they are not letting him go cheaply.

Plus Hogan had a Navicular injury while traded, a condition conveniently overlooked by those making the comparison.

 

[Membling]

Every trade is determined on it's own merits.In addition to injury issues, Hogan had off-field issues which made him easier to acquire. He also doesn't have Daniher's ceiling and TBH Daniher's main value is his potential which, if realised, would put him in the top 5 of the competition. Plus essendon have indicated they are not letting him go cheaply.

So he has off field issues, that would put his value down, fair enough. He had also played more than 11 games in 2 years at the time of his trade, balancing it out.

It is all well and good to talk about ceiling and potential but he has realised it for one season and has not fully recovered from the injury which has stopped him from getting near it and may also never get to that level because of it.

If Essendon do kot want to let him go fair enough. I would be exceptionally wary of the swans getting near either rhe trade or contract cost due to the previous issues he has had

Plus Hogan had a Navicular injury while traded, a condition conveniently overlooked by those making the comparison.

Except JD has OP which has been ongoing for some time. Not necessarily the same but the amount of time he has had off is reflective of its severity. Also compounded by other injuries which may or may not have resulted from the ongoing OP.

Personally, would not be happy at all giving up pick 4 for him on exposed form or injury history. Would very much prefer to target Cameron as RFA next year or JD as RFA when his situation is clearer in regards to form and injury.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Q

Every trade is determined on it's own merits.In addition to injury issues, Hogan had off-field issues which made him easier to acquire. He also doesn't have Daniher's ceiling and TBH Daniher's main value is his potential which, if realised, would put him in the top 5 of the competition. Plus essendon have indicated they are not letting him go cheaply.

And then Swans on trade pick 5 for Daniher

 

[Unfazed]

So he has off field issues, that would put his value down, fair enough. He had also played more than 11 games in 2 years at the time of his trade, balancing it out.

It is all well and good to talk about ceiling and potential but he has realised it for one season and has not fully recovered from the injury which has stopped him from getting near it and may also never get to that level because of it.

If Essendon do kot want to let him go fair enough. I would be exceptionally wary of the swans getting near either rhe trade or contract cost due to the previous issues he has had



Except JD has OP which has been ongoing for some time. Not necessarily the same but the amount of time he has had off is reflective of its severity. Also compounded by other injuries which may or may not have resulted from the ongoing OP.

Personally, would not be happy at all giving up pick 4 for him on exposed form or injury history. Would very much prefer to target Cameron as RFA next year or JD as RFA when his situation is clearer in regards to form and injury.

Fair enough. if it was reversed Id be wary of giving pick 4 but if you're offering him 5 years, your docs are obviously pretty sure he'll be ok. There's also no incentive for Essendon to give him away for less. You're gambling on him coming right as no doubt we are as well.

 

[Loken]

Except JD has OP which has been ongoing for some time. Not necessarily the same but the amount of time he has had off is reflective of its severity. Also compounded by other injuries which may or may not have resulted from the ongoing OP.

Personally, would not be happy at all giving up pick 4 for him on exposed form or injury history. Would very much prefer to target Cameron as RFA next year or JD as RFA when his situation is clearer in regards to form and injury.

That's fine and as i have said here before if you don't want your club to trade for Joe that's completely understandable however it would appear Sydney do want to get him so when posters on here are using stupid trade values like, second rounders, comparing his value to midfielders and using his OP as a reason to significantly reduce his value i'm just making a valid comparision of a similar player with substantial injury issues and what he was traded for.

Just for reference when Joe played this year after basically missing all of last year he basically single handedly destroyed Collingwood on Anzac day roosting goals from outside of 50 . I doubt he will have too many issues if any unless he breaks down again of course.


He didn't even connect with the ball properly.

 

[HighettBomber]

So he has off field issues, that would put his value down, fair enough. He had also played more than 11 games in 2 years at the time of his trade, balancing it out.

It is all well and good to talk about ceiling and potential but he has realised it for one season and has not fully recovered from the injury which has stopped him from getting near it and may also never get to that level because of it.

If Essendon do kot want to let him go fair enough. I would be exceptionally wary of the swans getting near either rhe trade or contract cost due to the previous issues he has had



Except JD has OP which has been ongoing for some time. Not necessarily the same but the amount of time he has had off is reflective of its severity. Also compounded by other injuries which may or may not have resulted from the ongoing OP.

Personally, would not be happy at all giving up pick 4 for him on exposed form or injury history. Would very much prefer to target Cameron as RFA next year or JD as RFA when his situation is clearer in regards to form and injury.

Given that what he would be traded for draft picks, which are purely potential value, a player who has shown he can perform to a very high level should have a lot of relative value. We would be mad to trade him for anything less than 2 first round picks.

 

[Membling]

Given that what he would be traded for draft picks, which are purely potential value, a player who has shown he can perform to a very high level should have a lot of relative value. We would be mad to trade him for anything less than 2 first round picks.

Therein lies the rub. We would be mad to give up 2 firsts for a player who has a decent amount of uncertainty.

Drawing back to the Hogan example, I would not exactly be thrilled with return that Hogan has given this year for the picks that were give.