Unofficial Preview Sam and Tom break WA's brain and other Trade discussions 2025

[birch]

I can see where you're coming from but given Carlton's turnaround in form and any F/S or Academy picks there might be, our first-rounder this year may not even be a Top 10 pick - and I don't think the other club would think our first-rounder will be a Top 10 pick in the 2026 draft either.

If we're going to net a big fish, we will, in all likelihood, have to give up a member of our Best 23 (in addition to draft picks) and it might well be a Hawks nuffie like Scrimmers or Frenchie or Wardy - or even Moorey, although Dyl's probably the least likely candidate in terms of whom we'll put on the trade table.

Moore out would be culture destroying

 

[The Jet From Poowong]

Butters would be awesome but I don't want to endure trade week of trying to do a deal with Port.

Remember the Wingard deal?
Them: Would you give us your first pick and ... Burton?
Us. Hmmm. Yeah, maybe... ok, I guess.
Them: Run to the media: They offered us Burton... and a first rounder... and we said no.

Absolute campaigners.

They sure are. They like to play the woe-is-we card, but they are grubs from top to bottom. Would never trust them on anything, especially Davies.

 

[hawkinoz]

Can't see the players association ever allowing it without some MASSIVE concessions coming with it. It would also be legally fraught so even if the AFLPA went for it I could see a jilted player taking legal action sometime with it.

Won't be an issue if this is written into player contracts after AFLPA green lights it. Players can sign contracts with some parts of their contracts allowing clubs to trade without consent(providing they get same $$$ at bare minimum), may even have clauses restricting trade to clubs on east coast or same state.

Clubs doling out long contracts would ideally like to have such clauses. I will be willing to offer Reid a 10yr contract if such a clause is put in.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Won't be an issue if this is written into player contracts after AFLPA green lights it. Players can sign contracts with some parts of their contracts allowing clubs to trade without consent(providing they get same $$$ at bare minimum), may even have clauses restricting trade to clubs on east coast or same state.

Clubs doling out long contracts would ideally like to have such clauses. I will be willing to offer Reid a 10yr contract if such a clause is put in.

I am by no means a legal expert (and those who are on here please correct me if I am wrong) but even if this was entered into the CBA I think a player could still challenge it in the courts and there is at least some precedence to back them. In this day and age I doubt it would be long until a player challenged their trade in the courts which could open up a larger can of worms around the draft itself as a concept.

That and personally I just don't like it. Players aren't commodities and can't be treated like such just because it would make life easier for clubs.

 

[Judd2Sewell]

I can see where you're coming from but given Carlton's turnaround in form and any F/S or Academy picks there might be, our first-rounder this year may not even be a Top 10 pick - and I don't think the other club would think our first-rounder will be a Top 10 pick in the 2026 draft either.

If we're going to net a big fish, we will, in all likelihood, have to give up a member of our Best 23 (in addition to draft picks) and it might well be a Hawks nuffie like Scrimmers or Frenchie or Wardy - or even Moorey, although Dyl's probably the least likely candidate in terms of whom we'll put on the trade table.

I reckon Day, Newcombe, Weddle, Moore, (fit) Sicily, Dear and the Wizard are untouchables. Battle and Barrass too given they are recent acquisitions.

Ward and CJ were names that were up for discussion. Though who knows whether that's changed recently, given the development that Ward has demonstrated.

 

[Simon Crawshay]

I can see where you're coming from but given Carlton's turnaround in form and any F/S or Academy picks there might be, our first-rounder this year may not even be a Top 10 pick - and I don't think the other club would think our first-rounder will be a Top 10 pick in the 2026 draft either.

If we're going to net a big fish, we will, in all likelihood, have to give up a member of our Best 23 (in addition to draft picks) and it might well be a Hawks nuffie like Scrimmers or Frenchie or Wardy - or even Moorey, although Dyl's probably the least likely candidate in terms of whom we'll put on the trade table.

Don't really want to lose any of those players to be totally honest.

They would have to agree to leave as well wouldn't they?

Maybe we could trade our first round pick for 2026, plus our first round pick for 2027 and a fringe 23 player like say CJ / Hustwaithe / Serong?

 

[Rushed_Behind]

I am by no means a legal expert (and those who are on here please correct me if I am wrong) but even if this was entered into the CBA I think a player could still challenge it in the courts and there is at least some precedence to back them. In this day and age I doubt it would be long until a player challenged their trade in the courts which could open up a larger can of worms around the draft itself as a concept.

That and personally I just don't like it. Players aren't commodities and can't be treated like such just because it would make life easier for clubs.

I’m probably a little off topic but I think what is annoying the clubs is contracted players asking for trades and picking a specific club which leaves the club with no alternative action.

If a clause is written or some kind of rule where players pick 3 clubs they’re happy to get traded to then at least it forces an auction of sorts.

The counter to this would mean FA would trigger for all uncontracted players after 5-6 years and its unrestricted and maybe only if said player is in top 5-10% paid player on list compensation would be available.

 

[Blackhawk42]

There is zero chance the AFLPA ever agree to trading with consent from the player.

American sports are incredibly different.
And Europe is so close together that isn't really a massive move on the players behalf wherever they end up.

If Sydney are still hovering mid-table in a couple of years, do we expect a scenario where Errol Gulden is sent to Tasmania without a say in the matter??

And it can't run on a state by state basis because then the concept is completely unbalanced.

What SHOULD happen, is that if a player is returning to their home state via a trade request, then any club from that state can outbid for their services.

No more Tim Kelly

11

Tim Kelly

Age

31

Ht

184cm

Wt

83kg

Pos.

M/F

Career

Season

Last 5

D

23.6

5star

K

13.5

5star

HB

10.1

5star

M

3.4

3star

T

4.0

5star

CL

4.9

5star

D

19.9

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

7.6

4star

M

3.1

3star

T

4.7

5star

CL

3.6

4star

D

21.6

5star

K

10.4

4star

HB

11.2

5star

M

2.8

3star

T

3.8

5star

CL

3.8

5star

being shockingly homesick but refusing to play for Fremantle situations.

 

[Sixpence]

If we're going to net a big fish, we will, in all likelihood, have to give up a member of our Best 23 (in addition to draft picks) and it might well be a Hawks nuffie like Scrimmers or Frenchie or Wardy - or even Moorey, although Dyl's probably the least likely candidate in terms of whom we'll put on the trade table.

Why on earth would we trade our next Captain out?

 

[unitedhawk2]

Why on earth would we trade our next Captain out?

We won't. I only included him in the list because he's also a Hawthorn nuffie, like the other three.

 

[unitedhawk2]

Don't really want to lose any of those players to be totally honest.

They would have to agree to leave as well wouldn't they?

Maybe we could trade our first round pick for 2026, plus our first round pick for 2027 and a fringe 23 player like say CJ / Hustwaithe / Serong?

If I look at that from the perspective of WCE (Reid) or Port (Butters), am i happy with two first-round picks that will probably be in the teens plus a fringe 23 player? Probably not, which is why I reckon we might have to part with one who's an established part of the best 23.

 

[I got the outside word]

If Sydney are still hovering mid-table in a couple of years, do we expect a scenario where Errol Gulden is sent to Tasmania without a say in the matter??

Yes. I mean, he could just walk into another job that pays him a million dollars a year… Oh wait…

 

[HawthornHawk]

Can't see the players association ever allowing it without some MASSIVE concessions coming with it. It would also be legally fraught so even if the AFLPA went for it I could see a jilted player taking legal action sometime with it.

No-Trade clauses will just become fairly common in contracts if this comes up

 

[Nugett]

I’m probably a little off topic but I think what is annoying the clubs is contracted players asking for trades and picking a specific club which leaves the club with no alternative action.

If a clause is written or some kind of rule where players pick 3 clubs they’re happy to get traded to then at least it forces an auction of sorts.

The counter to this would mean FA would trigger for all uncontracted players after 5-6 years and its unrestricted and maybe only if said player is in top 5-10% paid player on list compensation would be available.

If a player is contracted, and decide to go back to their home state, then clubs in a 50km area should be able to trade for that player, rather than the player dictating a certain club. Just for the other club to receive a fairer trade value. Players out of contract can decide certain clubs to negotiate with.

 

[offtherails9]

There a murmurings around the next players agreement to include trading without consent similar to other sports.

I just can't see it happening in AFL for whatever reason. My gut feel is players probably don't get paid enough to have to do that, plus our culture is more home based, whereas US for example, the kids move out at 17/18 for college, it's a different culture.

 

[Brant]

There is zero chance the AFLPA ever agree to trading with consent from the player.
American sports are incredibly different.
And Europe is so close together that isn't really a massive move on the players behalf wherever they end up.

If Sydney are still hovering mid-table in a couple of years, do we expect a scenario where Errol Gulden is sent to Tasmania without a say in the matter??

And it can't run on a state by state basis because then the concept is completely unbalanced.

What SHOULD happen, is that if a player is returning to their home state via a trade request, then any club from that state can outbid for their services.

No more Tim Kelly being shockingly homesick but refusing to play for Fremantle situations.

Bizarre take.

Surely a forced move 1,000km across Europe, with completely different language etc., is harsher on a player than a forced move from say Richmond to Hawthorn, where you'd barely have to find a new favourite butcher.

 

[Sonny Hayes]

Butters would be awesome but I don't want to endure trade week of trying to do a deal with Port.

Remember the Wingard deal?
Them: Would you give us your first pick and ... Burton?
Us. Hmmm. Yeah, maybe... ok, I guess.
Them: Run to the media: They offered us Burton... and a first rounder... and we said no.

Absolute campaigners.

I would endure a week living in a small 1 room apartment and no access to the outside world for Butters, it may be torture but the pay off is still worth it.

 

[wahawk]

Bizarre take.

Surely a forced move 1,000km across Europe, with completely different language etc., is harsher on a player than a forced move from say Richmond to Hawthorn, where you'd barely have to find a new favourite butcher.

Favourite what ?

Have they not gone the way of the milkman ?

 

[Dewnior]

I think it shows the importance of being first (and the value of family connections!) to control the media narrative.

Burton essentially found out from social media and 3rd parties. We were the last to talk to him and by then the "story" had already been told - we looked like we were telling lies to try and save face.

Burton was in the US with his GF at the time of the trade discussions. As we have always done - when a contracted player is brought up, we delay negotiations to talk with the player. (Never want another Croad situation, no matter how well it worked out).

We waited hours to call Burton to discuss his thoughts - from memory it was about 8am (US). Port, via his girlfriend's father rang them in the middle of the night (obviously you answer calls from family anytime day or night), telling her Hawthorn had offered him up for trade. It was all over social media before we had even made contact.

By the time we spoke to Burton to see if he was interested in going "home", it was already all over the media that WE had offered him, Burton was angry and the family had started planning moving arrangements.

That decision (to delay talking to a contracted player on holidays until a reasonable time) cost us significantly at the trade table IMO.

We did the right thing. It was a dog act by Port intended to weaken our negotiating position.

 

[tl92]

Bizarre take.

Surely a forced move 1,000km across Europe, with completely different language etc., is harsher on a player than a forced move from say Richmond to Hawthorn, where you'd barely have to find a new favourite butcher.

Soccer doesn’t allow forced moves if that’s what this is referencing

 

[HawthornHawk]

Soccer doesn’t allow forced moves if that’s what this is referencing

No but they just force players to train with the under 21's until they agree to leave

 

[tl92]

No but they just force players to train with the under 21's until they agree to leave

Haha they definitely do that. My club Chelsea doesn’t let them even use the team car park if they want them out.

 

[play2win]

Why not let the players decide what type of contract they agree to? Some may want power of veto to a trade/move, others may allow anything goes as long as they are contracted. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

 

[Brant]

Why not let the players decide what type of contract they agree to? Some may want power of veto to a trade/move, others may allow anything goes as long as they are contracted. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

Great idea.
Some might negotiate a higher wage, knowing they could be traded. Others might take 'unders' because longevity or location is more important than dollar amount.

 

[HawthornHawk]

Why not let the players decide what type of contract they agree to? Some may want power of veto to a trade/move, others may allow anything goes as long as they are contracted. It doesn’t have to be one or the other.

Yep, and clubs will be willing to pay a player more if they know they can torpedo the contract when it suits them.