Until players can get traded without consent you'll see more players opting for flag contenders. Maybe his opinion is that GCS are a better chance than us next year. hard to argue with.
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
List Mgmt. 2025 Trade/FA Thread (Cont’d)
- Thread starter TradeDraft
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Until players can get traded without consent you'll see more players opting for flag contenders. Maybe his opinion is that GCS are a better chance than us next year. hard to argue with.
- Oct 30, 2020
- 1,001
- 2,033
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
What's the rules for trading our first rounders? We can't trade 26 and 27? We can trade one but not both, or we can trade both? I'm curious how we would get Humphry if he forced a trade? I don't see how we get anything done unless one of our better players wants out.
Blues would be mad not to consider a trading Curnow for him
Thinking Magpie
Debutant
- Sep 16, 2020
- 99
- 206
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Maybe we can get involved with a three way trade with Melb & GC via Mihocek to enable Melb to retain other trade benefits (eg: Spargo etc)...?
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
Does Humphrey fit the BIG FISH title?
- Jul 2, 2017
- 10,150
- 22,775
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Turns out living with two AFLW players might not be the slam dunk of "he loves it in Gold Coast and would never leave."
Does anybody else feel the frustration that while other clubs (northern academies, and “destination clubs” like Geelong or Hawthorn) seem to be able to top up their lists with blue-chip talent every year, it feels we are constantly constrained, reactive, or stagnant in comparison?
Are the back ended or the deferred contracts still impacting us now? While most of those specific contracts are gone, the lessons from that period are still shaping the club’s list management
The current approach has been to lock away players early on medium/long deals (Nick Daicos (2029 on $1m+), Josh Daicos (2029 on $900k), Moore (2028 on $900k), Perryman (2030 on $900k), Crisp (2026 on $750-$800), De Goey (2027 on $800k) and Houston (2030 on $850-900k)
This year we have re-signed Hill and Maynard to 4-year contracts on $$$, re-negotiated Cameron’s contract for next year & extended for a further 3 years (2029) and just this week signed Elliott for 2 years and reportedly nearly doubling his wage at the age of 33. These players have been described by BF posters & acknowledged by the club as “glue-type” players, and important for culture, leadership and continuity
This spreads risk — but it means cap space is constantly spoken for, and the “flexibility” for a big fish is minimal unless you sacrifice glue players.
So while the deferred payments aren’t still being paid out, the strategy of front-loading vs back-loading is now influencing how deals are structured — but the effect is the same: our salary cap is always tight if we carry a dozen players on $700k–$1m+
We must balance two competing priorities:
Right now, we appear to have leaned heavily toward priority (1). That has given stability, leadership, and helped win a flag in 2023. But it does mean players like Matt Rowell (if he had been lured) would almost certainly have required offloading one or two senior players.
Over the past decade, we have consistently passed on early key position draftees (except Moore, who was a father-son), preferring mids, runners, and HBF’s.
The result has been a ruck/forward mix of Lynch, White, Cameron, Cox, McStay, Frampton (all serviceable but not stars), and currently a handful of project talls (Howes, Cochran, Smit, Steene).
Contrast this with Geelong, who’ve stockpiled tall talent (Hawkins, De Koning, Henry, Stewart, Cameron, Blicavs) and continue to target KPPs aggressively.
When you’re perpetually patching with “stop-gap” talls, it means you’re either overpaying in trades/FA such as McStay or stuck hoping one of the kids develops.
This appears to be a recruiting/ drafting strategy problem rather than just cap management.
Did we need either or both of Perryman and Houston? Both were expensive gets (Houston via trade, Perryman via free agency). Both are similar types (hard-running half-backs). Recruiting both, while already stacked in those roles, has added depth — but arguably at the expense of balancing our list (key forwards, key mids, key defenders). It reflects our tendency to double down on half-backs rather than address glaring KPP and midfield needs.
Brisbane: Have an inherent advantage through academies — access to top 10 picks (Ashcroft, Fletcher, Levi Ashcroft, and this year another Academy player projected to go pick 4-5, next year another Academy player & another Ashcroft both projected to be top 10 etc.) that we cannot replicate. They’re effectively drip-fed elite talent and get compensation picks when they lose role players (Ah Chee, Starcevich). The same applies to GWS, Sydney & GCS
Geelong/Hawthorn:
Geelong has the “destination club” advantage — players accept unders to move there (family/lifestyle pull) + aggressive pursuit of Worpel, Marshall, Curnow & Oliver
Hawthorn is in a rebuild and has draft capital (pick 8 + aggressive pursuit of Merrett and are reportedly also looking at Oliver)
We do not get academy concessions, have no inherent location/lifestyle pull, and often operate with a squeezed cap because it has more “expensive mids/glue players” than most.
So, while other clubs are adding blue-chip talent, Collingwood is fishing for DFAs (Blight, May) and depth recruits like Buller — a direct reflection of having less draft & salary cap flexibility
Even when the cap grows (2025–30 with AFL’s CBA increases), Collingwood’s existing commitments to stars + glue players immediately eat up the increase
Are the back ended or the deferred contracts still impacting us now? While most of those specific contracts are gone, the lessons from that period are still shaping the club’s list management
The current approach has been to lock away players early on medium/long deals (Nick Daicos (2029 on $1m+), Josh Daicos (2029 on $900k), Moore (2028 on $900k), Perryman (2030 on $900k), Crisp (2026 on $750-$800), De Goey (2027 on $800k) and Houston (2030 on $850-900k)
This year we have re-signed Hill and Maynard to 4-year contracts on $$$, re-negotiated Cameron’s contract for next year & extended for a further 3 years (2029) and just this week signed Elliott for 2 years and reportedly nearly doubling his wage at the age of 33. These players have been described by BF posters & acknowledged by the club as “glue-type” players, and important for culture, leadership and continuity
This spreads risk — but it means cap space is constantly spoken for, and the “flexibility” for a big fish is minimal unless you sacrifice glue players.
So while the deferred payments aren’t still being paid out, the strategy of front-loading vs back-loading is now influencing how deals are structured — but the effect is the same: our salary cap is always tight if we carry a dozen players on $700k–$1m+
We must balance two competing priorities:
- Keep glue guys who are cultural anchors (Hill, Maynard, Elliott, Cameron).
- Maintain cap flexibility to chase a superstar.
- Most likely: Elliott (age + contract jump), or one of Cameron/Hill, depending on trade interest.
- If Rowell had signed, we’d have probably seen a repeat of the 2020 scenario: painful exits to fit one marquee in.
The result has been a ruck/forward mix of Lynch, White, Cameron, Cox, McStay, Frampton (all serviceable but not stars), and currently a handful of project talls (Howes, Cochran, Smit, Steene).
Contrast this with Geelong, who’ve stockpiled tall talent (Hawkins, De Koning, Henry, Stewart, Cameron, Blicavs) and continue to target KPPs aggressively.
When you’re perpetually patching with “stop-gap” talls, it means you’re either overpaying in trades/FA such as McStay or stuck hoping one of the kids develops.
This appears to be a recruiting/ drafting strategy problem rather than just cap management.
Did we need either or both of Perryman and Houston? Both were expensive gets (Houston via trade, Perryman via free agency). Both are similar types (hard-running half-backs). Recruiting both, while already stacked in those roles, has added depth — but arguably at the expense of balancing our list (key forwards, key mids, key defenders). It reflects our tendency to double down on half-backs rather than address glaring KPP and midfield needs.
Brisbane: Have an inherent advantage through academies — access to top 10 picks (Ashcroft, Fletcher, Levi Ashcroft, and this year another Academy player projected to go pick 4-5, next year another Academy player & another Ashcroft both projected to be top 10 etc.) that we cannot replicate. They’re effectively drip-fed elite talent and get compensation picks when they lose role players (Ah Chee, Starcevich). The same applies to GWS, Sydney & GCS
Geelong/Hawthorn:
Geelong has the “destination club” advantage — players accept unders to move there (family/lifestyle pull) + aggressive pursuit of Worpel, Marshall, Curnow & Oliver
Hawthorn is in a rebuild and has draft capital (pick 8 + aggressive pursuit of Merrett and are reportedly also looking at Oliver)
We do not get academy concessions, have no inherent location/lifestyle pull, and often operate with a squeezed cap because it has more “expensive mids/glue players” than most.
So, while other clubs are adding blue-chip talent, Collingwood is fishing for DFAs (Blight, May) and depth recruits like Buller — a direct reflection of having less draft & salary cap flexibility
Even when the cap grows (2025–30 with AFL’s CBA increases), Collingwood’s existing commitments to stars + glue players immediately eat up the increase
He would start to realise that living with women is not that crash hot after awhile. A novelty at first but it wears off after awhile.
- Aug 3, 2020
- 27,658
- 48,842
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Boston Celtics, Liverpool
Was Xander actually onto something :O
- Oct 30, 2020
- 1,001
- 2,033
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
This constant message annoys me. It's simply not true, and that's because people purely focus on the players who end up going to top clubs. Already this period we've seen the premiers lose 2 players, and one going to the bottom team. St Kilda have gained at least 2 players despite missing finals. West Coast also got 2 Richmond premiership players last year despite finishing last. Houston come to us after missing finals despite Port playing in a prelim. Player's have their own preferences and are not simply robots. If you need further evidence, look how many players have gone to Essendon and Carlton over the past 10 years and they definitely haven't been flag contenders. At the time, signings like Zac Williams, Dylan Shiel, Jack martin, Cerra. These were big recruits but get forgotten because they fizzled.
TradeDraft
Post-Human
- Thread starter
- #6,086
So B&W United has some sort of source then.
- Oct 30, 2020
- 1,001
- 2,033
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Dafaq?
Houston, Perryman
Shultz
Hill
We've been averaging one massive get each year for the past few years. Stagnant? We pretty much traded our way to a premiership getting 4 premiership players in 2 years for basically nothing. We have been borrowing tomorrows money to pay todays bills. Eventually we will have to pay it back. I though it was this year but Humphry is someone I would love to have.
- Oct 1, 2012
- 2,189
- 3,254
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Pies trying to move hill to the GC (GC real keen on him) but hill doesn’t want to move. Would unlock Humphrey deal for us.
Scodog10
Brownlow Medallist
Pragmatic Shill you were ahead of the curve on this one!
Hill and that’s it on that list
Chunky Steak
All Australian
- Oct 18, 2024
- 673
- 2,343
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Oliver is an interesting one, clearly King and the Dees are moving on from Trac/Clarry/May shit show last couple of seasons, to give King a fresh start.
Oliver at his 2021-22 level (he was a back2back AFLCA champion player of the year, and Lou Richards medal winner) he was an amazing inside midfielder that all clubs would want him - as evidenced by Dees giving him that mammoth $1m+ contract in the back half of 2022.
In 2023 he started at similar level, but then had his hamstring and injury problems that escalated and revealed off-field drama and he then basically been a waste of two seasons at the Dees.
It could be like a Grundy style situation, another player with a 7year $1m+ contract that went bad, who has found a club that needs him in his specialty position, and just come 2nd in Swans BnF and is back playing great footy.
The Grundy comparison is because Oliver was (is) elite at stoppage, that is his only elite role. We do need help there, so is an obvious fit from a role perspective...we could just slot him in as our #1 inside midfielder for 2026 and back him to want to prove the doubters wrong, and we benefit.
But then you have the D.Beams buyer beware situation. Beamer was only 6 months older than Clarry when we got him back. Similar talented player (had a much better previous couple of seasons actually before we traded for him) with off-field issues. Plenty hoped a fit and firing Beamer would be the missing piece to strengthen the midfield and help us get a flag. But the off-field issues were too problematic, we only ended up getting 10 games from Beamer (effectively finished at 30) and a big distraction off-field and waste of $$.
To bring him across, club would want to have done plenty of due diligence on him.
Sounds like you and I are on the same page with this. A key difference between Clarry and Beamer is that Melbourne wouldnt walk away with pick 18 and a future first for Oliver.
The other thing I've been considering is that some of Clarry's issues are less than clear for those of us on the outside, so we're left to speculate to some degree. The club will have access to more info than we will and we won't have a rogue President pushing through a deal as Eddie apparently did with Beamer. So I'm comfortable enough in trusting our recruitment team and coach to make the call here.
- Aug 16, 2009
- 5,393
- 10,102
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Celtics, Canucks
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Scodog10
Brownlow Medallist
How many times do you reckon you give this a run over the next 12 days?
Chunky Steak
All Australian
- Oct 18, 2024
- 673
- 2,343
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Agreed. The work she did with Jordy was remarkable.
- Aug 31, 2014
- 16,786
- 31,290
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Jul 2, 2017
- 10,150
- 22,775
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I've got a knack for these sorts of things.
- Sep 3, 2019
- 34,971
- 100,480
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Sweet chilli
Surely it's time the AFL scraps the current FA compensation model.
It's time they start factoring in the quality of the players leaving. Would have to start including club B&F's, league honours, AA's, games played over a certain time frame, and any other factors like it.
Also surely the AFL are smart enough to know that they need to update the compensation bands to reflect the contract inflation that has been happening over the last few years .
It's time they start factoring in the quality of the players leaving. Would have to start including club B&F's, league honours, AA's, games played over a certain time frame, and any other factors like it.
Also surely the AFL are smart enough to know that they need to update the compensation bands to reflect the contract inflation that has been happening over the last few years .
