News Brad Crouch to Saints (STK make offer; Band 3, ADL to match?)

[hey shorty]

Not for me, what more do you expect from a bloke that's been in the AFL industry for a few months. The deifying of him around here has bordered on insanity. He'll be a fine head of footy, but he's a greenhorn. This will just be an early setback that shows that he's human and has a bit to learn. This is why Balme for a couple of years would have been awesome.

I like your thought process here, however he's going to be sternly tested if we fold here.

I think he'll be fine also, but this one will hurt.

 

[glengowan]

All of this indicates that the man-management of our players is still terrible. It is what has brought us undone in the last decade. Unless all systems are working well - we'll still be s**t. Surely we can find someone better than Reid and Ricciuto. Kelly has failed dismally in his first transaction, unless we match and he stays or we come away with a top 15 pick - in which case he may have just broken even in a very messy way.

 

[dogs105]

All of this indicates that the man-management of our players is still terrible. It is what has brought us undone in the last decade. Unless all systems are working well - we'll still be sh*t. Surely we can find someone better than Reid and Ricciuto. Kelly has failed dismally in his first transaction, unless we match and he stays or we come away with a top 15 pick - in which case he may have just broken even in a very messy way.

What about, say 17 and next years second?

 

[GROTTO]

Could also be exploited by the team receiving the player in this case.

Imagine Saints already have pick 2 (less important later in the round), they'd artificially lower Brad's contract with soft triggers to avoid us getting pick 2 before theirs.

Imagine the Saints triggers?

If Crouch plays a game in 2021 he gets an extra $100k.

 

[cmndstab]

I posted this morning that I felt it would be a "no match" and we would take the band 2 compo, and we'd trade picks with the Saints to make the outcome better. I still believe that's the likely outcome.

What incentive does Saint Kilda have to trade picks with us to give us a better outcome? Why wouldn't they just take Brad for free and keep their picks in that scenario?

People are not angry at the club yet. They're angry at the possibility that the club may choose not to match the bid and just accept this compensation. There is no point making threats like "if Saint Kilda don't offer enough to give us band 1 compensation, we'll match the bid" if we're not going to follow through. It just leads to clubs calling our bluff - exactly like Saint Kilda has done in this instance.

This is not a Nick Stevens

Multiple players found. Use birthday to differentiate. eg [PLAYERCARD="23/11/1962"]Joe Smith[/PLAYERCARD]

scenario, it's not as though we are risking losing Brad for nothing. If we match the bid and Saint Kilda refuses to play ball on a trade, then he plays for us next year. Given our list profile, it's not like we should be hard up for cash, and we're not exactly likely to be premiership threats either way. If he still wants out at the end of 2021, maybe whichever club is interested then will realise we won't be taken advantage of, and will put a proper contract in front of him.

Or, better scenario, we get something good out of Saint Kilda. Certainly, it couldn't be anything worse than pick 23!

The only real arguments for not matching the bid are A) being "good citizens" to Brad which, I mean, * him, that's not what we're here to do and he hasn't exactly been a good citizen himself, and B) fear that we may get stuck with him and his (marginally) inflated contract for a few years. I'm willing to risk B) in order to avoid being seen as absolute pushovers in trade week.

Look at our reputation at bidding on academy players. We've done it often enough now that clubs are lining up to help us trade up during in the draft, just to avoid the risk of us putting in an early bid. That's what establishing a strong reputation does, clubs will give you a bit extra than you deserve just to avoid you sticking it to them.

Whereas our reputation in trading our our players is that we'll roll over and let clubs get away with low-balling us. It's time to do something about that.

 

[GROTTO]

All of this indicates that the man-management of our players is still terrible. It is what has brought us undone in the last decade. Unless all systems are working well - we'll still be sh*t. Surely we can find someone better than Reid and Ricciuto. Kelly has failed dismally in his first transaction, unless we match and he stays or we come away with a top 15 pick - in which case he may have just broken even in a very messy way.

I would rather us get screwed by matching the Saints offer then to get screwed in accepting Pick 23.

 

[Large 1]

You could argue, though, if we weren't matching that would have happened already too.
For mine, the silence doesn't really indicate anything at the moment. I have absolutely no idea which way this is heading. Also, my gut feeling means nothing.

This post perfectly sums up this whole thing! if only we were all this honest.

Yet here we are with a gazillion posts.

 

[dogs105]

What incentive does Saint Kilda have to trade picks with us to give us a better outcome? Why wouldn't they just take Brad for free and keep their picks in that scenario.

People are not angry at the club yet. They're angry at the possibility that the club may choose not to match the bid and just accept this compensation. There is no point making threats like "if Saint Kilda don't offer enough to give us band 1 compensation, we'll match the bid" if we're not going to follow through. It just leads to clubs calling our bluff - exactly like Saint Kilda has done in this instance.

This is not a Nick Stevens

Multiple players found. Use birthday to differentiate. eg [PLAYERCARD="23/11/1962"]Joe Smith[/PLAYERCARD]

scenario, it's not as though we are risking losing Brad for nothing. If we match the bid and Saint Kilda refuses to play ball on a trade, then he plays for us next year. Given our list profile, it's not like we should be hard up for cash, and we're not exactly likely to be premiership threats either way. If he still wants out at the end of 2021, maybe whichever club is interested then will realise we won't be taken advantage of, and will put a proper contract in front of him.

Or, better scenario, we get something good out of Saint Kilda. Certainly, it couldn't be anything worse than pick 23!

The only real arguments for not matching the bid are A) being "good citizens" to Brad which, I mean, fu** him, that's not what we're here to do and he hasn't exactly been a good citizen himself, and B) fear that we may get stuck with him and his (marginally) inflated contract for a few years. I'm willing to risk B) in order to avoid being seen as absolute pushovers in trade week.

Look at our reputation at bidding on academy players. We've done it often enough now that clubs are lining up to help us trade up during in the draft, just to avoid the risk of us putting in an early bid. That's what establishing a strong reputation does, clubs will give you a bit extra than you deserve just to avoid you sticking it to them.

Whereas our reputation in trading our our players is that we'll roll over and let clubs get away with low-balling us. It's time to do something about that.

Because we don't match if they trade with us. Just don't put that in an email.

 

[baldandbroke]

Can we change our mascot from crows to crickets?

Cool ... I knew the new Hobart basketball was ahead of the curve choosing an insect!!

 

[hey shorty]

I posted this morning that I felt it would be a "no match" and we would take the band 2 compo, and we'd trade picks with the Saints to make the outcome better. I still believe that's the likely outcome.

Theres no point in matching if you don't want the player. Match and trade makes no sense when you have a compo pick available to you which evaporates in a trade and match scenario. Yes Kelly said band 1 or match, but saying that keeps the Saints honest in negotiations. Assuming they want Brad enough it ensures they want to avoid a match situation.

It blows my mind that they didn't just pay Brad enough to guarantee that. A free hit was on offer which was surely worth an extra $100k pa. But Brad's patchy history obviously worried them enough to make them lower their base and add a bunch of triggers.

We obviously don't want Brad on the terms the Saints have put forward. He shopped himself last year and would have gone to GC had they not got cold feet (or another reason). We put a decent offer to him which he rejected and which we then withdrew. That, together with the difficulties we have had with him was probably enough for us to put a line through him.

I get the anger about not getting pick 2, but I don't quite get the anger at the club. This isn't a trade. Adelaide can't control what St Kilda or the AFL do. The criticism is that we clearly misread his market value. It sounds to me as though, if this wasn't an RFA year for Brad, we would have been looking to trade him anyway, given that we told him to explore offers. So we clearly saw an opportunity to get a band 1 pick, probably based on what GC offered him last year.

In the context of all that, I'm ok with the club taking the compo and trading picks to get us a better final outcome. Pissed with no band 1, pissed with the Saints for not making a better offer, pissed with the AFL for their stupid manipulation, pissed that another first round pick (which he basically was) has turned into a bust and wasted talent, pissed with the club for getting itself into this position. But ok with them trying to make the best of another sh*t hand.

We've had our disagreements on the odd occasion but it this hits the nail on the head for me. If we take 23 and do nothing with it it'll infuriate me, but if we can turn it into something of value then it becomes palatable.

 

[Ramify]

As do I

Only time I go.

 

[GROTTO]

We've had our disagreements on the odd occasion but it this hits the nail on the head for me. If we take 23 and do nothing with it it'll infuriate me, but if we can turn it into something of value then it becomes palatable.

Ironically didnt we get Mrouch for a Pick in the 20s for Vince?

 

[feenix67]

We are going to have to get clever, are we caiable of that ??

We don't have a lot of leverage. St Kilda offer tells us how much they want him (a fair bit but not at too high a cost). But we've also shown that we dont really want him, by withdrawing our offer earlier in the year. That's where the problem sits, and we were stupid to get spooked by GC and offer Brad a bigger deal than we should have back then, particularly when we knew why they backed out. So we can push St Kilda a bit, but not too much because they'll walk away. That's why I'm thinking a pick swap of their first rounder with our second rounder (5 pick downgrade for them) or their pick next year likely around the 14 mark.

This isn't a normal FA situation, because Brad would have happily stayed. We're basically using the FA to leverage a better outcome (by gaining a pick that doesn't otherwise exist) than we would have gotten for Brad in a straight trade.

 

[1970crow]

We don’t actually have to match - we can just show the Saints we can and work out a trade - which is what might be happening right now.

Tomorrow we will know..

Even if that's true, why wouldn't we just match and then trade. Saints would see straight through us and into our weakness I doubt it's true though. The AFL have a lodged playing contract between Saints and Brad. To cancel that we need to excercise our right of refusal. Unless Saints can withdraw the FA contract lodged with the AFL, he's more ir less a Saints player as we speak.

 

[The Sloane Ranger]

We've had our disagreements on the odd occasion but it this hits the nail on the head for me. If we take 23 and do nothing with it it'll infuriate me, but if we can turn it into something of value then it becomes palatable.

This is a valid point

Taking 23 woukd need to be the first part of the transaction, what we do with pick 23 needs to be considered on how we assess the overall outcome

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SaltPeter]

We don't have a lot of leverage. St Kilda offer tells us how much they want him (a fair bit but not at too high a cost). But we've also shown that we dont really want him, by withdrawing our offer earlier in the year. That's where the problem sits, and we were stupid to get spooked by GC and offer Brad a bigger deal than we should have back then, particularly when we knew why they backed out. So we can push St Kilda a bit, but not too much because they'll walk away. That's why I'm thinking a pick swap of their first rounder with our second rounder (5 pick downgrade for them) or their pick next year likely around the 14 mark.

This isn't a normal FA situation, because Brad would have happily stayed. We're basically using the FA to leverage a better outcome (by gaining a pick that doesn't otherwise exist) than we would have gotten for Brad in a straight trade.

Why did GC back out of their interesting Brad? Was it simply his salary demands?

 

[feenix67]

What incentive does Saint Kilda have to trade picks with us to give us a better outcome? Why wouldn't they just take Brad for free and keep their picks in that scenario?

I think that's why it was lodged sunday, so that the start of trade overlapped the deadline. It'll be "do the pick swap or we will match".

 

[Anzacpaul]

We don't have a lot of leverage. St Kilda offer tells us how much they want him (a fair bit but not at too high a cost). But we've also shown that we dont really want him, by withdrawing our offer earlier in the year. That's where the problem sits, and we were stupid to get spooked by GC and offer Brad a bigger deal than we should have back then, particularly when we knew why they backed out. So we can push St Kilda a bit, but not too much because they'll walk away. That's why I'm thinking a pick swap of their first rounder with our second rounder (5 pick downgrade for them) or their pick next year likely around the 14 mark.

This isn't a normal FA situation, because Brad would have happily stayed. We're basically using the FA to leverage a better outcome (by gaining a pick that doesn't otherwise exist) than we would have gotten for Brad in a straight trade.

Brad is worth a pick between 10-15 every day of the week, without us giving up anything.

We'll have to give up Brad, his compo pick, and likely another second rounder of ours to get something close to that.


Let us keep him, and tell every club if they want him, to come back with a pick in that range next year.

 

[Deaneus!]

We should at least match, so the AFLPA is forced to come out and talk about player welfare and such while a deal is thrashed out

He also said Binuk had left the club and was adamant last week that the deal was definitely 800-850k per season and would trigger band 1. Also, the club can’t just match the base contract, they have to match the triggers as well. Triggers only don’t get included in compo calculations.

I'd take Band 1 for Binuk, so long as we got someone like Nate Silver on the open market

 

[Large 1]

Could also be exploited by the team receiving the player in this case.

Imagine Saints already have pick 2 (less important later in the round), they'd artificially lower Brad's contract with soft triggers to avoid us getting pick 2 before theirs.

In your scenario perhaps the answer is ok what does the player average over the last 3 years... 50 goals a season? Ok this means the team values 50 goals at $200,000 and becomes a $600,000 player for the purpose of compensation.

Or calculate the chance of a player hitting performance triggers based on recent career averages and including that in the compensation calculations.

With ridiculous ones like a midfielder kicking 150 goals just isn't approved by the AFL.

I don't know, there has to be a better way.

I was always against compensation at all, with the reward being the extra cap space to go out and get your own free agent but the possibility of pick 2 (temporarily) changed my mind this season.

The key is to remove triggers from free agency contracts.

or the matching club only needs to match the base with no triggers.

the fact that the matching club needs to match aspects which are not considered in compensation is farcical.

 

[Murray2503]

I keep hearing folk say that the Saints hold all the cards, how is this so?
They want Brad, they pay up. I’m not sure how them wanting to keep picks for the off chance of getting King is your concern. The Saints midfield will cost them going further next year and if they pass off on Crouch and slip backwards next year the fans would lynch the club. It’s up to them to get it done

Brad won't play another game for us even if we did match(which we won't). It's in the saints and our best interests that the crows end up with a pick around 14. Will be a combo of pick 23 and a mid 20's pick that will be agreed now and sorted out once the trade week starts. Those picks will be the traded to WB for 14. Sure I would have loved pick 2 but the saints and Brad did what's best for them which I can understand. Pick 14 is likely his value in a trade. We end up with 1,9,14, 22,31,46,52,62,76. I feel we will trade 9 up to pick 5 if possible which will give us a very good draft hand.

 

[hey shorty]

This is a valid point

Taking 23 woukd need to be the first part of the transaction, what we do with pick 23 needs to be considered on how we assess the overall outcome

On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app

Some here won't like it, but if taking a loss on the first part leads to a reasonable outcome overall then that's good.

But the optics of rolling over aren't good.[/QUOTE]

 

[SugarShane]

Imagine the Saints triggers?

If Crouch plays a game in 2021 he gets an extra $100k.

To be fair, even 1 game isn't a given with Brad. We would've saved $200k so far on that deal.

 

[Mego Red]

For those sending emails to the club - would love to hear if anyone gets a response


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

No yet, no. Emailed Fagan.

 

[hidden]

We (and the club) know that Brad has 1 strike due to his error of judgment recently. Neither the club or the supporters are aware if there could be another one. Could the club be worried about this possibility?