List Mgmt. 2020 Trade and List Management Thread II

[LuvtheKangas]

I’ve brought it up on this thread before, but what we finally get won’t be due to any market value.

Brown will most likely nominate a club. At that point there is no market, only one participant. What we get will be what we manage to negotiate with that club.

If this was a market-value situation we’d get the highest of what any club was willing to pay (“market value”). Unfortunately with the way trades have evolved with nominated clubs, what other clubs may or may not be willing to offer has no bearing at all on the final outcome.

It won’t be market value, just whatever Brady can negotiate.

True, but that relies on Ben not being open to a number of offers.

The worst outcome is if he digs his heels in to go to the club with the least currency. That would fly in the face of working toward a mutually beneficial outcome, but we might yet end up there.

The optimal outcome is if Ben is willing to go to the highest bidder, which would then be market value. Mutually beneficial.

 

[hilly]

What is the North Melbourne fan opinion/perspective on Sean Higgins. Is he an expendable asset to help rebuild, a required player that shouldn’t be traded, cooked and desperate to get off the books? What’s the deal?

Good player who is of most value at a contending club. My personal view is that he has slipped a touch. Happy to keep him if there are no reasonable offers (say in the first two rounds or an upgrade of picks) and then he can leave end 2021 as an UFA.

On SM-G950F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Ashley B]

Higginbottom would be a bit of cream(Cats like cream too apparently) in a team near the top. Could still kick 20 odd goals in a season and be a good linkman .

 

[DanA]

Spell his name right and we'll talk.

Fair call...should have checked...apologies

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Fair call...should have checked...apologies

All good. FWIW, I agree with hilly as stated a couple of posts above.

 

[hurricane]

The optimal outcome is if Ben is willing to go to the highest bidder, which would then be market value. Mutually beneficial.

That’s true, I just can’t think of a single time when that’s ever happened.

From the player’s point of view they want to look after themselves and their future - the nominate the club which suits them most.

The opposing club knows that if they can get the player over the line first, they can then deal with negotiating later without having to worry about any other club’s currency.

When a player is uncontracted their original club isn’t in a very strong position. It’s why most of these deals end up getting done.

 

[Tarka_Dal]

That is great idea mate, that would benefit everyone & be fair

I think a better system would be thus:

- No compensation for unrestricted free agents who sign with another team.
- Compensation for restricted free agents who sign with another team shall be provided by the team signing the player. Compensation in terms of draft picks to be determined by contract length/value comparative to other players of a similar age. Band 1 would be end of first round compensation, band 2 end of second round, and so on.

For example, if Geelong wishes to sign J.Cameron, GWS can either match the offer and force a trade or not match the offer. If GWS do not match the offer, say for arguments sake that the contract offered puts Cameron in Band 1. GWS would receive an end of first round compensation pick which would equal X amount of draft points. Geelong would have to pay the AFL X amount, much like the draft bidding process functions at the moment. This would remove the motivation for collusion between two teams trading a RFA, as the larger the contract, the more the team signing the RFA will have to pay in terms of draft capital.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

That’s true, I just can’t think of a single time when that’s ever happened.

From the player’s point of view they want to look after themselves and their future - the nominate the club which suits them most.

The opposing club knows that if they can get the player over the line first, they can then deal with negotiating later without having to worry about any other club’s currency.

When a player is uncontracted their original club isn’t in a very strong position. It’s why most of these deals end up getting done.

Agree with all of that, but there remains the chance that if Ben selects the club with appropriate currency, then we'll get close to his value.

I will also note that back in early September when the trade BB whispers first came out, I stated (and have repeated) my view that we should retain him as he is worth more to us than what other clubs would offer in trade.

I stand by that. My only change in viewpoint is accepting that the stay option is now highly unlikely and I've become somewhat comfortable with him going as I can see the football reasons for that call.

 

[New_Roo]

All good. FWIW, I agree with hilly as stated a couple of posts above.

Yes and we have even resorted to playing him out of his strongest position in order to get experience into the kids... having said that sounds like you would to play him fwd if replacing Ablett with him which isn't his best spot either


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[hurricane]

I will also note that back in early September when the trade BB whispers first came out, I stated (and have repeated) my view that we should retain him as he is worth more to us than what other clubs would offer in trade.

I agree. The move doesn’t make sense to me on face value... but I’ll reserve judgement until it has all played out.

I would say that the speculation on his value we see in the media has been totally driven by the ‘buy side’ parties. I haven’t heard a single opinion from North, and you need agreement from both sides to make the deal.

 

[Shinboner1]

Agree with all of that, but there remains the chance that if Ben selects the club with appropriate currency, then we'll get close to his value.

I will also note that back in early September when the trade BB whispers first came out, I stated (and have repeated) my view that we should retain him as he is worth more to us than what other clubs would offer in trade.

I stand by that. My only change in viewpoint is accepting that the stay option is now highly unlikely and I've become somewhat comfortable with him going as I can see the football reasons for that call.

100% he's worth more to us unless we're going to get something like 2 firsts which isnt going to happen. Will be hard seeing him play in someone else's colours.

 

[big_e]

Thing is, if there was a personal falling out between Brown/Rama and club that has made him untenable, the club can't exactly make that public.

Unfortunately it's human nature to only trust a process or approach if you agree with it or immediately see the benefit. The club really needs supporters to trust it more than ever right now.

If there is a falling out, well, s**t, maybe start acting like grown-ups.

 

[giantroo]

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Schultz for 57 looks a little too good to be true. He's no world beater, but does fill a need.

Can't see it happening because the deals that look too good rarely happen.

 

[Wels Eicke]

View attachment 993532

Freo trying to offload Hogan, and now Shultz? Throw in Klink and it might be a goer.

 

[The acurate one]

View attachment 993532

Good you must have at least two career highs to come across.

 

[giantroo]

Schultz for 57 looks a little too good to be true. He's no world beater, but does fill a need.

Can't see it happening because the deals that look too good rarely happen.

Yeah not too fussed about that trade suggestion, just his name being linked with us.

Good you must have at least two career highs to come across.



View attachment 993538

So he is coming then?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Am I the only one baffled by the notion that we’ve shafted any chance of a decent return on a Brown trade simply because we’re looking to trade him for the right deal?

Literally everyone in the football world agrees that we’re at the beginning of a full rebuild.

Why do players only have value on the market when they elect to leave a club and not the other way round?

Why wouldn’t a rebuilding club seek to trade players that hold more on field value to a higher positioned team than to their own?

Again, I’m not getting into the back story of how we got to this point, but the accepted reality of us now having no right to expect an equitable return on this is ludicrous to me.

I have seen no presser from the club declaring this.

 

[giantroo]

 

[The acurate one]

Yeah not too fussed about that trade suggestion, just his name being linked with us.



So he is coming then?

NFI old mate. But I do know we could build a side of spuds that have at least two career highs against us and that team wouldn't win a game ever!

 

[The acurate one]

Some more highlights of Schultz for those interested .

 

[Dan]

I know nothing

 

[Snake_Baker]

There's a lot of people here basing their opinion on the fact that the club should have pretended that BB remains a highly valued, required player.

Given what Rama put into the public domain, it requires an infeasible amount of stupidity on the part of all the other clubs to support the idea that we can bluff our way through trade negotiations.

We haven't destroyed his trade value, it will be what the market offers.

Agree, there's a lot of unsubstantiated crap in the reasoning, and once a player is on the market.......THEY'RE ON THE MARKET! Timing has sweet * all to do with it!

Are we supposed to believe that opposition clubs reason that because Ben was on the market in early October, then he automatically costs less in a trade value than if he were to look at the market in late October? It's ridiculous reasoning.

He's worth whatever a destination club decides he's worth and whatever North decides he's worth, and I dunno why folks are assuming that Brady has suddenly turned in to a pussy because of just one player!

 

[Shinboner1]

 

[7577969923]

Freo trying to offload Hogan, and now Shultz? Throw in Klink and it might be a goer.

Can you tell me about Schulz? I know nothing!