Analysis 2016 AFL Trade Week Thread

[mic59]

The Tom Rockliff to the Pies rumour was started by Damian Barrett which means it has little credibility to start with.

 

[Adz2332]

Yep, so like any other company with a number of offices (clubs), if head branch wants him elsewhere and he doesn't want to go he can always go to another company. Of course those (SANFL, WAFL) pay much less, but if lifestyle is paramount that's fully his choice.

exactly! and with free agency and what not its skewed to the players favour no so heavily.....

I want a trade home, i have 3 years at 500K to go on my contract. Both teams agree to cover the wages.
Port is offering pick 9
Crows wont offer more than pick 13.

You have the choice go to Port or stay at carlton. As you will be 'home'

Not saying i want Gibbs just an example

 

[Coobk001]

Far out, wish we could somehow block specific posts that mention specific topics like Gibbs @ Port or Hartlett being traded, because they're it's just wasting time reading about things that are 0% chance of happening.

HH will be staying and given we MUST take pick 9 to the draft, we dont have the currency for Gibbs.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Far out, wish we could somehow block specific posts that mention specific topics like Gibbs @ Port or Hartlett being traded, because they're it's just wasting time reading about things that are 0% chance of happening.

HH will be staying and given we MUST take pick 9 to the draft, we dont have the currency for Gibbs.

The OP starts off with

I started this thread as a non Port specific thread to allow Port supporters to pass comment on what other clubs are doing during trade week.

and within 10 posts a Port player comes into the discussion and it quickly becomes a mainly Port players thread.

 

[Doctor Feel]

Just a quick guide for people looking to evaluate draft picks:

Pick Range - Average Games
1 to 10 - 111.54
10 to 20 - 94.72
20 to 30 - 71.88
30 to 40 - 79.89
40 to 50 - 72.47
50 to 60 - 59.17
60 to 70 - 57.17
70 to 80 - 54.57
80 Plus - 76.20*

* Probably explained by recycled players

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

 

[DaTBird187]

He's a human being and he should have the same right to choose his workplace as you or I do.

5 year contract @ $600,000 per season, decides to break it with three years running, plus he gets to dictate who the club has to deal with. Seems to me there is way to much power for the player here. They want their cake and to eat it too. If there is to be a breaking of such a large contract with plenty of time left on it, there has to be some leeway with what the club can then do in this situation.

The fact that players have the power to say "I don't want to play at this struggling club (be it Gold Coast, Brisbane or Carlton), I want to go to Hawthorn, Geelong or Sydney. How the hell is there going to be equalisation of any kind? And before fans of these clubs come in and say "but you have to get better". Well how the **** are Gold Coast going to get better when they lose all the players that will get them better and replace them with ones that won't. Or get picks that are years away.

Hawthorn, Sydney and Geelong became great at the perfect time. Everyone else is just getting ****ed now.

 

[Schulzenfest]

what a crock. he wants to play football in a NATIONAL competition.

McDonalds is an INTERNATIONAL corporation. If I apply for a job there and then ask to be moved to different store, that doesn't give them the right to trade me to Serbia. However, they're well within their rights to choose not to move me to a different store. And equally, if they want to move me to a different store, I'm well within my rights not to choose to move.

As i want to play for Port and im a human i choose to go there?

Do Port want to recruit you? If not, no comparison between the situations.

When you or I choose our workplace we don't sign a piece of paper holding them to pay us X amount of dollars for X years. You shouldn't be able to agree to one thing that suits you and then just change your mind. But if the player wants to break the contact then he can expect that to only be done under the terms set by the club AND if they agree to him doing so.

I'm not referring to breaking contracts, I'm referring to uncontracted players. Clubs are of course completely within their rights to hold players to contracts.

exactly! and with free agency and what not its skewed to the players favour no so heavily.....

I want a trade home, i have 3 years at 500K to go on my contract. Both teams agree to cover the wages.
Port is offering pick 9
Crows wont offer more than pick 13.

You have the choice go to Port or stay at carlton. As you will be 'home'

And under the current rules, Carlton are well within their rights to say that to Gibbs. They're under no obligation to trade him to Adelaide. Just as Gibbs is under no obligation to agree to be traded to Port.

 

[Seanybruz]

From the AFL Trade Hub

If only Eddie knew how to pass

View attachment 298808

If only Menzel could actually get a game for them, I reckon he's a chance to be a more expensive bust for them than they think Toumpas is for us as I can't see him cracking their best 22 anytime soon.

 

[mic59]

I'm not referring to breaking contracts, I'm referring to uncontracted players. Clubs are of course completely within their rights to hold players to contracts.

Sorry. As the post you were answering to referred to home state I thought you were weighing in on the Gibbs argument.

 

[Tredz]

Breaking news from Port Adelaide in the trade period thus far...

 

[Steve Dore]

The OP starts off with

I started this thread as a non Port specific thread to allow Port supporters to pass comment on what other clubs are doing during trade week.

and within 10 posts a Port player comes into the discussion and it quickly becomes a mainly Port players thread.

Breaking news from Port Adelaide in the trade period thus far...

 

[mic59]

I don't want that smug sniping campaigner Gibbs at Alberton. It'd be like waking up next to Kelly O'Dwyer or Sophie Mirrabella.

And having one footballer who has his hair in a bun would be enough.

 

[DaTBird187]

Breaking news from Port Adelaide in the trade period thus far...

Well at this stage not a single trade has been confirmed and the paperwork lodged, by any team. So, you know.

 

[Powerstufff]

Breaking news from Port Adelaide in the trade period thus far...

And for me that is far preferable to the past couple of years.

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

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.”

 

[Holden Hillbilly]

 

[Schulzenfest]

5 year contract @ $600,000 per season, decides to break it with three years running, plus he gets to dictate who the club has to deal with.

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?

 

[Janus]

HH will be staying and given we MUST take pick 9 to the draft, we dont have the currency for Gibbs.

No we don't. Where has it ever been mentioned that we have to do that?

The "use two picks in four years" rule came with the introduction of future pick trading in 2015. That was year one. It's now year two.

If we trade out pick 9, we need to use two first round draft picks in 2017 and 2018.

We are only keeping 9 because we'll get a decent young player with it, it's a top ten draft pick that we didn't bank on and we don't have the cap space for a squib like Gibbs.

 

[Harro59]

And for me that is far preferable to the past couple of years.

I have no issue with this. With the HH put to bed, its only really Lobbe now we are looking at and maybe a few fringies for some later picks.

We will take pick 9 to the draft unless we can upgrade it somehow. I know we are interested in Vardy but thats not a huge cost really. I think the less we are a player in this years trade week probably the better.

 

[David Puddy]

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

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

 

[Adz2332]

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

 

[Coobk001]

No we don't. Where has it ever been mentioned that we have to do that?

The "use two picks in four years" rule came with the introduction of future pick trading in 2015. That was year one. It's now year two.

If we trade out pick 9, we need to use two first round draft picks in 2017 and 2018.

We are only keeping 9 because we'll get a decent young player with it, it's a top ten draft pick that we didn't bank on and we don't have the cap space for a squib like Gibbs.

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.

 

[FallingLiefs]

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

AFLPA, a blight on the game atm.

 

[Adz2332]

AFLPA, a blight on the game atm.

its crazy to think hawks etc are paying within half a mill of brissy in cap...

 

[Check-Raise !]

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

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

Yep, If you said the draft only went 3 days then yes it would be manic but trades would still get done. Two weeks simply allows teams to stuff each other around playing ducks and drakes and wasting a week and a half with many of the deals subsequently only getting done over the last week.

It's not as if teams aren't already speaking prior so go back to 1 week and get it done.

Because no one rates our mid range players which is in itself a blight on our club, we i'm sure are being told; "we'll come back to you next week, once the 'big' trades are done" and "once we are done, we'll come back to you to see what we need and what scraps are left".