Rumour GFC 2025 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists Pt 3

[cats_09]

2025 AFL Draft and Trade Dates:​

Fri Oct 3 - Fri Oct 10: 2025 Free Agency Period
Mon Oct 6 - Wed Oct 15: 2025 Continental Tyres AFL Trade Period
Wed Nov 19 - Thu Nov 20: 2025 Telstra AFL Draft

 

[joe444]

That fellow was me.

You didn’t mention Cooper Stephens or Darcy Lang. So was it a science 5 years ago? FMD.

There was a number of other first round misses also, so there you go I guess.

Hence me typing: "we're tracking at a rate of every 2nd player", and Darcy Lang was 2014.

 

[Pollywaffle]

Yeah, apparently not.

But tbh I didn't know he was working for Melbourne.

My bad.

Not sure if it is definite at this stage. I know King was sounding him out..

 

[Tony Barber]

TB: when you say break the mould with regards to players and dollars I do take you mean 'within reason' and in line with a certain percentage of our salary cap and no more. I say this because there is no way known you can have sustained success as we have over the past 18 years if you burst the bubble and have one or two individuals within a club being completely out of whack 'with their payment contracts and performance' in comparison with the rest of the group, otherwise something always has to give when this is done. The Saints currently as an over-blown example will be left in this predicament a lot sooner than that they'll ever anticapicate for it's not sustainable. In the past we owe much to the likes of Joel Selwood, Tomahawk, Danger, etc.

The saints have burst the bank trying to build a team.
We just need one guy.

 

[joe444]

All Geelong Picks 40 or under for the past 10 years:

O'Sullivan
Edwards
Mannagh
Clark
Conway
Knevitt
Willis
Holmes
Neale
Stephens
DeKoning
Clark*
Fogarty*
Kelly*
Constable
Parfitt*
Stewart

 

[Tony Barber]

I mean under the rules you can because gws matched Cameron with cap room they didn't really have.

Thats actually bullshit PO.
If you match the AFL need to see that you can afford to match.

 

[Vdubs]

Even if we drafted Marshall. Edwards is still the future.. he wont play much in 2026, but the year after I n 2027 he will play alot more...
But we need a ruckman for the now and the next 2-3 years and that's why we wanted Marshall. As in 2 or 3 year tim that's when we hope Edwards will come into his name

I think we were after Marshall for that relatively elusive one more flag while we have Danger, Blicavs and Cameron functioning.
I do not see us replacing what Danger offers in 27, and perhaps that would be the end of our real contention.
Stanley, Blicavs would be gone, and JC close to the end.
But who knows??
CS does not seem to believe we can't rebuild on the run successfully.

 

[rocker_oz33]

Shoeclangers from saints got desisted.
Wasn't he a highish pick ?

 

[allrighty]

This has not been a great trade period for Geelong. We flopped badly in the grand final. We needed to add to the squad. Obviously, our ruck/ midfield situation was assessed by Mackie and Scott as not good enough. So we went for Marshall, offered a first round pick which was not unreasonable bearing in mind the full situation with his age, ability and Tom de Koning, it was rejected, we moved to getting an A grade forward in Curnow, we did our best, but it failed.

We waited until the last few minutes to make an increased offer for Marshall, but it was rejected. Mackie got it wrong in assessing that Saint Kilda wanted to get rid of Marshall, and they would fold, despite them saying they wanted to use two rucks.

Brisbane and Gold Coast have moved forward by adding to their squad by draft picks/trade/academy/father and son.

We have added Worpel to an area where we are weak, and he will walk into the team, we got him for no cost at all, yet many posters on this site thought he was not good enough for our team. You wonder why we get accused of being arrogant.

Next year, we will be relying on the natural improvement of our many young players. Will it be good enough? Our main future hope is that butters comes to us which will be difficult, as he will be demanding a huge amount of money that exceeds what our pay scale is based, and the reason we keep so many players. Will he want to play in a midfield with Stanley and Blics as the rucks, as at the moment, they are all we have. Conway is a great hope but no more.

When you have the two clubs you are dealing with basically refuse to deal with you, you are snookered. It has not been a great trade week for us but ffs they did their best for us did they not? The same cannot be said for the Baggers and the Aints. Neither Club came out of this well IMO despite what the useless media BS pumping then up would suggest.

Aints shat all over the system and their players, Baggers turned down a very good deal for a lesser one because of - who knows?

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

Butters is coming next year.

 

[Footy Smarts]

Thats actually bullshit PO.
If you match the AFL need to see that you can afford to match.

The problem is every team can always afford to match because nobody has their full list signed up multiple years in advance.

The club who is getting the player is limited by what they're actually willing to pay. The club who is matching the bid knows the player won't stay anyway so can offer the entire remains of their salary cap.

We could easily match an insane bid on a player like a 8x $5m bid because we have almost nobody signed in 2028 and beyond. Of course actually paying that would be insane but that's never a risk for the matching team.

 

[Jhye Clark 13]

We can all laugh at Hawthorn though. As much as i don't rate Worpel, they gave him up because they thought they were getting two guns. Lol.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Why not delist both.

I cannot evisage a world where a 3rd round pick in this draft ends up better than Ted. It's a million to 1 shot

 

[And_ROOS]

Shoeclangers from saints got desisted.
Wasn't he a highish pick ?

He was touted to be one but he slid badly and the Saints took him at #62.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Thats actually bullshit PO.
If you match the AFL need to see that you can afford to match.

Yeah, and no team has more than a handful of contracts year 3 onwards. You only have to match years and dollars so technically you can match a 5 year $10 million dollar contract by putting $9m of payments in year 5.

That's literally the only reason gws could match cameron

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Thats actually bullshit PO.
If you match the AFL need to see that you can afford to match.

Yes but they allow you to push most of the wage into the back years of the deal where in theory you have the money to match because you only have like 12 guys contracted but in reality you cant afford the contract unless you trade other players. This is what gws did.
It would be a more real match if they required you to frontload any matched deal and didnt allow you to backload it.

 

[Kitcat]

When you have the two clubs you are dealing with basically refuse to deal with you, you are snookered. It has not been a great trade week for us but ffs they did their best for us did they not? The same cannot be said for the Baggers and the Aints. Neither Club came out of this well IMO despite what the useless media BS pumping then up would suggest.

Aints shat all over the system and their players, Baggers turned down a very good deal for a lesser one because of - who knows?

I did not say that they did not do the best for us, as they offered more than plenty.
My main point is that Mackie and Scott wanted to improve the ruck situation, and they did not. So for anyone to say that our ruck choices of Stanley, Blics and the rest is satisfactory, is obviously wrong, as we went out of our way to get an older ruckman in Marshall.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Shoeclangers from saints got desisted.
Wasn't he a highish pick ?

Nah, Knightmare had him go first round but knightmare had a 'mare that draft. He was around the same a george stevens from memory

 

[CatToTheFuture]

Butters is coming next year.

True or not, this is a narrative i can get behind

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I cannot evisage a world where a 3rd round pick in this draft ends up better than Ted. It's a million to 1 shot

True although we might delist him out of goodwill to let another club pick him up

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I did not say that they did not do the best for us, as they offered more than plenty.
My main point is that Mackie and Scott wanted to improve the ruck situation, and they did not. So for anyone to say that our ruck choices of Stanley, Blics and the rest is satisfactory, is obviously wrong, as we went out of our way to get an older ruckman in Marshall.

Yes but which other decent ruck was on the market besides marshall? Heath is untried and reidy is a spud there wasn't a lot of options. We are better off poaching a ruck next year.

 

[Footy Smarts]

I cannot evisage a world where a 3rd round pick in this draft ends up better than Ted. It's a million to 1 shot

I think you wildly overrate Ted and don't realise how often good players are taken late in supposedly bad drafts.

2023 was supposed to be an utterly awful draft after the top 11 players. It was considered historically bad. Joel Freijah, Archie Roberts, Calsher Dear and Lawson Humphries all went pick 45 or later and are miles better than Ted.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

So what’s our pick 19 projected to be after academy bids etc? And who are the players we are likely to have available to us here? Haven’t followed the U18’s hardly at all this year.

Might come in a little with bids. Probably marsh/Schubert/farrow/barker maybe ludowkye (i would have said robey but hes bolted).
Tbh i would rather we trade the pick into next year for when we can trade it for Butters.
If we keep 19 id expect we will place a couple of academy bids with it.

 

[CatToTheFuture]

True although we might delist him out of goodwill to let another club pick him up

He played 9 games in a year where we had a historically good injury run.

 

[catempire]

Yeah, and no team has more than a handful of contracts year 3 onwards. You only have to match years and dollars so technically you can match a 5 year $10 million dollar contract by putting $9m of payments in year 5.

That's literally the only reason gws could match cameron

Yes but they allow you to push most of the wage into the back years of the deal where in theory you have the money to match because you only have like 12 guys contracted but in reality you cant afford the contract unless you trade other players. This is what gws did.
It would be a more real match if they required you to frontload any matched deal and didnt allow you to backload it.

Have they changed the rules? Because the rules say the terms of the matched offer must be identical.

Which makes sense because otherwise you could have a star player end up on minimum wage in the early years of a matched contract and be worse off, say in being able to maintain their mortgage payments.

 

[thegerman]

Butters is coming next year.

Let’s hope so.