2019 Collingwood club focus thread
Lore
Moderator ❀
- Dec 14, 2015
- 44,904
- 66,338
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Jye Caldwell & Georgia Clarke
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because you don't trade an A grade mid when you missed out on grand final by less than a goal.Wow how did this happen, IIRC last year Collingwood inquired as to what it would take for GCS to give up pick one, presumably so they could draft Matt Rowell, GCS came back with Adam Tralore, If the Pies knew, which you would assume they did, how much trouble they were in, regarding the salary cap, why didn’t this deal get done, GCS would of probably paid all of Tralore’s contract and the Pies would have Rowell on there books.PLAYERCARDSTART18Matt Rowell
- Age
- 22
- Ht
- 180cm
- Wt
- 82kg
- Pos.
- Mid
CareerSeasonLast 5
- D
- 17.4
- 4star
- K
- 7.6
- 3star
- HB
- 9.8
- 5star
- M
- 0.8
- 1star
- T
- 5.2
- 5star
- CL
- 3.8
- 5star
- D
- 17.4
- 4star
- K
- 7.6
- 3star
- HB
- 9.8
- 5star
- M
- 0.8
- 1star
- T
- 5.2
- 5star
- CL
- 3.8
- 5star
- D
- 17.4
- 5star
- K
- 7.6
- 3star
- HB
- 9.8
- 5star
- M
- 0.8
- 1star
- T
- 5.2
- 5star
- CL
- 3.8
- 5star
PLAYERCARDEND
The only reason I can see, as to why this deal didn’t get done, is Tralore understandably not wanting to go, but what Tralore wanted seems to have mattered very little to Collingwood this year.
Talk about sliding doors, smh big time.
Because you don't trade an A grade mid when you missed out on grand final by less than a goal.
Not that you lot would know what that's like.
Very quickly, I wanted to raise a question here, and a possible solution to salary cap issues for x club (maybe what Collingwood could of done?).
Assuming a player can be traded multiple times.
Scenario - player A is paid $500,000, team x wants to play them $300,000.
Solution - trade player A to team y for say pick 30, then trade player A back to team x, but team y pays $200,000 and receives a higher pick, say 15.
Outcome - team y loses $200,000 on their salary cap to upgrade pick 30 to 15, team x gains $200,000 but downgrade a pick from 15 to 30. Essentially trading picks for money.
Is there any reason a team couldn't do this?
That's the trade, you want to keep the player, so you give up some picks to offload money.There's no reason why it can't happen, but why would the team x "gift" team y a draft upgrade when the sole reason to move the player is to dump salary from their mismanaged TPP?
Because you don't trade an A grade mid when you missed out on grand final by less than a goal.
Not that you lot would know what that's like.
Yes list managers did an appalling job at trading the players.If you’re salary cap is that out of control, then all that means nothing.
I could understand this kind of thing creeping up on a club pre 2000, but modern football clubs are so professionally run these days, it’s hard to fathom how this could possibly happen.
I feel for Collingwood supporters, when we lost our draft picks it did so much damage to our club in so many ways and it’s us supporters who feel the pain the most, whoever is involved in the clubs list management should be sacked immediately or even better, be a man and come out and say I messed up apologise and resign.
Yes list managers did an appalling job at trading the players.
But what part of going all in when you're a prime premiership contender is so hard to understand?
Yes list managers did an appalling job at trading the players.
Very quickly, I wanted to raise a question here, and a possible solution to salary cap issues for x club (maybe what Collingwood could of done?).
Assuming a player can be traded multiple times.
Scenario - player A is paid $500,000, team x wants to play them $300,000.
Solution - trade player A to team y for say pick 30, then trade player A back to team x, but team y pays $200,000 and receives a higher pick, say 15.
Outcome - team y loses $200,000 on their salary cap to upgrade pick 30 to 15, team x gains $200,000 but downgrade a pick from 15 to 30. Essentially trading picks for money.
Is there any reason a team couldn't do this?
There's no reason why it can't happen, but why would the team x "gift" team y a draft upgrade when the sole reason to move the player is to dump salary from their mismanaged TPP?
Also funny how the tune has compleely changed. For the best part of 2 years, I've seen fans bash Treloar for his inside 50 entry and the same goes for Phillips. Plenty of Pies fans also teed off at Stephenson this year and now the three are gone, they are suddenly treated as top 5 players in the comp. No doubt we got some big unders on them but they were the right players to move on. Personally, I'm most annoyed about Atu.
Oh I agree. THe whole situation was handled abysmally. But plenty of people have been complaining we lost players that have frustrated supporters for 1-2 years for too little when we had to move them on. THat is the part I don't get. Atu as well to me makes the least amount of sense. He would be on the minimum and almost an asset to our cap space yet we traded him.The whole story has never been about the individual players, it’s been about the how and the why.
You signed Treloar up until 2025 and kept pushing his agreed money back, using his loyalty against him, only to shaft him and use his wife as an excuse as to why he needed to be out the door.
Stephenson didn’t even know he was up for trade until a few days before it happened and had to call Bucks himself to get an explanation. Atu was another promising kid who had shown a bit, thrown away for peanuts.
Phillips seems the only one who was handled well. Replace any of those names with four other names and it’s still the same embarrassing story. Starts at the head who will never be challenged.
Very quickly, I wanted to raise a question here, and a possible solution to salary cap issues for x club (maybe what Collingwood could of done?).
Assuming a player can be traded multiple times.
Scenario - player A is paid $500,000, team x wants to play them $300,000.
Solution - trade player A to team y for say pick 30, then trade player A back to team x, but team y pays $200,000 and receives a higher pick, say 15.
Outcome - team y loses $200,000 on their salary cap to upgrade pick 30 to 15, team x gains $200,000 but downgrade a pick from 15 to 30. Essentially trading picks for money.
Is there any reason a team couldn't do this?
There's no reason why it can't happen, but why would the team x "gift" team y a draft upgrade when the sole reason to move the player is to dump salary from their mismanaged TPP?
That's the trade, you want to keep the player, so you give up some picks to offload money.
As a swans supporter, maybe we offload $500,000 for pick 3 and pick up another expensive player.
Or a top team can expand their salary cap to keep their premiership window open by trading out picks.
Or a team like North, who would almost certainly be under the cap with their delistings, could try to get a few extra picks by taking a few $ off other clubs.
Easily see a situation where Collingwood trades out next year first for some cap space, and North get another top pick and get to the salary floor. This means Collingwood could keep all they're players, and hence their premiership window.
I don't think GCS in a rush to trade it out , Sydney future second also look good. Pick 27 after jamala bid become 26 , pick 37 after Campbell bid could go up to 34/35.A lot of talk we are trying to get right up the draft order by trading off multiple first round picks (including next years).
As much as I'd like one of the big 6 I think I've settled on being happy enough with taking the Port model of taking 3 picks inside 20; before a Reef bid.
Now that clubs can stock pile picks again to match bids I'm hoping that we are talking to the Suns about their pick 27 and 37.
An article on the AFL site today mentioned that the Suns are likely to only have 1 live pick (#5). They have a couple of academy prospects but I'm lead to believe that they can pre list them and get them in outside of the draft. We have 2 x future 2nd round picks. I'd be seeing if the Suns wanted one of them in exchange for 27 and 37 this year. 27 and 37 would give us plenty of points to match on Reef. If the bid comes in around 20.
There's talk you guys want to move up the pick order as a priority.I don't think GCS in a rush to trade it out , Sydney future second also look good. Pick 27 after jamala bid become 26 , pick 37 after Campbell bid could go up to 34/35.
A lot of talk we are trying to get right up the draft order by trading off multiple first round picks (including next years).
As much as I'd like one of the big 6 I think I've settled on being happy enough with taking the Port model of taking 3 picks inside 20; before a Reef bid.
Now that clubs can stock pile picks again to match bids I'm hoping that we are talking to the Suns about their pick 27 and 37.
An article on the AFL site today mentioned that the Suns are likely to only have 1 live pick (#5). They have a couple of academy prospects but I'm lead to believe that they can pre list them and get them in outside of the draft. We have 2 x future 2nd round picks. I'd be seeing if the Suns wanted one of them in exchange for 27 and 37 this year. 27 and 37 would give us plenty of points to match on Reef. If the bid comes in around 20.
Either Mc or DGB , but if can't move up , most probably trade it out for future 2 and keep 5 .There's talk you guys want to move up the pick order as a priority.
Any idea who you might be keen on in particular?
we would not have traded Treloar for Matt RowellWow how did this happen, IIRC last year Collingwood inquired as to what it would take for GCS to give up pick one, presumably so they could draft Matt Rowell, GCS came back with Adam Traloar, If the Pies knew, which you would assume they did, how much trouble they were in, regarding the salary cap, why didn’t this deal get done, GCS would of probably paid all of Traloar’s contract and the Pies would have Rowell on there books.PLAYERCARDSTART18Matt Rowell
- Age
- 22
- Ht
- 180cm
- Wt
- 82kg
- Pos.
- Mid
CareerSeasonLast 5
- D
- 17.4
- 4star
- K
- 7.6
- 3star
- HB
- 9.8
- 5star
- M
- 0.8
- 1star
- T
- 5.2
- 5star
- CL
- 3.8
- 5star
- D
- 17.4
- 4star
- K
- 7.6
- 3star
- HB
- 9.8
- 5star
- M
- 0.8
- 1star
- T
- 5.2
- 5star
- CL
- 3.8
- 5star
- D
- 17.4
- 5star
- K
- 7.6
- 3star
- HB
- 9.8
- 5star
- M
- 0.8
- 1star
- T
- 5.2
- 5star
- CL
- 3.8
- 5star
PLAYERCARDEND
The only reason I can see, as to why this deal didn’t get done, is Traloar understandably not wanting to go, but what Traloar wanted seems to have mattered very little to Collingwood this year.
Talk about sliding doors, smh big time.
If that comment was true, why didn’t any other club go for him? Saints went for Higgins and Carlton renewed Eddie’s contract. Something not quite right with Jaiydn. Smells funny.So all the Pies fans wailing about ‘the best youngster we have had in over a decade’ are wrong?
If that comment was true, why didn’t any other club go for him? Saints went for Higgins and Carlton renewed Eddie’s contract. Something not quite right with Jaiydn. Smells funny.
Understand, we’ve got JDG. But in Stephenson’s case, absolutely no-one was interested. You’d think Saints would rather him than Higgins and Blues would rather him than Betts. Absolutely no nibbles outside North is quite concerning for him.There are plenty of examples of young players who have been wayward off the field who have been managed by clubs because they have high level talent. One of the greatest players of all time was a hot mess off the field and on the training track for his entire career (Ablett senior).
Understand, we’ve got JDG. But in Stephenson’s case, absolutely no-one was interested. You’d think Saints would rather him than Higgins and Blues would rather him than Betts. Absolutely no nibbles outside North is quite concerning for him.
No current season stats available
Nobles drink apparentlyIf that comment was true, why didn’t any other club go for him? Saints went for Higgins and Carlton renewed Eddie’s contract. Something not quite right with Jaiydn. Smells funny.