Analysis 2016 AFL Trade Week Thread

[Magus]

 

[mic59]

The Advertiser reports an offer of pick 13 and out-of-contract midfielder Jarryd Lyons or forward Harry Dear “is falling short of immediately tempting Carlton” and the Crows will need to up their offer.
“Carlton list manager Stephen Silvagni laughed at both proposals during Monday’s talks,” Michelangelo Rucci wrote. “Adelaide will either have to concede a quality player or future draft picks, such as its second-round call next year.”

Mentioning Harry Dear in the trade is laughable but I would have thought 13 and Jarryd Lyons was a fair trade. He played 20 games and had 433 disposals this year and like Young profited from the end of the subs vest.

 

[David Puddy]

Mentioning Harry Dear in the trade is laughable but I would have thought 13 and Jarryd Lyons was a fair trade. He played 20 games and had 433 disposals this year and like Young profited from the end of the subs vest.

I think this would be a fair deal if he was coming off contract. But with 3 years to run, Blues hold all the cards and shouldn't be letting him go for anything other than significant overs.

Crows can suffer.

 

[DaTBird187]

What's the difference between that situation and us saying to Hamish "We want to trade you to another club, but you can only deal with clubs that are willing to offer us a top 10 (or whatever) pick?" There's no power imbalance. If a player is under contract, both player and club have to agree on any trade.

Port can't 'break' Hartlett's contract, but Port can request that Hartlett agrees to break his contract and be traded to another team. Hartlett then has the right to accept or refuse that request.

Gibbs can't 'break' his contract, but he can request that Carlton agree to break his contract and trade him to another team. Carlton then have the right to accept or refuse that request.

What's the difference? Where's the imbalance?

One is pigeonholed far greater than the other.

Hartlett - Club tells him teams have approached them to see if he was available. Club puts price on his head and informs player of said interest and provisions from a club perspective if deal were to go ahead.

Gibbs - Trade me to the Crows.

 

[LFC2010]

then a


If we don't do any trading this trade period.

 

[Coobk001]

Trade Week should actually run for one week instead of two.

Only day two and this is dragging on already, with not much happening.

I'm completely the opposite, I dont know why we constrict it to a couple weeks. For mine it should just be open slather from after the grand final until a week before the draft. It seems some people think the trade week is for entertainment. It isn't and shouldn't be. It's for teams to spend time making moves to improve their list, sometimes that can happen instantly, sometimes it might take significant shuffling and other times there may be other possibilities that open up as a result, which is something we miss out on by constricting it to 2 weeks.

 

[Powerstufff]

explain to me why again teams MUST pay atleast 95% of the cap>>

No, once was enough

 

[DaTBird187]

The difference is Adz2332 isn't arguing that Carlton should be allowed to hold Gibbs to his contract (hint: they already are), he's arguing that they should be able to trade him to another workplace against his will.

They do in America. If someone was to pay me $600,000 a year to play a sport, I'd play in ****ing Uzbekistan.

 

[Powerstufff]

Trade Week should actually run for one week instead of two.

Only day two and this is dragging on already, with not much happening.

Yeah but it's not about entertaining us. The trade period length has been played with a bit over the years as yes it does seem to be important to hurry some clubs along. But on the other hand contacting players who have spread out all over the planet is an issue too.

 

[malcheski]

I'm completely the opposite, I dont know why we constrict it to a couple weeks. For mine it should just be open slather from after the grand final until a week before the draft. It seems some people think the trade week is for entertainment. It isn't and shouldn't be. It's for teams to spend time making moves to improve their list, sometimes that can happen instantly, sometimes it might take significant shuffling and other times there may be other possibilities that open up as a result, which is something we miss out on by constricting it to 2 weeks.

Why stop before trade week? I'd be for a transfer window/deadline not unlike the NBA where a team can play well into the season with the ability to shuffle their list as they see fit to cope for a multitude of reasons. (injuries, form and game plan/style).

Imagine Port this year, come round 4 when Lobbe was yet to fire a shot, could go to the Bulldogs who have just lost their captain for the year and an eternity away from being premiers, offer Lobbe up for this years first rounder?

 

[DaTBird187]

I'm completely the opposite, I dont know why we constrict it to a couple weeks. For mine it should just be open slather from after the grand final until a week before the draft. It seems some people think the trade week is for entertainment. It isn't and shouldn't be. It's for teams to spend time making moves to improve their list, sometimes that can happen instantly, sometimes it might take significant shuffling and other times there may be other possibilities that open up as a result, which is something we miss out on by constricting it to 2 weeks.

This x infinity.

I'd even add that there needs to be a mid season trade period as well as free agency signing period also. Imaging us being able to sign a couple of free agents from the VFL or SANFL this season when our injury list had ballooned.

The AFL doesn't think outside the box and when it does tinker it always ****s it up with things nobody wants.

 

[NEGAN]

Yeah I am of the belief if you can't get a trade done in three days after planinng and prep after the gf then.you either taking the piss, incompitant or flat out the deal was never going to get done.

 

[David Puddy]

Why stop before trade week? I'd be for a transfer window/deadline not unlike the NBA where a team can play well into the season with the ability to shuffle their list as they see fit to cope for a multitude of reasons. (injuries, form and game plan/style).

Imagine Port this year, come round 4 when Lobbe was yet to fire a shot, could go to the Bulldogs who have just lost their captain for the year and an eternity away from being premiers, offer Lobbe up for this years first rounder?

I think a mid-season style draft in addition to what we currently have would work better than a trade period that runs into the start of the season. Especially if they are going to persist with the mid-season bye which is boring as all hell.

 

[malcheski]

I think a mid-season style draft in addition to what we currently have would work better than a trade period that runs into the start of the season.

I think if we do away from a draft (as in a set order of when you can select a player) and run as trade period does with FA but also have DFA and state league players available would be the fairest. Keep in mind ever PP must fall inside the current years salary cap.

 

[Janus]

I didn't mean it in terms of the rule. I meant it in terms of our list profile. We need to bring in pick 9 and we need to absolutely nail that pick with a mid that turns out to be a gun. We can't afford to keep stacking the 26-29 bracket of our list, when our lower age portion is so loaded with speculative late draft picks.

Agree with that. But then, that's the cyclic nature of the AFL system.

1. Club starts a rebuild with early draft picks (top ten first round, top twenty second round), to supplement the older grunt players that are left over after their aging stars retire or are traded out (see what is happening with Deledio right now).

2. Club moves up the ladder, making finals after a few years and gradually beginning to attract existing talent from other clubs that want to join the party.

3. Club tops up with older players to fill list holes by sacrificing first round picks on a needs basis.

4. Club wins premiership, trades out periphery players when their value is at a premium (Hawks with Anderson, Collingwood with Wellingham).

5. Club tries win as many flags as they can in a five year period, before regressing back to step 1.

 

[ScooterBrother]

I'd be more interested in the median, and seeing what sort of distribution there is around the pick ranges.

That's a big table, but ill do my best

 

[NEGAN]

Misspelt 'incompetent'. And probably should have researched how to spell 'planning'.

Trust me when I say this but my phone is small and hard to type.

Its why I sometimes have fullstops mid sentence

 

[Powerstufff]

Yeah I am of the belief if you can't get a trade done in three days .... the deal was never going to get done.

If you follow this stuff for a few years you see the main problem with that is that players come into negotiations that clubs never anticipated. The players, their families and the players' managers all have to get into the negotiating loop. For a club happy with X he is untradeable until Y and a choice pick is offered. For the player he and his family are very happy at the club but an unexpected offer of a contract with 2 more years or a big dollop of money resets their expectations. It does take more time to do this stuff, it can't be preplanned.

 

[Alberton Proud]

You'd think he played 300 games for the crers the way he now carries on

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...s/news-story/4d26a85d6c7e45f8e2554aa1e6d3f003

CORNES: A FIRST ROUND PICK IS FAIR

PORT Adelaide midfielder turned media commentator Kane Cornes believes Adelaide will attempt to secure wantaway Carlton midfielder Bryce Gibbs with a first-round draft pick.

After a semi-final exit last season the Crows hold pick 13 and Cornes told AFL Trade Radio: “I can tell you the Crows won’t be putting much more than pick 13 on the table for Gibbs.”

Cornes: I think pick 13 is smack bang on the money for Bryce Gibbs#NABTradeRadio

— NAB AFL Trade Radio (@traderadio) October 10, 2016

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/af...s/news-story/4d26a85d6c7e45f8e2554aa1e6d3f003

 

[Powerstufff]

Trust me when I say this but my phone is small and hard to type.

Its why I sometimes have fullstops mid sentence

Yeah I just loved where the glitches came. I had my fun, I zapped the post.

 

[Alberton Proud]

Yeah I just loved where the glitches came. I had my fun, I zapped the post.

Ironically re-posted by NEGAN

 

[NEGAN]

If you follow this stuff for a few years you see the main problem with that is that players come into negotiations that clubs never anticipated. The players, their families and the players' managers all have to get into the negotiating loop. For a club happy with X he is untradeable until Y and a choice pick is offered. For the player he and his family are very happy at the club but an unexpected offer of a contract with 2 more years or a big dollop of money resets their expectations. It does take more time to do this stuff, it can't be preplanned.

They would be planning all year though. Granted that the unexpected comes up but I don't see the difference in a week 2 weeks or a month is going to make.

Its the same story every year. The fluff of nope yes maybe just lasts longer until the last minute until the deal gets done or not.

I can't think of any previous circumstances that have required the trade window to go for longer than a week.

 

[OneGreatClub]

So Barrett just said that an option for Geelong is to offer Bartell a much reduced salary to not play at all next year. He used the example that if say he is on $400k a year then Geelong could offer him $180 or less under the proviso he not play to free up salary space. Is this an acceptable thing? Does it occur already? Would it open up a can of worms? Could we do that with Lobbe if we don't get a trade for him?

 

[Portology]

So Barrett just said that an option for Geelong is to offer Bartell a much reduced salary to not play at all next year. He used the example that if say he is on $400k a year then Geelong could offer him $180 or less under the proviso he not play to free up salary space. Is this an acceptable thing? Does it occur already? Would it open up a can of worms? Could we do that with Lobbe if we don't get a trade for him?

they might have to up their offer to $180*k*

 

[Powerstufff]

They would be planning all year though. Granted that the unexpected comes up but I don't see the difference in a week 2 weeks or a month is going to make .....

The only thing I can say to that that isn't just opinion is that they do seem to look at the process every now and then and make adjustments. And we do get an annual commentary afterwards on how efficiently it all went.