Recommitted Andrew Gaff [re-signed]

[amazingjoshy]

Gaff isn’t leaving because of West Coast’s offer. It doesn’t matter how much you offer, he wants to come home.

Woudn't that mean WC are free to match and force a trade, knowing he wont stay?

 

[Roo Beauty]

Woudn't that mean WC are free to match and force a trade, knowing he wont stay?

In order to match I believe West Coast actually need to come up with the $1.2m, they can’t just pretend to. If you can somehow create enough cap space to match, they’d definitely consider it.

 

[15yearmember]

Woudn't that mean WC are free to match and force a trade, knowing he wont stay?

No. West Coast can match and if he refuses to sign then it's into the draft...

West Coast get nothing. It really means that RFA is Free Agency largely unrestricted.

It's one of the bigger flaws in the system - along with contracted players having a right to decline to be traded.

It's tilted way too far in favor of the players at present.

In this scenario in a proper system West Coast can match and everyone knows that. So North are more inclined to not offer or to enter into a sign and trade with West Coast.

Further, last year (under said proper system) West Coast try and re sign Gaff and when he declines we can then trade him to whichever club gives us the best deal.

Unfortunately the AFL system is lurching towards a form of perpetual free agency and will need to be restructured in the next collective bargaining deal.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[garlic munchers]

Woudn't that mean WC are free to match and force a trade, knowing he wont stay?

Seems logical the delay (which is otherwise stranger by the minute), is because WC have indicated that there is a chance they will play the matching card (knowing he won't want to go to Carlton in the draft).

This stance would allow WC to least explore offers (i.e. Hogan for Gaff) and would be a very good reason why Gaff has not announced he is goneski from WC as the 1st question then asked, would then be to who?

This way everyone involved gets to play nice, particularity as neither WC or Gaff owe the Roos anything.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

1st & 2nd round pick, if WC matched and North decided to trade.

I’d take that

It’s unders - but better than pick 20

The good thing is Lycett appears to have a medical - so he could be up first

He goes and we have his salary and gaffs wc salary offer to match with

North wouldn’t be in a position to not trade after spending years trying to land someone of gaffs quality

 

[Max zero]

I’d take that

It’s unders - but better than pick 20

The good thing is Lycett appears to have a medical - so he could be up first

He goes and we have his salary and gaffs wc salary offer to match with

North wouldn’t be in a position to not trade after spending years trying to land someone of gaffs quality

The funny thing if we got pick 10 we wouldn't even use it cause all the Geelong nuffies would start frothing. Basically be some sort of 3 way trade with Geelong.

 

[roos_tt29]

Well looks like we won't be hearing anything until post-B&F as announced on Trade Radio.

Not surprised really.

At least we have something more concrete...

 

[Le Grille]

I’d take that

It’s unders - but better than pick 20

The good thing is Lycett appears to have a medical - so he could be up first

He goes and we have his salary and gaffs wc salary offer to match with

North wouldn’t be in a position to not trade after spending years trying to land someone of gaffs quality

Again if wce matched I’d reckon north will let him stay. After the increases to McGovern and filling in the spots lycett leaves wce May not have space.

I’m not sure if this is correct but I heard in this situation if Gaff and lycett go for the money quoted that wce would get 2x first rounders as opposed to one pick based on the value of both due to the position that the picks would fall.

Also, if I was wce if I lost Gaff I’d be using those resources to go for hogan




On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Thetrader15]

Woudn't that mean WC are free to match and force a trade, knowing he wont stay?

This will be great...what happens to Polec then?

 

[Snake_Baker]

No. West Coast can match and if he refuses to sign then it's into the draft...

Theoretically yes, but your club is run by professionals that don't pull amateurish stunts like that.

 

[Ambrosia]

Is West Coast matching a likely outcome?

 

[DangerSloane]

Is West Coast matching a likely outcome?

Correct me if I'm wrong but the higher you finish the year before the more liekly to match you are?
Given WC would get say after first round compo and its only pick 19, they may be able to do better out of a trade (similar to what Adelaide did with Dangerfield).
The only difference is Gaff's contract may actually be too high for them to even match in principle.

 

[Turboman1994]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the higher you finish the year before the more liekly to match you are?
Given WC would get say after first round compo and its only pick 19, they may be able to do better out of a trade (similar to what Adelaide did with Dangerfield).
The only difference is Gaff's contract may actually be too high for them to even match in principle.

I would suspect we have more room in the cap then most predict we didn’t have automatic rise with the CBA. And the difference between Lycetts salary currently and gaffs improved offer would be about the same

 

[DangerSloane]

I would suspect we have more room in the cap then most predict we didn’t have automatic rise with the CBA. And the difference between Lycetts salary currently and gaffs improved offer would be about the same

Most likely.
Not sure if you'll get a whole lot more out of it through trade though?
We didnt get much more (slightly higher draft pick and an SA Lad who was delisted)

That and if you're north why give up anything? Let the AFL give you a pick and keep their own.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Is West Coast matching a likely outcome?

Based on the fact that there is no tabled evidence of a club ever matching a bid to retain a player wanting to return to their home state, then the answer is no.

 

[DangerSloane]

Based on the fact that there is no tabled evidence of a club ever matching a bid to retain a player wanting to return to their home state, then the answer is no.

Patrick Dangerfield.

Not to retain, to sign and trade and get slightly more than the compensation.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Patrick Dangerfield.

There's no proof whatsoever (aside from supporter musings).

 

[DangerSloane]

There's no proof whatsoever (aside from supporter musings).

Well the proof is that he was traded.
You cant trade a RFA unless you match?

If we didnt trade him we would have got a compensation pick, not Geelongs and Dean Gore.

 

[pantskyle]

There's no proof whatsoever (aside from supporter musings).

Really?

 

[Turboman1994]

Most likely.
Not sure if you'll get a whole lot more out of it through trade though?
We didnt get much more (slightly higher draft pick and an SA Lad who was delisted)

That and if you're north why give up anything? Let the AFL give you a pick and keep their own.

I just hope we are doing due dillgence. My theory is he’s split between returning home and staying at wce we match the dollars then it’s a case of does he really want to be home north will get him discounted price regardless due to being ooc

 

[Snake_Baker]

Well the proof is that he was traded.
You cant trade a RFA unless you match?

If we didnt trade him we would have got a compensation pick, not Geelongs and Dean Gore.

It could have been Danger who stipulated the arrangement out of respect for his former club. The facts will surface one day, but right now it's speculation.

However, if you want to allow this as fact then I will alter my comment:

Based on the fact that there is no tabled evidence only one precedent of a club ever matching a bid to retain a player wanting to return to their home state, then the answer is no.

 

[15yearmember]

Theoretically yes, but your club is run by professionals that don't pull amateurish stunts like that.

Nice use of partial post quote to assert something I didn't say when read in context.

I was answering a question and I answered it via a complete post. I wasn't asserting what we would do.

It's deeply floggish behaviour to use partial quotes to create strawmen. Be better than that.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[HTPunter]

I just hope we are doing due dillgence. My theory is he’s split between returning home and staying at wce we match the dollars then it’s a case of does he really want to be home north will get him discounted price regardless due to being ooc

As far as I can find at the moment the 2 best reported offers for Gaff from each club are 1.2 mil from North for 6 or 7 years, and 850k from WC for 6 or 7 years.

So WC are going to jump approx 300-350k after Gaff announces he`s leaving to match? Why? Why not creep that offer up to try to keep him before he announces publicly? Make it 1 mil now, you can still get him for cheaper than 1.2 mil and you'd think surely meeting halfway on the contract offers is going to be better for the Eagles chances.

I can see Gaff accepting the deal on offer from the Eagles, and I can see Gaff accepting the deal from North. But I can't see Gaff accepting Norths offer and the Eagles then turning around and saying “instead of just going close to their offer to get you to stay prior to free agency we are now matching it outright”.

“forcing North to trade gets the Eagles a better deal than pick 19”. You know what the best deal for the Eagles is? Getting Gaff to stay. Seems the best way to seal the deal would to be up the offer now, not after he`s decided he wants to go to North

 

[zero]

Based on the fact that there is no tabled evidence only one precedent of a club ever matching a bid to retain a player wanting to return to their home state, then the answer is no.

actually the answer is not "no", the dangerfield sequence of events could certainly happen again. but this is why its super unlikely.

if the eagles were prepared to match,
AND gaff still wanted to go,
AND north were still interested if they had to pay a pick on top of offering a huge contract,
AND they could come to a satisfactory trade,
THEN it would happen.

i think this is super unlikely because it seems like gaff is not that committed to going. my guess is that if the eagles were going to keep him, then they would be able to get him for less than the roos contract. they wouldnt need to match an RFA offer, they could just offer what he is currently asking for to stay.

 

[Ambrosia]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the higher you finish the year before the more liekly to match you are?
Given WC would get say after first round compo and its only pick 19, they may be able to do better out of a trade (similar to what Adelaide did with Dangerfield).
The only difference is Gaff's contract may actually be too high for them to even match in principle.

Yeah that makes sense. Yeah I get the feeling West Coast may be unable to match. The Dangerfield example is unlikely to apply because Adelaide wasn't priced out of Dangerfield he just wanted to go home