Mega Thread 2018 List Management, Free Agency & Trade thread

[longsuffreosupp]

If someone wanted to leave a club (and it wasn't about the money), why would a club match? They would be forcing someone out of contract to stay.

J McGovern is all about the money, and if WC can match, you'd think he stay there. Unless he really really really wants to play for Freo, and accept the same money as currently at WC, a trade wont happen

 

[mr.11]

I've heard so many names associated with Free Agency or Trade with Fremantle...and always left dissappointed!!

I'm not bothering to care about it too much...if we have to Draft kids ,let's do it!Just want us to be competitive and averaging 90 points a game

 

[theGav56]

I don't think you get it still.

To force a trade WCE would have to match. Those are the rules. So if forced to match why would McGovern leave?

WCE can't threaten to match and force a trade. They MUST match for a trade to happen.

Again the Dangerfield deal is completely different in that Dangerfield wanted to leave. Adelaide would've matched any money but out of respect for all involved they struck a deal.

I get it, I just don't agree.

You are incorrect, a club does not have to match to get a trade. A trade is a perfectly possible outcome that both clubs could be happy with.

Adelaide never matched an offer, and an offer was never put up for FA consideration, yet a trade was made. But it is quite possible/likely that Adelaide indicated that if an appropriate trade did not eventuate they would match and either force a trade or the player into the draft. A matched bid doesn't equal a contract. If WC were not happy with pick 20 they could quite rightly inform McGovern's agent that they would do the same.

McGovern will leave if he wants to play for another club which could be for money or other reasons. I don't think he will leave, and as usually happens the club will pay a reasonably market place contract rate, just as we did with Fyfe. Perhaps a slight discount.

 

[theGav56]

If someone wanted to leave a club (and it wasn't about the money), why would a club match? They would be forcing someone out of contract to stay.

J McGovern is all about the money, and if WC can match, you'd think he stay there. Unless he really really really wants to play for Freo, and accept the same money as currently at WC, a trade wont happen

I don't think it is all about the money (I think it is simply agent manipulation and media speculation. McGovern will stay). Really I think most players are quite comfortable with the idea of being a one club player and being a reasonably loyal member of the team. Most top end players who leave move interstate, not down the street. And most contracts fall into the category of going market rate rather than Godfather type deals. Even Buddy's deal looks pretty close to that in retrospect.

 

[Cobbler]

I get it, I just don't agree.

You are incorrect, a club does not have to match to get a trade. A trade is a perfectly possible outcome that both clubs could be happy with.

Adelaide never matched an offer, and an offer was never put up for FA consideration, yet a trade was made. But it is quite possible/likely that Adelaide indicated that if an appropriate trade did not eventuate they would match and either force a trade or the player into the draft. A matched bid doesn't equal a contract. If WC were not happy with pick 20 they could quite rightly inform McGovern's agent that they would do the same.

McGovern will leave if he wants to play for another club which could be for money or other reasons. I don't think he will leave, and as usually happens the club will pay a reasonably market place contract rate, just as we did with Fyfe. Perhaps a slight discount.

Ok I think we’re going around in circles a little.
Obviously 2 teams can trade players for whatever reason under any circumstance. So yes I agree on that, OBVIOUSLY.

The Dangerfield scenario was different and Adelaide did say they’d match the bid to force a trade, so you’re just repeating what I’m basically saying. The trade was then completed prior to forcing it.

Under no circumstance will McGovern walk to Freo that involves a trade. UNLESS he literally walks out on them despite Eagles matching Freo bid. I.E he forces a trade.

A) we offer more money. He comes. No trade.
B) we offer money. WCE match. He remains an Eagle.
C) we offer money. WCE match. He deadset wants to play for us for the same amount. Trade required. This is an absolute no chance scenario and is what I’m getting at.

Anyone who thinks McGovern is coming to us for the same dollars as Eagles is delusional. It will take more money to shift him and hence no trade.

 

[apuchar]

The under 18's game is on Youtube if anyone wants to watch it. It has also been embedded in the WA vs SA thread (page 3) in the Under 18's championship header thread on the main board.

 

[Fat Yak]

I was talking to a guy at work who goes out with girl who's cousin is best friends with Jeremy McGovern's girlfriend, put your house on it,
Fremantle will offer Jeremy McGovern a mega deal that will have Kim Hagdorn institutionalized.

 

[Taylor]

You could ask Madi. They live in a nice place in Trigg, awkward concrete steps up to the front door for a pram though.

 

[Cobbler]

I was talking to a guy at work who goes out with girl who's cousin is best friends with Jeremy McGovern's girlfriend, put your house on it,
Fremantle will offer Jeremy McGovern a mega deal that will have Kim Hagdorn institutionalized.

Don't think anyone needs to know people who know people to realise we will be placing a massive offer on the table.

If we weren't he'd have signed for the 5 years with WCE already.

I still think our offer is going to be significantly higher then WCE and then it will come down to whether McGovern wants that scrutiny for that amount of dollars.

6 years - 7 Million total would dwarf what Eagles would be offering which IMO will be closer to $4 million over 5 years.

 

[Fat Yak]

AFL Memes
2 hrs ·
According to reports out of Melbourne, Eagles defender Jeremy McGovern is set to sign a $1.3m, 5 year contract with Freo.

Do you think this is a good move?

 

[Cobbler]

AFL Memes
2 hrs ·
According to reports out of Melbourne, Eagles defender Jeremy McGovern is set to sign a $1.3m, 5 year contract with Freo.

Do you think this is a good move?

Great move by the club to get him for $260k a year.

 

[Fat Yak]

Great move by the club to get him for $260k a year.

hehe that would be good but is he worth $6.5 m over 5 years?

 

[Arcassius]

And the bullshit begins Why would the report be coming out of Melbourne anyway (let alone signing a contract that can't be signed until end of season)

 

[theGav56]

If that offer is real (doubtful) then it would be a sign that the club feels that it has all the pieces in place for a finals tilt. It would leave little room to recruit any other players in the forseeable future. Alternatively, it may hasten the end for Sandilands and Mundy to free up salary (I think D Pearce, MJ and Ballantyne are gonski - ok I would consider Pearce on a minimum contract for a year purely because he has shown the capacity to maintain his professional dignity and provide depth).

 

[Cobbler]

If that offer is real (doubtful) then it would be a sign that the club feels that it has all the pieces in place for a finals tilt. It would leave little room to recruit any other players in the forseeable future. Alternatively, it may hasten the end for Sandilands and Mundy to free up salary (I think D Pearce, MJ and Ballantyne are gonski - ok I would consider Pearce on a minimum contract for a year purely because he has shown the capacity to maintain his professional dignity and provide depth).

The writing is on the wall for Johnson, Ballas, Pearce, Sandliands, Spurr and Mundy. They are our over 30 year old players.

Cut them and the next oldest is Stephen Hill at 28.

The only 2 worth considering for 2019 is Sandilands and Mundy. I'd argue we want to get games into Darcy now and as such Sandilands is possibly done this year. He will be 36. Mundy is drifting in and out of games but has been good and still provides leadership. Darcy is still under 20 and Sandilands provided up to it physically could probably go again next year.

No way can or should Johnson, Pearce, Spurr or Ballas play next year. The playing future of Sutcliffe would also need to be under consideration.

I think everyone else remains.

 

[Fat Yak]

And the bullshit begins Why would the report be coming out of Melbourne anyway (let alone signing a contract that can't be signed until end of season)

Firstly Melbourne reporters hate anyone out side of Vic. and secondly they eager to report what local reporters are afraid of reporting. Remember if a local shits in his own back yard, he's toast. FWIW I think it's a great move.

 

[Cobbler]

McGovern at 26 fits right into the right age bracket too.

Mitch would then become a serious chance at end of 2020 to play with his brother.

If those pieces fell and provided development of current youngsters was reasonable then 2021 is where the serious tilt would begin.

 

[Arcassius]

The writing is on the wall for Johnson, Ballas, Pearce, Sandliands, Spurr and Mundy. They are our over 30 year old players.

Cut them and the next oldest is Stephen Hill at 28.

The only 2 worth considering for 2019 is Sandilands and Mundy. I'd argue we want to get games into Darcy now and as such Sandilands is possibly done this year. He will be 36. Mundy is drifting in and out of games but has been good and still provides leadership. Darcy is still under 20 and Sandilands provided up to it physically could probably go again next year.

No way can or should Johnson, Pearce, Spurr or Ballas play next year. The playing future of Sutcliffe would also need to be under consideration.

I think everyone else remains.

Mundy's strength is in the midfield - his chemistry with Fyfe and Neale to waltz through a stoppage hasn't diminished. When he's playing forward he's not playing in his best position, especially if he's being double or triple teamed. I think he has another season or two left in him - he's being left out of the midfield to give the kids time to develop

 

[Cobbler]

Mundy's strength is in the midfield - his chemistry with Fyfe and Neale to waltz through a stoppage hasn't diminished. When he's playing forward he's not playing in his best position, especially if he's being double or triple teamed. I think he has another season or two left in him - he's being left out of the midfield to give the kids time to develop

I've loved the way they have gone about it with him this season. He usually gets a run through the midfield in the second half of the game and does well.

I'd keep doing that as I think he has a place in our forward line too.

Can't just have Fyfe, Neale and Mundy in the center all the time and kids everywhere else.

 

[Joao]

At this point I think I only want Mundy to stay on. Not because I don't rate Sandy but quite the opposite - we need to get used to not having silver midfield service. Get a false sense of how good our mids are when Sandy is out there. Unless of course Sandy has 5 years left then play on.

We need to get used to life after Sandy and the only way is to play without Sandy. Possibly keep him on for 10 or so games next year but we really need other players to be the ruck focus.

Mundy is still good, especially in the middle.

 

[Arcassius]

I've loved the way they have gone about it with him this season. He usually gets a run through the midfield in the second half of the game and does well.

I'd keep doing that as I think he has a place in our forward line too.

Can't just have Fyfe, Neale and Mundy in the center all the time and kids everywhere else.

Agreed. If he can cameo in the middle and help guide the kids and teach them - it'll be a win. He's still got a lot to give

 

[Cobbler]

At this point I think I only want Mundy to stay on. Not because I don't rate Sandy but quite the opposite - we need to get used to not having silver midfield service. Get a false sense of how good our mids are when Sandy is out there. Unless of course Sandy has 5 years left then play on.

We need to get used to life after Sandy and the only way is to play without Sandy. Possibly keep him on for 10 or so games next year but we really need other players to be the ruck focus.

Mundy is still good, especially in the middle.

Agree with Sandilands to a degree but his absence did highlight how big a player he is for us. Darcy showed enough as a 19 year old. I felt Apeness was serviceable. Not at all sold on Jones. He's got to be 3rd in line once Sandilands retires.

I'd be interested in what the 2019 thinking would be.

Assuming Sandi retires. Is it Darcy number 1 ruck. Apeness and Taberner dual forward rucks and all 3 in the team.

Is it just Darcy and Taberner with Jones and Apeness as back ups.

If Sandilands plays does Darcy work on his forward craft to play both in the same team.

 

[Suma Magic]

Can’t see us matching if McGovern leaves. Too much risk that he would just accept our matched offer.

I think we could match Gaff though.

 

[Cobbler]

Can’t see us matching if McGovern leaves. Too much risk that he would just accept our matched offer.

I think we could match Gaff though.

Probably have 2 significant offers on the table for both players. Gaff would attract dollars by Vic clubs and McGovern Freo.

If either leave the other may get a nudge up in their contract.

I never expect players to leave but at some stage Freo will lure someone of genuine value.

I think McGovern is a massive get for any club but I think you can cover him more then Gaff. Agree?

 

[Suma Magic]

Probably have 2 significant offers on the table for both players. Gaff would attract dollars by Vic clubs and McGovern Freo.

If either leave the other may get a nudge up in their contract.

I never expect players to leave but at some stage Freo will lure someone of genuine value.

I think McGovern is a massive get for any club but I think you can cover him more then Gaff. Agree?

I think that Gov is more likely to leave for money than gaff. Or that gov will be offered a greater differential.

I think Melbourne may lure gaff and I don’t think they have much more in the cap than we do. I think we could match as we would want to keep him and we wouldn’t want to just accelt pick 15-20 for him when we could get more via trade.

Gov I reckon would just stay if we matched $6m over 5 years but I don’t think I we would be willing to pay that. We would just eat the compo pick s**t sandwich and move on because we wouldn’t have a choice.

Edit: I misread your post. Hard to cover Gov but Barrass is suited to play the same role. We don’t have any young full backs unless Brander plays there.