List Mgmt. 2018 Trade/Draft/FA SuperMegaUltra Thread - The Early Edition

[Obeanie1]

I'd be very reluctant to pay McGovern more than $800K a year, I think it's too much out of our salary cap.
If he leaves we move Barrass into his role and play Schofield/Emac as the lockdown defender. Obviously means we'll have to draft a KPD at some point in this draft but I don't think it'll hurt us as much as everyone thinks.

Barrass plays very similar style and he would be released more to play the intercept king if someone else took the lock down role.

If Gov left Rotham would get a go, EMac and Schofield retained and maybe O Allan or Brander developed as a kp back.

 

[Eastern Rangers]

My old boy is friends with ........ fwiw ......... said coniglio wants to come home but wants to win a flag with gws first.

Dunno whether blue and gold or purple preference or doesnt care.

Will GWS win a flag? There development has flat lined early in 2018.

 

[Eaglespur]

Exactly. That being the case though whats the difference in risk between a 5 or a 6 year deal?

If he wants a 6th fine, its $700k not $1m.

Gov will be fat by 31. Will still probably play well tho

 

[twce13]

Problem is we can't trade gov, he's a free agent. We won't be getting two first draft picks sadly.

Think about it the only scenario is we match the offer and at which point gov would be happy to stay and not request a trade. It's not like danger who was actually seeking to go back home.

Gaff we have more flexibility, but for gov it's either pick after our first or we re-sign him

 

[Godfather32]

We'd need two first rounders for him.

Actually I suppose if it was a couple of late first rounders we might, something like Sydney's next two firsts & Alir for McGovern. Whether that's a fair deal though...

 

[Godfather32]

Problem is we can't trade gov, he's a free agent. We won't be getting two first draft picks sadly.

Think about it the only scenario is we match the offer and at which point gov would be happy to stay and not request a trade. It's not like danger who was actually seeking to go back home.

Gaff we have more flexibility, but for gov it's either pick after our first or we re-sign him

We can trade him, he's a restricted free agent

 

[frenchconnection]

Does anyone know which club in Melbourne is into McGovern?

If it's Carlton, tell them we will do a straight swap for Patrick Cripps, happily.

Not sure how true, but I've heard both St Kilda and Nth Melbourne are into McGovern - apparently both Clubs have plenty of room in their salary cap?

 

[twce13]

We can trade him, he's a restricted free agent

Incorrect, you can only trade him if you match his offer . The difference with unrestricted is you cant match the offer and force the player to stay.

Clearly the reason he hasn't re-signed is because the club and gov are at a disagreement on his contract value. So if we match it why would gov request a trade when he has a contract he wants ?

Or better yet we can tell the club who put the offer in. Heyyyy we can't actually afford to honour this contract we just matched, we just thought we would try to find a loop hole, could you umm bail us out and give us two first drafts picks while your at it ?

 

[Godfather32]

Incorrect, you can only trade him if you match his offer . The difference with unrestricted is you cant match the offer and force the player to stay.

Clearly the reason he hasn't re-signed is because the club and gov are at a disagreement on his contract value. So if we match it why would gov request a trade when he has a contract he wants ?

Or better yet we can tell the club who put the offer in. Heyyyy we can't actually afford to honour this contract we just matched, we just thought we would try to find a loop hole, could you umm bail us out and give us two first drafts picks while your at it ?

Nope you're wrong, if McGovern, us and the team he wants to go to agree to a trade we can trade him.
Adelaide never matched Dangerfield's offer, they just heavily implied they would which is why Geelong came up with a trade for him.

 

[pantskyle]

26 years old and 85 games, wants over a million a year.

Pass.

 

[twce13]

Nope you're wrong, if McGovern, us and the team he wants to go to agree to a trade we can trade him.
Adelaide never matched Dangerfield's offer, they just heavily implied they would which is why Geelong came up with a trade for him.

That's not how it works tho and again that's not a like for like situation .

Step 1. McGovern accepts free agency offer, west coast have 3 days to match

If we match there's two options.

1. We keep him with the offer that was prestented by club A

2. We trade as we make it clear we will match ala the cats.


The difference to the Dangerfield situation is that danger wanted to go home and cats were morally obliged to obligate. They had no issues with the $$$$ of the contract and would have gladly paid that. And that sir is where this is a much different case .

In this scenario we match the contract and bam gov gets what he wanted all along a big fat contact at our club. He doesn't wanna go home, he is home. Again, unless I haven't made it clear yet, we just agreed to pay him the amount we didn't wanna pay so why would he leave.

The geelong case was a specially case and not relevant to gov. Again like I mentioned earlier, if this was gaff I would agree its relevant. If you think we have the right to force a trade then you don't really understand the concept of free agency.

Don't be ignorant, were not going to clean up from gov leaving. Free agency isn't a mechanism to benefit clubs, it's just some clubs cashed in when the rule was in it's infancy (dees, saints etc) and have made people naive.

Buddy leaving and Hawks getting pick 19 in return is a more what free agency is about . The fact clubs can manipulate is based on player needs (aka danger) shows it still has flaws and maybe the idea of compo just needs to **** right off.

 

[omgfridge]

26 years old and 85 games, wants over a million a year.

Pass.

Dual All Australian, best one on one defender in the league statically. We would feel this, stop kidding yourself.

Give him 6 and make the first few years top heavy so if hes shit by 32 the last year payout doesn't hurt? Defenders generally last longer also.

 

[Godfather32]

That's not how it works tho and again that's not a like for like situation .

Step 1. McGovern accepts free agency offer, west coast have 3 days to match

If we match there's two options.

1. We keep him with the offer that was prestented by club A

2. We trade as we make it clear we will match ala the cats.


The difference to the Dangerfield situation is that danger wanted to go home and cats were morally obliged to obligate. They had no issues with the $$$$ of the contract and would have gladly paid that. And that sir is where this is a much different case .

In this scenario we match the contract and bam gov gets what he wanted all along a big fat contact at our club. He doesn't wanna go home, he is home. Again, unless I haven't made it clear yet, we just agreed to pay him the amount we didn't wanna pay so why would he leave.

The geelong case was a specially case and not relevant to gov. Again like I mentioned earlier, if this was gaff I would agree its relevant. If you think we have the right to force a trade then you don't really understand the concept of free agency.

Don't be ignorant, were not going to clean up from gov leaving. Free agency isn't a mechanism to benefit clubs, it's just some clubs cashed in when the rule was in it's infancy (dees, saints etc) and have made people naive.

Buddy leaving and Hawks getting pick 19 in return is a more what free agency is about . The fact clubs can manipulate is based on player needs (aka danger) shows it still has flaws and maybe the idea of compo just needs to **** right off.

Again, we don't have to match the contract to agree to a trade with another team. You're the one who's being ignorant if you think that's the case.
Off the top of my head here's two scenarios where we don't actually match the contract but make a trade: If McGovern decides he really wants to go somewhere and that team thinks we will match they might come up with a trade. Or if another team wants McGovern but don't have have the salary cap space to fit him in they may trade us a player back to shed the necessary salary to fit him in.
To say that we cannot trade McGovern because he is free agent which is what you originally stated is blatantly false.

 

[avishka5]

give him 5 with a trigger clause and couple of Hungry Jacks stores.

 

[twce13]

Again, we don't have to match the contract to agree to a trade with another team. You're the one who's being ignorant if you think that's the case.
Off the top of my head here's two scenarios where we don't actually match the contract but make a trade: If McGovern decides he really wants to go somewhere and that team thinks we will match they might come up with a trade. Or if another team wants McGovern but don't have have the salary cap space to fit him in they may trade us a player back to shed the necessary salary to fit him in.
To say that we cannot trade McGovern because he is free agent which is what you originally stated is blatantly false.

Again, we don't have to match the contract to agree to a trade with another team. You're the one who's being ignorant if you think that's the case.
Off the top of my head here's two scenarios where we don't actually match the contract but make a trade: If McGovern decides he really wants to go somewhere and that team thinks we will match they might come up with a trade. Or if another team wants McGovern but don't have have the salary cap space to fit him in they may trade us a player back to shed the necessary salary to fit him in.
To say that we cannot trade McGovern because he is free agent which is what you originally stated is blatantly false.

Sorry I should have said unrealistic given the circumstances. I mean of course a trade is possible, just like it's possible shuey is going to walk up the goal posts on Saturday and slap his **** on them.

Under the scenario that gov actually wants to leave to another club and it has nothing to do with $$ then yes a trade is possible, thats true. However given the reports this isn't the case and it's clearly about the contract value hence I was trying to be relevant to this scenario. Sorry if this wasn't clear to you.

So for your benefit, ill summarize by saying given the current circumstances and assuming it stays about contract value a trade is very unrealistic.

Realistically we're not going to clean up via a trade as it currently stands.

 

[FKASC]

I heard McGovern enrolled his kids at Wembley Primary School

 

[Godfather32]

Sorry I should have said unrealistic given the circumstances. I mean of course a trade is possible, just like it's possible shuey is going to walk up the goal posts on Saturday and slap his **** on them.

Under the scenario that gov actually wants to leave to another club and it has nothing to do with $$ then yes a trade is possible, thats true. However given the reports this isn't the case and it's clearly about the contract value hence I was trying to be relevant to this scenario. Sorry if this wasn't clear to you.

So for your benefit, ill summarize by saying given the current circumstances and assuming it stays about contract value a trade is very unrealistic.

Realistically we're not going to clean up via a trade as it currently stands.

Things can change, McGovern and family might decide they like the idea of moving to Sydney or Melbourne. Fremantle might decide they're willing to pony up something decent to make sure they get him. Plenty of scenarios can play out which result in a McGovern trade. We might not clean up but there's a chance we might make out better than pick 19.

 

[squashface]

26 years old and 85 games, wants over a million a year.

Pass.

Does he want over a million a year?

Sticking point by all reports seems to be the length of the contract, not money.

 

[FKASC]

It’s about that length

 

[Jako Darling]

Worst case, if Gov leaves I can see us developing Brander to fill that hole. Would open up the Allens to fill JKs boots in the future too.

 

[Carbine Chaos]

Worst case, if Gov leaves I can see us developing Brander to fill that hole. Would open up the Allens to fill JKs boots in the future too.

Would absolutely hate to waste Brander down back. Still hold onto the dream as Allen as a tall midfielder too.

 

[Jako Darling]

Would absolutely hate to waste Brander down back. Still hold onto the dream as Allen as a tall midfielder too.

If Gov left though? Mallen probably won't get a look in if Brander, Waters & Ollen are up forward.

And if he ended up being like Gov, would that be a waste?

 

[Carbine Chaos]

If Gov left though? Mallen probably won't get a look in if Brander, Waters & Ollen are up forward.

And if he ended up being like Gov, would that be a waste?

The Mallen situation is unfortunate but that’s the issue with unbalanced drafting.

Brander looks a natural forward you’d be mad to shift him back.

 

[dajesmac]

Sounds like the sticking point is the girth of the contract

 

[Jako Darling]

The Mallen situation is unfortunate but that’s the issue with unbalanced drafting.

Brander looks a natural forward you’d be mad to shift him back.

I understand that, but with everyone calling for us to draft a key back to cover us for the future, would this not make sense? Means we could focus on drafting pure mids. This is only ofcourse if Gov leaves.