List Mgmt. 2023 Trade Thread - Part II

[Saints4ever]

Buddy he reckons lmao

I would’ve went with champ or chief personally.

 

[Saints4ever]

We match and don’t trade and you lose a potential match winning 50 goal a season small forward.

Geez listen to me I’ve been watching too many Adrian Dildo movies.

 

[eth-dog]

We match and don’t trade and you lose a potential match winning 50 goal a season small forward.

His best year ever has been 35 goals and across his career he's a 1 goal/game small forward. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind Gresham as a player and he's probably our best small forward next year but he's not really worth band 1 money. He's probably worth band 2 money since we have the cap space that we do but that would still be a better pick than you'd get from us in a trade.

I get why you want pick 13 for him. But it doesn't make sense for us to overpay for no material benefit.

 

[akaifu]

They don't need the salary relief though. That's the key point in this. No way we end up with 13 in this deal.

I guess if you think of it this way - we do this deal and get Shiel + 27 for Gresham.

Would we rather that than 19 on it's own (band 2) or keeping Gresham (band 3)?

Where in the world did 27 come from? Essendon are not giving us any picks, its the AFL giving us pick 13 for free agency compensation. Essentially, its:

Saints get: Pick 13, Dylan Shiel
Bombers get: Gresham, draft pick, salary relief and more midfield time for their young mids

There is totally a way for us to end up with 13, just like how Geelong ended up with 7 last year

 

[eth-dog]

Where in the world did 27 come from? Essendon are not giving us any picks, its the AFL giving us pick 13 for free agency compensation. Essentially, its:

Saints get: Pick 13, Dylan Shiel
Bombers get: Gresham, draft pick, salary relief and more midfield time for their young mids

There is totally a way for us to end up with 13, just like how Geelong ended up with 7 last year

We don't need the cap relief next year. Plus overpaying for Gresham offsets that and then multiplies it for an extra two or three years.

And Hobbs was getting midfield minutes ahead of Shiel towards the end of the year anyway, if he stays Shiel will probably be mostly half forward next year anyway. So the scenario doesn't work if we're not getting pick 13 as part of the deal.

 

[JediSaint]

Think we would need to get GC pick 4 to be locked to get Sanders that pick will be 6 by the time bids come in.

1. WC - Reid
2. GC NGA Bid - Jed Walter
3. Nth - McKercher
4. Nth FA Comp - Watson
5. Haw - Dursma

Of the top prospects that leaves, Sanders Curtin O'Sullivan Caddy and Wilson in the open pool with Ethan Reid and Rodgers GC NGA tied.

Most probably have Curtin next. Sanders could slip a couple of picks if Melb want Caddy as a forward - GWS don't need mids but not sure how he would get past Geelong.

6. GC Pick up for trade
7. Melb
8. GWS
9. Geel
10. Ess

So Essendon's pick at 8 currently gives you a faint hope of him sliding to there but you wouldn't sell the farm for a faint hope has to be GC pick if you want to be sure to get your man.

Also happy that our team has identified Sanders as the target fits our needs perfectly would be a good long term match with Pou and Owens - Pretty powerful midfield

Instead of chasing Sheil and his salary to pick up #13 in exchange for gresham.
I would still try to trade Gresham to Bombers - but not for Sheil.

IMO, I would look at Chol. Plays both ends of the ground. 200cm 98kegs.
He will be 27 next year, absorb his salary over x3 years + a bit more with a 4th trigger. That will give time for VanEs to develop, but also put us into a position to bargain for #4. (Might have to sweeten the deal with the required picks to get GC over the line.) Gives a look at Saunders and other top prospects mentioned.

 

[Significant]

His best year ever has been 35 goals and across his career he's a 1 goal/game small forward. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind Gresham as a player and he's probably our best small forward next year but he's not really worth band 1 money. He's probably worth band 2 money since we have the cap space that we do but that would still be a better pick than you'd get from us in a trade.

I get why you want pick 13 for him. But it doesn't make sense for us to overpay for no material benefit.

The material benefit is freeing yourself up from a significantly large contract on a player which is no longer inside your best 22 players.

In a competition which utilises a standardised salary cap across all teams, every team is constantly looking to restructure their TPP to gain as much competitive advantage as possible. Ensuring that the majority of your cap is tied to your regular 22 is a part of this.

Besides, if it's the difference in paying Jade $100-150k more over 3-4 years to ensure we don't match, then why wouldn't you?

Ultimately, we've been up front with him, his manager, and other clubs. Come to the party, get us high compensation, or we will match.. it's that simple.

 

[akaifu]

We don't need the cap relief next year. Plus overpaying for Gresham offsets that and then multiplies it for an extra two or three years.

And Hobbs was getting midfield minutes ahead of Shiel towards the end of the year anyway, if he stays Shiel will probably be mostly half forward next year anyway. So the scenario doesn't work if we're not getting pick 13 as part of the deal.

Why would you receive pick 13 at all? Again, its free agency compensation for St Kilda and has nothing to do with the Bombers.

I get the offsetting element, but from a Bombers perspective, doing the deal is better than Saints matching a Bombers bid which would result in them actually having to give up an early pick to complete a trade. Its not all just about the direct result of the trade, but the indirect costs of not doing it

 

[JediSaint]

Don’t see how getting rid of Gresham and getting in Shiel improves our list.

It’s all about also picking up #13

 

[akaifu]

Instead of chasing Sheil and his salary to pick up #13 in exchange for gresham.
I would still try to trade Gresham to Bombers - but not for Sheil.

IMO, I would look at Chol. Plays both ends of the ground. 200cm 98kegs.
He will be 27 next year, absorb his salary over x3 years + a bit more with a 4th trigger. That will give time for VanEs to develop, but also put us into a position to bargain for #4. (Might have to sweeten the deal with the required picks to get GC over the line.) Gives a look at Saunders and other top prospects mentioned.

Chol has never played defence before and Suns wouldn't do a salary dump deal with us when Hawks are already interested in doing it straight up without a dump.

 

[akaifu]

His best year ever has been 35 goals and across his career he's a 1 goal/game small forward. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind Gresham as a player and he's probably our best small forward next year but he's not really worth band 1 money. He's probably worth band 2 money since we have the cap space that we do but that would still be a better pick than you'd get from us in a trade.

I get why you want pick 13 for him. But it doesn't make sense for us to overpay for no material benefit.

Except there is material benefit because it prevents the Saints from matching a bid and forcing Bombers to actually give up a valuable draft pick. If you do the deal, you get rid of Shiel while receiving Gresham AND a later pick without having to give up anything else. If you don't, you either don't get Gresham at all or you give up a first rounder/early second rounder (BZT pick) for him. Which would you prefer?

 

[Mangus]

Independently what is Sheil worth in a trade considering we take on his full salary 31 year old 800K on the open market that is a contract you struggle to give away.But maybe a third rounder at best given they have plenty of Cap Space. If they want to overpay for McKay to outbid Hawthorn and pay enough to stop us matching on Gresham that is probably 800K for MckKay and 650 for Gresh That’s a fair chunk of your Salary Cap particularly if you are paying 800K still for Sheil 2.2M on three players Add in they resigned Parish and maybe all the cap space is drying up

The difference between the floor and the ceiling clubs are allowed to pay is less than a million dollars actually about $700K and they are already adding about 1.5M with McKay Gresh and Parish

This deal saves them 600K and gets them the players they want another 30 -40 pick from us at no draft cost only losing Sheil who they don’t need or it seems want.

But it only works if my maths is right and they can’t really get both McKay and Gresham without losing Shiels salary

 

[JediSaint]

Will mini be our assistant next year? How would that fit into the soft cap

Development coach

 

[George]

Buddy he reckons lmao

150th thread v2? All it takes is one...

 

[eth-dog]

The material benefit is freeing yourself up from a significantly large contract on a player which is no longer inside your best 22 players.

In a competition which utilises a standardised salary cap across all teams, every team is constantly looking to restructure their TPP to gain as much competitive advantage as possible. Ensuring that the majority of your cap is tied to your regular 22 is a part of this.

Besides, if it's the difference in paying Jade $100-150k more over 3-4 years to ensure we don't match, then why wouldn't you?

Ultimately, we've been up front with him, his manager, and other clubs. Come to the party, get us high compensation, or we will match.. it's that simple.

I mean, Shiel has never played VFL at Essendon. If he's on our list next year I daresay he'll be getting games when fit.

Also, if band 1 is 100k per year away you'd be getting band 2 anyway, which would be better than any pick we offered as part of the trade.

Why would you receive pick 13 at all? Again, its free agency compensation for St Kilda and has nothing to do with the Bombers.

I get the offsetting element, but from a Bombers perspective, doing the deal is better than Saints matching a Bombers bid which would result in them actually having to give up an early pick to complete a trade. Its not all just about the direct result of the trade, but the indirect costs of not doing it

Is it? We keep our current offer where it is and you get pick 19 as compensation. Which is better than our second round pick.

Except there is material benefit because it prevents the Saints from matching a bid and forcing Bombers to actually give up a valuable draft pick. If you do the deal, you get rid of Shiel while receiving Gresham AND a later pick without having to give up anything else. If you don't, you either don't get Gresham at all or you give up a first rounder/early second rounder (BZT pick) for him. Which would you prefer?

We wouldn't be trading our first for him. The Zerk pick is likely to be a late second and change. So you'd be getting pick 27 for him instead of pick 19. I'd understand it if it were increasing our offer from band 3 (pick 33) to band 2 (19) but it doesn't make sense for us to shed a salary foe one year when we don't really need to for no material draft pick benefit.

Independently what is Sheil worth in a trade considering we take on his full salary 31 year old 800K on the open market that is a contract you struggle to give away.But maybe a third rounder at best given they have plenty of Cap Space. If they want to overpay for McKay to outbid Hawthorn and pay enough to stop us matching on Gresham that is probably 800K for MckKay and 650 for Gresh That’s a fair chunk of your Salary Cap particularly if you are paying 800K still for Sheil 2.2M on three players Add in they resigned Parish and maybe all the cap space is drying up

The difference between the floor and the ceiling clubs are allowed to pay is less than a million dollars actually about $700K and they are already adding about 1.5M with McKay Gresh and Parish

This deal saves them 600K and gets them the players they want another 30 -40 pick from us at no draft cost only losing Sheil who they don’t need or it seems want.

But it only works if my maths is right and they can’t really get both McKay and Gresham without losing Shiels salary

Your maths is wrong. Parish is on the same money as his last contract. We're not offering 800k a year to McKay. The deal saves us no money for next year. Also we brought forward a lot of his salary the past couple of years to make the floor so he's not on big money anymore.

We don't need the cap relief. We can get both whilst keeping Shiel's salary. Hell, we'd probably pay some of it to get a better pick.

 

[Significant]

I mean, Shiel has never played VFL at Essendon. If he's on our list next year I daresay he'll be getting games when fit.

Also, if band 1 is 100k per year away you'd be getting band 2 anyway, which would be better than any pick we offered as part of the trade.

Is it? We keep our current offer where it is and you get pick 19 as compensation. Which is better than our second round pick.

We wouldn't be trading our first for him. The Zerk pick is likely to be a late second and change. So you'd be getting pick 27 for him instead of pick 19. I'd understand it if it were increasing our offer from band 3 (pick 33) to band 2 (19) but it doesn't make sense for us to shed a salary foe one year when we don't really need to for no material draft pick benefit.

Your maths is wrong. Parish is on the same money as his last contract. We're not offering 800k a year to McKay. The deal saves us no money for next year. Also we brought forward a lot of his salary the past couple of years to make the floor so he's not on big money anymore.

We don't need the cap relief. We can get both whilst keeping Shiel's salary. Hell, we'd probably pay some of it to get a better pick.

Are you suggesting that Shiel isn't on big money, as all news reports are suggesting? I don't agree that we would match to trade, I think we would match to keep (if we didn't get the compensation we were after). It's that simple, and it's what we have explained to Jade and his manager all along. Whether Band 2 is enough, I'm not sure, but it sounds like we are after Band 1.

 

[JediSaint]

Would he be there at 8? Doesn't work. We would need to give 12 and 13 and a second (probably) to get 4.

Think he may still be there at 4

I was thinking the same.
Saints #12 #31

Aren't the Suns looking to off load Chol and/or Hotton in a salary dump of their own, free up cash for Dusty.

Suns #4 + Player Salary Dump

The picks would give them extra points for their NGA draft picks.

 

[eth-dog]

Are you suggesting that Shiel isn't on big money, as all news reports are suggesting? I don't agree that we would match to trade, I think we would match to keep (if we didn't get the compensation we were after). It's that simple, and it's what we have explained to Jade and his manager all along. Whether Band 2 is enough, I'm not sure, but it sounds like we are after Band 1.

He's on decent but not huge coin. Like I said, we've been scraping the salary cap floor for a couple of years so we've had to front load a few re-signings over the past couple of years (Merrett, Langford, Ridley to name a few) to get there. He'd be looking at 600-650 next year I'd guess.

Matching to keep would make more sense than matching to trade but that also runs the risk of him nominating for either the ND or PSD (more likely the latter) if he doesn't want to be there.

 

[austinnn]

I'd prefer the chips over Shiel tbh

Got to be trolling surely [emoji1787]

 

[austinnn]

I'd prefer the chips over Shiel tbh

Got to be trolling surely lol

 

[magd2992]

What I’ve learnt from the last 300 odd pages:

1. I really like chips.

That is all.

Good day everyone.

 

[Saints4ever]

Seems like we have a lot in favour for chips.
Gresham for Sam Fisher

Sam Fisher

Age

43

Ht

191cm

Wt

94kg

Pos.

Def

Career

Season

Last 5

D

19.3

5star

K

12.3

5star

HB

7.0

4star

M

7.0

5star

T

1.6

4star

MG

220.2

3star

No current season stats available

D

9.0

3star

K

6.6

3star

HB

2.4

3star

M

2.8

3star

T

1.2

3star

it is.

 

[austinnn]

Imagine comparing Shiel and Dow to 4 players who were delisted a day after the season ended.

You seriously believe Essendon are going to give us a first round pick for nothing [emoji23][emoji23]

**** me you can't be serious. Please tell me you're ****ing with us as some kind of twisted joke and NOT that you just simply cannot comprehend the basic concept of this deal.

 

[austinnn]

Not enough to overpay Gresham by 100k+ considering Shiel only has one year to run.

This is what makes me doubt the deal can happen: we're talking about salary cap relief for Shiel but then why would they agree to a multi year deal where they overpay Gresh?

 

[stavro#4]

This is what makes me doubt the deal can happen: we're talking about salary cap relief for Shiel but then why would they agree to a multi year deal where they overpay Gresh?

The appeal of Gresham is he is a free agent.

It effectively pays us to not match