Remove this Banner Ad

List Mgmt. 2021 Trade Thread - Part I

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delisted;
-

Traded;
-

Retired;
Jake Carlisle
Shaun McKernan

Current Players Out of Contract;
3. Zak Jones - Link
6. Sebastian Ross (RFA) - Link
7. Luke Dunstan (RFA) - Link
13. Jack Lonie - Link
15. Jack Billings (RFA) - Link
18. Patrick Ryder - Link
24. James Frawley - Link
25. Dean Kent - Link
38. Oscar Clavarino - Link
39. Darragh Joyce - Link
41. Paul Hunter - Link
42. Max Heath - Link
45. Sam Alabakis - Link


To see the full list (it gets updated regularly) visit this thread;

List & Contract Status

SENIOR LIST 1. Jack Higgins 2. Marcus Windhager 3. Zak Jones 4. Lance Collard 5. Brad Crouch 6. Sebastian Ross 7. Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera 8. Bradley Hill 9. Jack Steele 10. Mitchito Owens 11. Hunter Clark 12. Max King 13. Ryan Byrnes 14. Liam Stocker 15. Paddy Dow 16. Daniel Butler 17. Isaac...
www.bigfooty.com www.bigfooty.com
 
Anyone else notice josh kelly is starting to look his old self again lately?

(Had 12 contested and 16 uncontested possies, 6 tackles off only 77% time on ground v the tigs last week- drool.)

Maybe not looking a million × 7 good, but still pretty damn good.

Surely he'd be amenable to taking a haircut on his guaranteed gws money to come and play down in melb?

800 x 7 base plus performance bonuses?

(If he stays fit and firing for the rest of this year)

Assuming we're no chance at merrett he'd be worth looking at as an RFA especially with big question marks over whether gresh will ever stay fit enough.

We really really really need to bring top shelf elite talent into our mids.
 
The_Steadier said:
Anyone else notice josh kelly is starting to look his old self again lately?

(Had 12 contested and 16 uncontested possies, 6 tackles off only 77% time on ground v the tigs last week- drool.)

Maybe not looking a million × 7 good, but still pretty damn good.

Surely he'd be amenable to taking a haircut on his guaranteed gws money to come and play down in melb?

800 x 7 base plus performance bonuses?

(If he stays fit and firing for the rest of this year)

Assuming we're no chance at merrett he'd be worth looking at as an RFA especially with big question marks over whether gresh will ever stay fit enough.

We really really really need to bring top shelf elite talent into our mids.
Click to expand...
I wouldnt want to be giving a 26 year old a 7 year deal, especially on that type of money.

It seems irresponsible for any club to be locking in someone on big money well into their 30s.
 
BrutThough said:
I wouldnt want to be giving a 26 year old a 7 year deal, especially on that type of money.

It seems irresponsible for any club to be locking in someone on big money well into their 30s.
Click to expand...
As much as GWS would like to keep someone of his talent and skills, they must be quietly desperate for someone else to offer him an offer that’s enticing enough for him to want to join them under FA.

That contract will be like an anchor holding them down like Buddy’s has been for Sydney in recent years if he triggers that mega-deal to stay.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

BrutThough said:
I wouldnt want to be giving a 26 year old a 7 year deal, especially on that type of money.

It seems irresponsible for any club to be locking in someone on big money well into their 30s.
Click to expand...


Yeah, unless it was financially savvy to sign him up to a long contract for what would be unders there is no way you'd want to match it. I'd be happy with Kelly on about $650- $750k pa x 5 or something or otherwise chase someone else. He's been good this year but over all he's been underwhelming for his talent level. If you could straight swap Billings for him on FA compo and pay packet I think he'd be an upgrade in quality but not in resilience.
 
aussierulesrules said:
As much as GWS would like to keep someone of his talent and skills, they must be quietly desperate for someone else to offer him an offer that’s enticing enough for him to want to join them under FA.

That contract will be like an anchor holding them down like Buddy’s has been for Sydney in recent years if he triggers that mega-deal to stay.
Click to expand...
They also have Coniglio signed until 2026 when he will be 33 on 1 mill a year too. Whitfield signed until 2027, when he will be 33, on whats described as a lucrative deal.

Just crazy contracts to be handing out.

As fantastic as Kelly is, it would almost be better for them long term if he did decided to leave this year so they dont need to go through with that contract. Otherwise this cycle of players leaving is going to continue because there is no way they will be able to keep paying their up and coming stars if thats the type of contracts it is taking to get them to stay.
 
BrutThough said:
They also have Coniglio signed until 2026 when he will be 33 on 1 mill a year too. Whitfield signed until 2027, when he will be 33, on whats described as a lucrative deal.

Just crazy contracts to be handing out.

As fantastic as Kelly is, it would almost be better for them long term if he did decided to leave this year so they dont need to go through with that contract. Otherwise this cycle of players leaving is going to continue because there is no way they will be able to keep paying their up and coming stars if thats the type of contracts it is taking to get them to stay.
Click to expand...
Wow, what a disaster that will be to have those 3 taking up that much cap space into their 30’s!
 
aussierulesrules said:
Wow, what a disaster that will be to have those 3 taking up that much cap space into their 30’s!
Click to expand...
Especially since they have so many great kids coming through and another truck load of first round picks this year.

By the time they are hitting their peak and will be commanding big money, they will still be paying these huge long term deals.
 
BrutThough said:
I wouldnt want to be giving a 26 year old a 7 year deal
Click to expand...

Like dusty, fyfe, greene, lynch mean freo richmond, gws are being irresponsible?

I think 7 years for a 26 year old isn't instantly irresponsible.

Risky sure, but flags are won by those who take the right risks.
Those who take no risks never get close to one.

We signed brad hill at 26 up for 5 years which was presumably not irresponsible?

Is 5 years the limit of being responsible with 26 year olds by your reckoning?

I think drawing hard lines in the sand depending solely on arbitrary ages is not a good approach.
Each potential player needs to be looked at in a case by case basis, instead of ruling options out due to unfounded rules of thumb.

Setting such arbitrary rules based on ages would have likely meant we never even looked at getting paddy ryder for instance.

I'm not saying we go wave 7 years in front of kelly necessarily- all I'm saying is that we'd be dumb to discount the possibility due to adhering to some one size fits all rule.
 
Last edited:
BrutThough said:
They also have Coniglio signed until 2026 when he will be 33 on 1 mill a year too. Whitfield signed until 2027, when he will be 33, on whats described as a lucrative deal.

Just crazy contracts to be handing out.

As fantastic as Kelly is, it would almost be better for them long term if he did decided to leave this year so they dont need to go through with that contract. Otherwise this cycle of players leaving is going to continue because there is no way they will be able to keep paying their up and coming stars if thats the type of contracts it is taking to get them to stay.
Click to expand...

i didn't know this.

that is seriously ****ed list management. how bad was their cap to enter that type of deal...
 
The_Steadier said:
Like dusty, fyfe, greene, lynch mean freo richmond, gws are being irresponsible?

I think 7 years for a 26 year old isn't instantly irresponsible.

Risky sure, but flags are won by those who take the right risks.
Those who take no risks never get close to one.

We signed brad hill at 26 up for 5 years which was presumably not irresponsible?

Is 5 years the limit of being responsible with 26 year olds by your reckoning?

I think drawing hard lines in the sand depending solely on arbitrary ages is not a good approach.
Each potential player needs to be looked at in a case by case basis, instead of ruling options out due to unfounded rules of thumb.

Setting such arbitrary rules based on ages would have likely meant we never even looked at getting paddy ryder for instance.

I'm not saying we go wave 7 years in front of kelly necessarily- all I'm saying is that we'd be dumb to discount the possibility due to adhering to some one size fits all rule.
Click to expand...
Each player does need looked at on a case to case basis, which is why handing out long term, big money deals to everyone to get them to stay in Sydney is bad list management. Players can drop off the hill very quickly once they turn 30. There are more examples of players struggling at that age then players still playing their best football.

I can see committing that amount money to 1 player on your list over 30 but doing it for 3 players at once is reckless and irresponsible, and going to cause them major headaches in the future.
 
BrutThough said:
Each player does need looked at on a case to case basis, which is why handing out long term, big money deals to everyone to get them to stay in Sydney is bad list management. Players can drop off the hill very quickly once they turn 30. There are more examples of players struggling at that age then players still playing their best football.

I can see committing that amount money to 1 player on your list over 30 but doing it for 3 players at once is reckless and irresponsible, and going to cause them major headaches in the future.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are agreeing with me- im saying it's not instantly irresponsible in all situations to offer a 26 year old 7 years.

What im NOT saying is that it's a good idea to always offer 26 year old guns long term deals.

I too think gws have been idiotic in signing up so many players up to long, big money deals.
I'm not saying it's always a good idea- but I am saying it can have its place depending on the circumstance.

For instance- our current circumstance is that we are entering our flag window with our list peaking in the next few years.
And we could easily accommodate a long term signing of a gun mid while still being able to look after re-signing the likes of steele, marshall, clark etc.


FYI- it appears the situation is even more messed up for GWS than I thought.
Kelly can exercise his option for 1 million a year x 8 years!

Wowzer.

Surely they will be highly motivated to move him on (ie pay some of his salary)?

www.afl.com.au

Contract status 'irrelevant': Giants reveal stand-in skipper

Star mid to step up during the injury-enforced absence of Stephen Coniglio and Toby Greene
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au
 

Remove this Banner Ad

The_Steadier said:
It sounds like you are agreeing with me- im saying it's not instantly irresponsible in all situations to offer a 26 year old 7 years.

What im NOT saying is that it's a good idea to always offer 26 year old guns long term deals.

I too think gws have been idiotic in signing up so many players up to long, big money deals.
I'm not saying it's always a good idea- but I am saying it can have its place depending on the circumstance.

For instance- our current circumstance is that we are entering our flag window with our list peaking in the next few years.
And we could easily accommodate a long term signing of a gun mid while still being able to look after re-signing the likes of steele, marshall, clark etc.


FYI- it appears the situation is even more messed up for GWS than I thought.
Kelly can exercise his option for 1 million a year x 8 years!

Wowzer.

Surely they will be highly motivated to move him on (ie pay some of his salary)?

www.afl.com.au

Contract status 'irrelevant': Giants reveal stand-in skipper

Star mid to step up during the injury-enforced absence of Stephen Coniglio and Toby Greene
www.afl.com.au www.afl.com.au
Click to expand...
I think we do agree. I was a bit strong initially because not every situation is the same but there are very few instances where a player actually warrants the super long, mega money deal. It works for Dusty who was the undisputed best player in the comp, is worth a fortune for the club from a marketing standpoint and has the ability to transition into a permanent forward once he ages rather than only being able to play as a mid. But I think he is more the exception more than the rule.

For most players hitting the FA window, if they warrant a long term deal, I would be giving them a deal length that gets them to 30, and then once that comes around, you can re negotiate. If they still warrant big money when that time comes, then fantastic. But otherwise, clubs shouldn't put themselves in the situation GWS has put themselves in.

It's hard to tell if GWS would want him to move on considering the current player retention struggles they have. Having Kelly leave with a contract on the table after Cameron and Williams last year is terrible PR for them. But long term, there could be an awkward Treloar situation around the corner for them.
 
BrutThough said:
For most players hitting the FA window, if they warrant a long term deal, I would be giving them a deal length that gets them to 30, and then once that comes around, you can re negotiate. If they still warrant big money when that time comes, then fantastic
Click to expand...

Great in theory, impossible in practice.

The problem with that approach is that if you stick to it and only offer your RFA's 3-4 year deals max, you are likely to lose every decent (ie in demand) free agent you have.

Look at jack viney last year as a prime example.
Injury prone, no superstar, also plays a position the dees are well stocked in.
But decent player nonetheless.

I'm sure the dees would have loved to follow your approach and re-sign him for 3-4 years.
But the reality is that they would have lost him if they didn't offer him 5 years.

Same goes for trying to bring RFA's in.
We would have had no shot at bringing crouch or hill in if we didn't give them 5 years minimum.

Billings will be no different with us this year.
Market forces will dictate that we need to offer him at least 5 years or we lose him.

Of course maybe we decide (like we did with BJ and dal) that we are happy to let him go.
But that is a different kettle of fish.

The fact is, that for half decent, in demand RFA's, offering 3-4 year deals is simply not a realistic option (as adelaide discovered with crouch).

If your best and final offer for a decent RFA is 3-4years, then in most cases that is the same as saying you are resigned to them leaving.
 
bergholt said:
Yeah, looks like it. Without the Crows game:

24.4 disposals
8.0 contested
3.0 tackles
2.8 clearances
5.0 inside 50s
0.2 goals
1.2 goal assists

Compared to Clark:

22.0 disposals
7.3 contested
3.7 tackles
2.1 clearances
2.2 inside 50s
0.2 goals
0.3 goal assists

Not a huge amount to split them on the stats at this point, Cerra has slightly better numbers.
Click to expand...
Clark comparison aside, Cerra is a gun and is clearly on the up. Would love to get him. Freo owe us one after they took us to the cleaners with Hill, any chance they'd let him go for a reasonable price to us ?
 
TassieSaint said:
Clark comparison aside, Cerra is a gun and is clearly on the up. Would love to get him. Freo owe us one after they took us to the cleaners with Hill, any chance they'd let him go for a reasonable price to us ?
Click to expand...
No
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Mikka84 said:
Irresponsible is what we do best!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be picking up any high prices midfielders when we have Bytel , Byrne , Gresham , Clark waiting for a midfield slot.
Going by our selections this week we need a young key defender and a young key forward who can ruck.
This should be our priority.
Kelly would be great , but is he really worth the amount they are saying - I would be chasing Ben King and Weitering or the likes
 
Klaatu said:
Time to move on Mabior Chol not getting a look in at the Tigers 24y-200cm would be a good combo with Marshall if Ryder retires.
Click to expand...


We could have taken Biggy on the cheap and had a similar type. Hopefully Leo Connolly makes it because we gave him up to get Leo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

Fehring
List Mgmt. 2025 Trade Thread
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
11K
goodie23
goodie23
Hubnester
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion - Part IV
399 400 401 402 403
Replies
10K
Views
452K
Saintos The ITK
Saintos The ITK
Hubnester
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion - Part 3
386 387 388 389 390
Replies
10K
Views
425K
Chief
Chief
Hubnester
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management Discussion - Part V
219 220 221 222 223
Replies
6K
Views
259K
Significant
Significant
Tommy Wigs
  • Locked
List Mgmt. 2025 List Management discussion - part 2
583 584 585 586 587
Replies
15K
Views
618K
Gavinmitchell11
G
Hubnester
Rumour Rumours & Confirmed - Trades, Free Agency & Draft [NO DISCUSSION]
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
StFly
StFly
SainterinSydney
List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.3
149 150 151 152 153
Replies
4K
Views
193K
Mr Platinum
Mr Platinum

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top