2017 Trade and FA thread

[briztoon]

Pretty sure we can't use traded "future" picks to bid on Academy players. Or am I misremembering?

I was not at last years draft function when this was first mentioned, so can not comment. I have not read anything to support this any where other than on this page.

My understanding was that it was optional and up to us.

There's not been any AFL-published word on this though.

This is the bit I find confusing. It does not make sense. No academy team would choose to use a traded in future high draft pick to match an academy bid if they had the option of picking a top rated player from the open draft pool, and use multiple lower picks to match the bid. It's basically a choice between drafting 3 top 15 kids, or 2 top 15 kids + a 2nd round ad 3rd round kid.

 

[dlanod]

This is the bit I find confusing. It does not make sense. No academy team would choose to use a traded in future high draft pick to match an academy bid if they had the option of picking a top rated player from the open draft pool, and use multiple lower picks to match the bid. It's basically a choice between drafting 3 top 15 kids, or 2 top 15 kids + a 2nd round ad 3rd round kid.

The bit that you're missing then is that the bolded "if" might not be the case.

Alternative scenarios:

• The club has no further picks in the draft other than the "futurely traded" pick.
• The club only has low value picks in the draft after than the "futurely traded" pick.

The first option is a clear case where the club must have the option to use the "futurely traded" pick. Consider this scenario:

Say this year we get pick 3, Rocky leaves for a massive deal that nets us pick 4 and Port's pick ends up being 15, and we only take three list spots into the draft. If we rate Ballenden as a top 5 talent and he ends up bid on between pick 5 and 14 we're stuck with either matching, which causes us to both forfeit pick 15 anyway (as we no longer have a list spot free for it) and take a deficit on the following year's first rounder, or passing on that top 5 talent.

The second scenario is very similar, but the difference is whether we choose between having the later picks pushed further back and taking a deficit on an early pick in the following year, or matching with the "futurely traded" pick and getting some value back from its usage.

 

[spotthedog1]

With Zorko (28), Rockliff (27), D.Beams (27), Robinson (27), Christensen (25) I am of the opinion that it is not out of the realms of possibility that 3 or 4 of them could still be around when we are in contention for a top 4 berth. Players are playing really good football till the ages of 32-34 these days giving these blokes potentially 5-6 years of footy left if they stay clear of major injuries.

Dayne Beams shoulders say hi.

Even if they are around then - they're at their peak now. They'll be on a steep downhill at 31. Serviceable with good leadership, but not elite.

 

[theteamtobeat]

The bit that you're missing then is that the bolded "if" might not be the case.

Alternative scenarios:

• The club has no further picks in the draft other than the "futurely traded" pick.
• The club only has low value picks in the draft after than the "futurely traded" pick.

The first option is a clear case where the club must have the option to use the "futurely traded" pick. Consider this scenario:

Say this year we get pick 3, Rocky leaves for a massive deal that nets us pick 4 and Port's pick ends up being 15, and we only take three list spots into the draft. If we rate Ballenden as a top 5 talent and he ends up bid on between pick 5 and 14 we're stuck with either matching, which causes us to both forfeit pick 15 anyway (as we no longer have a list spot free for it) and take a deficit on the following year's first rounder, or passing on that top 5 talent.

The second scenario is very similar, but the difference is whether we choose between having the later picks pushed further back and taking a deficit on an early pick in the following year, or matching with the "futurely traded" pick and getting some value back from its usage.

I'm not sure anyone is going to offer Rockliff a massive deal, that will net us pick 4, when he will be 28 years old next year. Better off keeping Rocky and I'm sure Noble will not over pay him. $625,000-675,000 is the price range Rocky is worth.

 

[lionshine]

The midfield load on Rockliff, D.Beams and Zorko is just too much ATM, we have a scarcity of talent in the 22-25 midfield age bracket. To balance our age profile going forward we need to get a player or ideally 2 in that age bracket into the club, or a year or so younger if they are elite level mids. We also need outside pacy runners and a small forward with elite pressure capabilities. I would be going hard at the likes of Pittard, Johaniisen, Hopper, Kennedy, Parish to name a few.

With Zorko (28), Rockliff (27), D.Beams (27), Robinson (27), Christensen (25) I am of the opinion that it is not out of the realms of possibility that 3 or 4 of them could still be around when we are in contention for a top 4 berth. Players are playing really good football till the ages of 32-34 these days giving these blokes potentially 5-6 years of footy left if they stay clear of major injuries.

Yeah I'd love nothing more than to add a gun mid aged 21-23. One who is already a borderline A grader who can step up from next year and be a major part of our midfield brigade for the next 10 years. Jacob Hopper would be a great get.

 

[Devz15]

After listening to Fagan and understanding he loves forward pressure, I'd be making a big play for Ben Ainsworth. We've been on the receiving end of clubs poaching our draftees, I feel it might be time to turn around and do some poaching of our own. It was evident last year by his twitter activity that Ben was pretty content on getting to us at pick 3. In the two games he played this year he looked exactly like what we're currently lacking in a small forward.

 

[M Malice]

Yeah I'd love nothing more than to add a gun mid aged 21-23. One who is already a borderline A grader who can step up from next year and be a major part of our midfield brigade for the next 10 years. Jacob Hopper would be a great get.

What about putting a big contract offer in front of Josh Kelly, say 5 years at 5.5 million front loaded? IMO he is an elite AA level talent guy right now and only 22 years old. We should be willing to give up our first pick this year IMO, while players like Fogarty/Rayner/Stephenson could be elite Kelly already is. If that sort of deal is not possible, agree Hopper would be great and we wouldn't have to give up our first pick.

 

[M Malice]

After listening to Fagan and understanding he loves forward pressure, I'd be making a big play for Ben Ainsworth. We've been on the receiving end of clubs poaching our draftees, I feel it might be time to turn around and do some poaching of our own. It was evident last year by his twitter activity that Ben was pretty content on getting to us at pick 3. In the two games he played this year he looked exactly like what we're currently lacking in a small forward.

Ben only just signed a 2 year extension with the suns as all their top 10 draft picks from last year did. Very envious, we need Schache, McCluggage, Berry, Cox and Witherden to follow suit.

 

[ZoBlitz]

Ben only just signed a 2 year extension with the suns as all their top 10 draft picks from last year did. Very envious, we need Schache, McCluggage, Berry, Cox and Witherden to follow suit.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Gold Coast didn't significantly overpay to get those extensions as early as they have.

 

[Fitzroy bears]

The bit that you're missing then is that the bolded "if" might not be the case.

Alternative scenarios:

• The club has no further picks in the draft other than the "futurely traded" pick.
• The club only has low value picks in the draft after than the "futurely traded" pick.

The first option is a clear case where the club must have the option to use the "futurely traded" pick. Consider this scenario:

Say this year we get pick 3, Rocky leaves for a massive deal that nets us pick 4 and Port's pick ends up being 15, and we only take three list spots into the draft. If we rate Ballenden as a top 5 talent and he ends up bid on between pick 5 and 14 we're stuck with either matching, which causes us to both forfeit pick 15 anyway (as we no longer have a list spot free for it) and take a deficit on the following year's first rounder, or passing on that top 5 talent.

The second scenario is very similar, but the difference is whether we choose between having the later picks pushed further back and taking a deficit on an early pick in the following year, or matching with the "futurely traded" pick and getting some value back from its usage.

The scenarios that you have supplied would be very interesting if the AFL decide to allow trading of picks at the draft. I wonder how it will work with scenario 1. Cause I am sure the lions in that case would still value those later picks to be able to trade them for future picks.

I know this had nothing to do with what you were responding to but you got me thinking about available list spots and valuable picks that could be rendered useless. Would be interested to here you thoughts.

 

[lionshine]

What about putting a big contract offer in front of Josh Kelly, say 5 years at 5.5 million front loaded? IMO he is an elite AA level talent guy right now and only 22 years old. We should be willing to give up our first pick this year IMO, while players like Fogarty/Rayner/Stephenson could be elite Kelly already is. If that sort of deal is not possible, agree Hopper would be great and we wouldn't have to give up our first pick.

I'd love Josh Kelly. He'd be in the top 5 players I'd pick if we could add any player in the league aged 23 or under. Would be so difficult to get him though. I think he genuinely loves it at GWS and wants to play in premierships with them, however, if he were to leave, North Melbourne the club he grew up barracking for and the club his Dad played for have supposedly offered him 9mill over 9 years. How can we compete with that? Kelly would be an amazing recruit but hard to see it happening.

 

[BRAB]

I'd love Josh Kelly. He'd be in the top 5 players I'd pick if we could add any player in the league aged 23 or under. Would be so difficult to get him though. I think he genuinely loves it at GWS and wants to play in premierships with them, however, if he were to leave, North Melbourne the club he grew up barracking for and the club his Dad played for have supposedly offered him 9mill over 9 years. How can we compete with that? Kelly would be an amazing recruit but hard to see it happening.

We'll promise him a free gym membership at Gabba Central.

 

[lionshine]

We'll promise him a free gym membership at Gabba Central.

Now that is a game changing incentive that I didn't even consider!

 

[BRAB]

Now that is a game changing incentive that I didn't even consider!

I'll even give him my gocard if that doesn't get him over the line.

 

[jackess]

I'd love Josh Kelly. He'd be in the top 5 players I'd pick if we could add any player in the league aged 23 or under. Would be so difficult to get him though. I think he genuinely loves it at GWS and wants to play in premierships with them, however, if he were to leave, North Melbourne the club he grew up barracking for and the club his Dad played for have supposedly offered him 9mill over 9 years. How can we compete with that? Kelly would be an amazing recruit but hard to see it happening.

Would you give up Schache for Kelly?

 

[lionshine]

Would you give up Schache for Kelly?

Very good question. As tempting as it would be to add an out and out gun of the calibre of Kelly I'd have to say no. If we can keep our young, tall stocks of Schache, Hipwood and Andrews long term they'll take us places.

 

[briztoon]

The scenarios that you have supplied would be very interesting if the AFL decide to allow trading of picks at the draft. I wonder how it will work with scenario 1. Cause I am sure the lions in that case would still value those later picks to be able to trade them for future picks.

I know this had nothing to do with what you were responding to but you got me thinking about available list spots and valuable picks that could be rendered useless. Would be interested to here you thoughts.

You would think that we would possibly trade them during the trade period for future picks.

I've been thinking a bit about what picks I would trade for the likes of Hopper, etc, but there's a whole season to go yet, so I don't want to floating any fantasy trades until we have an idea where our academy kids are rated and where our picks land.

 

[BRAB]

Would you give up Schache for Kelly?

If he requested a trade to GWS I would.

 

[jackess]

If he requested a trade to GWS I would.

What if he asked for a contract for more money then we thought he was worth and we knew that if we didn't give him that value then he would leave but Schache leaving meant we could afford to offer a contract that Kelly would accept and would get the pick or picks from say Richmond or North that would satisfy a trade for Kelly?

 

[BRAB]

What if he asked for a contract for more money then we thought he was worth and we knew that if we didn't give him that value then he would leave but Schache leaving meant we could afford to offer a contract that Kelly would accept and would get the pick or picks from say Richmond or North that would satisfy a trade for Kelly?

I think the club would be in a better position if we could add Kelly to the team and lose Schache so any mechanism that made that happen would be ok with me.

It won't happen though. We'd probably be last on his list of potential clubs to go to.

Edit:

To add to this, Schache is likely to go so the real position we're probably in is we get some shitty draft picks for Schache and replace him with an academy kid. Tis the reality of Brisbane at the moment. Pipe dreams of Josh Kelly will just never happen.

 

[13Beast]

I think the club would be in a better position if we could add Kelly to the team and lose Schache so any mechanism that made that happen would be ok with me.

It won't happen though. We'd probably be last on his list of potential clubs to go to.

Edit:

To add to this, Schache is likely to go so the real position we're probably in is we get some shitty draft picks for Schache and replace him with an academy kid. Tis the reality of Brisbane at the moment. Pipe dreams of Josh Kelly will just never happen.

I'd hope that given Schache being a no.2 pick, key player in our forward line and a very promising KPF (of which do not grow on trees and there are very few that come up in trade talks each season), it will be extremely hard for interested clubs to lowball us. VERY different scenario to having a no.8 Aish, no.12 Docherty, no.5 Polec or no.8 Longer, more or less fringe players at the time of their trading with none of them having set the world alight by any stretch, and being in easily replaceable positions.

We probably won't get Josh Kelly, but if Vic clubs come knocking, especially those with some young talent on their list to pick and choose from, such as Melbourne for instance, I'd be happy to walk away with their first rounder + a promising young midfielder.

 

[TheZork]

I think the club would be in a better position if we could add Kelly to the team and lose Schache so any mechanism that made that happen would be ok with me.

It won't happen though. We'd probably be last on his list of potential clubs to go to.

Edit:

To add to this, Schache is likely to go so the real position we're probably in is we get some shitty draft picks for Schache and replace him with an academy kid. Tis the reality of Brisbane at the moment. Pipe dreams of Josh Kelly will just never happen.

Are you basing the fact that Schache is likely to go on that he hasn't resigned yet or do you know something?

 

[BRAB]

Are you basing the fact that Schache is likely to go on that he hasn't resigned yet or do you know something?

I know nothing

 

[dlanod]

I'm not sure anyone is going to offer Rockliff a massive deal, that will net us pick 4, when he will be 28 years old next year. Better off keeping Rocky and I'm sure Noble will not over pay him. $625,000-675,000 is the price range Rocky is worth.

Purely hypothetical to provide examples. If it makes you feel better, imagine it's "trade Schache to a Melbourne club for pick 4".

 

[13Beast]

Purely hypothetical to provide examples. If it makes you feel better, imagine it's "trade Schache to a Melbourne club for pick 4".

Purely hypothetical to suggest he is leaving in the first place IMO. But hey, if we want to talk hypotheticals, no need to stop there