List Mgmt. 2025 Trade/FA Thread

[jmac70]

JUH is very good mates with Reef.
Watch this space.

Yeah, that will make all the difference

 

[Vankri]

I don’t have anything to contribute re the first round pick trading rules, but the fact we’re considered a serious option of getting Rowell in a bidding war should tell you all you need to know about our salary cap situation.

It’s something that gets missed in the media talk about our list. The benefit of our list profile is that we have surplus cash. Even setting aside the veteran cap rules, our oldies cannot command big coin anymore, Nick is by far the best value player in the game, people like McStay who some complained about originally are on 600k which is ridiculously cheap for a KPF and Jordy signed for unders. Let’s not even mention Cameron who I imagine is great value too, and the likes of Hill, Maynard IQ who I believe won’t extract every cent because they’re unselfish and love the club. Other than that there’s really just Moore who would take a good chunk.

All this to say that with the cap increases and our situation it’s no surprise that we are continually in trade talks and it makes sense of our strategy to go for trades/free agents over picks.

 

[soreplums]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Pendles is part of a Rowell trade as he explore the next part of his journey.
You hear how much he contributes as a playing coach for us, imagine what he can do at the Gold Coast onfield under Hardwick for a couple of years.

 

[SchuPie]

I’d like us to still have our 2025 first for our trading flexibility but if you think I’m going to explain why/how I think we should still have it…

JUH and Rowell you say?

Edit: I think the HS today said it would benefit Doggies by landing them a raft of picks / players
That value is long gone.

 

[Apex36]

Except McGuane will be regarded as a first rounder provided he’s taken within the top 30, which seems like a formality at this point…

 

[Mick F]

I don’t have anything to contribute re the first round pick trading rules, but the fact we’re considered a serious option of getting Rowell in a bidding war should tell you all you need to know about our salary cap situation.

It’s something that gets missed in the media talk about our list. The benefit of our list profile is that we have surplus cash. Even setting aside the veteran cap rules, our oldies cannot command big coin anymore, Nick is by far the best value player in the game, people like McStay who some complained about originally are on 600k which is ridiculously cheap for a KPF and Jordy signed for unders. Let’s not even mention Cameron who I imagine is great value too, and the likes of Hill, Maynard IQ who I believe won’t extract every cent because they’re unselfish and love the club. Other than that there’s really just Moore who would take a good chunk.

All this to say that with the cap increases and our situation it’s no surprise that we are continually in trade talks and it makes sense of our strategy to go for trades/free agents over picks.

It is not missed. We have a dearth of young talent coming through - requiring upgraded contracts. That is why we have been able to reign in player payments.

 

[Vankri]

It is not missed. We have a dearth of young talent coming through - requiring upgraded contracts. That is why we have been able to reign in player payments.

That thinking is back to front as far as salary cap goes. DeMattia is probably paid the same or close to say Nick Watson, whether they’re great or not doesn’t change much to the equation that early. As for later its in fact more expensive to bring in someone like Perryman than it is to pay your loyal draftee for the same output at 25/26yo.

When I talk about our salary cap having surplus cash I’m comparing it to other contenders, not to Richmond and North. Hawthorn is the other club that would have a war chest, pretty evident from their trading last year for expensive players for position (that backline has got to be up there cost wise).

 

[Scodog10]

I’d like us to still have our 2025 first for our trading flexibility but if you think I’m going to explain why/how I think we should still have it…

JUH and Rowell you say?

Edit: I think the HS today said it would benefit Doggies by landing them a raft of picks / players
That value is long gone.

The longer the JUH one plays out and the more that bubbles to the surface the less value he’ll have. Footy Classified were discussing it last night and suggested that he was Brisbane’s main target for a post Daniher world, but they’ve now cooled on him. I believe it’ll wind up Oliver awkward in that they won’t want to sell high or low so he stays until post 2026 when his value could be next to nothing.

 

[Vankri]

The longer the JUH one plays out and the more that bubbles to the surface the less value he’ll have. Footy Classified were discussing it last night and suggested that he was Brisbane’s main target for a post Daniher world, but they’ve now cooled on him. I believe it’ll wind up Oliver awkward in that they won’t want to sell high or low so he stays until post 2026 when his value could be next to nothing.

I didn’t want him before this season’s shenanigans and I don’t want him now. For free in 2026 is ok though

 

[Bianconeri]

I didn’t want him before this season’s shenanigans and I don’t want him now. For free in 2026 is ok though

 

[SchuPie]

The longer the JUH one plays out and the more that bubbles to the surface the less value he’ll have. Footy Classified were discussing it last night and suggested that he was Brisbane’s main target for a post Daniher world, but they’ve now cooled on him. I believe it’ll wind up Oliver awkward in that they won’t want to sell high or low so he stays until post 2026 when his value could be next to nothing.

Richmond pulled the plug as well

 

[sr36]

Except McGuane will be regarded as a first rounder provided he’s taken within the top 30, which seems like a formality at this point…

We'll be clarifying if they will allow a trade where we put ourselves in a position where we are relying on matching a first rounder or trading in a first rounder in order to meet the minimum requirements. Which will be the case if we trade out another future first during next season's trade period.

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Chances of Rowell rising?

 

[Jen2310]

Surely not

 

[Exambolor]

Surely not

Hypothetically SHOULD he depart (i dont think he will) we're well stocked with young rucks who can take the next step, Steene and Smit coming along nicely

 

[Pragmatic Shill]

Hypothetically SHOULD he depart (i dont think he will) we're well stocked with young rucks who can take the next step, Steene and Smit coming along nicely

Strong disagree. Steene looked dreadful (sorry to be harsh) against Gold Coast a couple of weeks ago and Smit is 19 and has had six months in the AFL system.

 

[unplugged]

Strong disagree. Steene looked dreadful (sorry to be harsh) against Gold Coast a couple of weeks ago and Smit is 19 and has had six months in the AFL system.

Not to mention the fact that Cameron was in the AA squad last year. Quite simply he's one of the best ruckmen in the comp at the moment.

 

[SchuPie]

Chances of Rowell rising?

Didn’t earlier posts in this thread suggest it was pointless discussing this bc it won’t happen / we can’t get it done…?

Rowell train

 

[satanshoof101]

Surely not

Straight swap for Harley Reid

 

[The Phantom]

We'll be clarifying if they will allow a trade where we put ourselves in a position where we are relying on matching a first rounder or trading in a first rounder in order to meet the minimum requirements. Which will be the case if we trade out another future first during next season's trade period.

This is dead easy to fix.
We trade out our first rounder to a club that has a pick in the back half of round one and they pick Tom McG for us to match with their later picks traded to us.
You can’t shut that loop hole, so the AFL will have to approve it.

 

[sr36]

This is dead easy to fix.
We trade out our first rounder to a club that has a pick in the back half of round one and they pick Tom McG for us to match with their later picks traded to us.
You can’t shut that loop hole, so the AFL will have to approve it.

Not so dead easy without a time machine. As AFL will have had to approve us trading out the pick a month or so before McGuane becomes a R1 pick.

 

[Vinnie Vegas]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Pendles is part of a Rowell trade as he explore the next part of his journey.

How do I delete someone else's post?

 

[Scodog10]

Not so dead easy without a time machine. As AFL will have had to approve us trading out the pick a month or so before McGuane becomes a R1 pick.

It’ll be an interesting watch! On face value you’d think the AFL would give it a straight forward tick of approval so long as we aren’t mortgaging our future. A guy like Rowell for instance would be fine you’d think.

At what point though does the AFL step in and prevent clubs from trading picks and in effect managing their list management? What about the ramifications of the salary cap given the 95% minimum spend?

 

[Cousin of Daicos]

Surely not

If Darcy Cameron going to West Coast means we get the pick required for Rowell?

Make it happen

I love Darcy Cameron but not gonna make the Grundy mistake again when it's proven time and time again that you can win a flag without a good ruckman. Brisbane just did it literally last year lol

If Steene isn't ready in 2026 then he never will be

 

[sr36]

It’ll be an interesting watch! On face value you’d think the AFL would give it a straight forward tick of approval so long as we aren’t mortgaging our future. A guy like Rowell for instance would be fine you’d think.

At what point though does the AFL step in and prevent clubs from trading picks and in effect managing their list management? What about the ramifications of the salary cap given the 95% minimum spend?

Like I suggested in a previous post, if they're worried about teams trading themselves into a position of being uncompetitive, it's what Richmond did this year that's the real issue.

Just seems like a rule that has stayed on the books for no real reason.