Collingwood List Management Thread

[soreplums]

You can on-trade picks, but not players so it's a no to the Vince part of the deal

What about in a 3-way deal?

 

[Scodog10]

What about in a 3-way deal?

That's possible, but it would need to include a bit to prize the mini-draft pick from GWS. Not too mention that its rare for a big 3 way deal like that to get done!

 

[soreplums]

That's possible, but it would need to include a bit to prize the mini-draft pick from GWS. Not too mention that its rare for a big 3 way deal like that to get done!

Rare doesn't mean it's not possible. What would net us Vince? Pick 25/26 or do we need to add a player?

Pick 25/26 and Mcarthy for Vince and pick 30/31

Vince, Goldsack and pick 30 to GWS for a pick in the Mini and Marty?

 

[Scodog10]

Rare doesn't mean it's not possible. What would net us Vince? Pick 25/26 or do we need to add a player?

Pick 25/26 and Mcarthy for Vince and pick 30/31

Vince, Goldsack and pick 30 to GWS for a pick in the Mini and Marty?

Haha despite saying its rare I did say its possible. Using this trade as a template it sits at:

GWS -
Gain: Vince, Goldsack and pick 35 (which is Adelaide's 2nd rounder atm)
Lose: Mini draft pick

Collingwood -
Gain: Mini draft pick and Clarke
Lose: Pick 25/26, Goldsack and McCarthy

Adelaide -
Gain: McCarthy and pick 25/26
Lose: Vince and pick 35

I'd be surprised if Adelaide accepted that deal for Vince (because we're basically saying Vince is only worth a 9/10 pick upgrade over McCarthy) and I think its a bit for us to give considering the only pay-off we're likely to see until 2014 is a fringe player.

However it isn't outlandish as its the type of deal that could earn a mini-draft pick, we'll see I guess!

 

[soreplums]

Could this be considered? Depending on Vince $$ could free up some dollars with Wellers leaving.

Wellingham and Goldy to GWS for Jaegar and Marty Clarke

pick 25/26 (player if needed) to Adelaide for Vince and second round pick.

Pies lose: Wellers (although I think he is a star and will get better- Daisy like) Goldy, pick 25/26 (and possibly a player)

Pies Gain: Vince, Jaegar, Marty Clarke and possibly Adelaide 2nd rounder

Would hate to see Wellers leave and I think he and Marty were best mates so probably doubtful. I just can't help thinking that we are going to lose someone along the way and would like to get some value for the player

 

[mdc]

Wellingham + Goldsack might get maybe pick 12-15 on the open market if we're lucky. O'Meara is supposedly a top 2 pick next year. Long way away from a fair deal there.

Ditto for the McCarthy + 25 for Vince + 35. It's very much outlandish.

 

[Knightmare]

Haha despite saying its rare I did say its possible. Using this trade as a template it sits at:

GWS -
Gain: Vince, Goldsack and pick 35 (which is Adelaide's 2nd rounder atm)
Lose: Mini draft pick

Collingwood -
Gain: Mini draft pick and Clarke
Lose: Pick 25/26, Goldsack and McCarthy

Adelaide -
Gain: McCarthy and pick 25/26
Lose: Vince and pick 35

I'd be surprised if Adelaide accepted that deal for Vince (because we're basically saying Vince is only worth a 9/10 pick upgrade over McCarthy) and I think its a bit for us to give considering the only pay-off we're likely to see until 2014 is a fringe player.

However it isn't outlandish as its the type of deal that could earn a mini-draft pick, we'll see I guess!

You'd do it in a second as Collingwood.

But neither GWS nor Adelaide would go for this.

Teams don't trade into what they consider losing trades and both GWS and Adelaide would consider these to be losing trades.

For pick 3 in the mini draft you'd be lucky if: Wellingham + Blair + 1st rounder would do it.

3 way trades are very possible but never easy to make all 3 clubs happy because ultimately all clubs want to win to trade.

 

[HFF]

Outlandish is an understatement- Adelaide would not go for this. They aren't Freo.

Still, I keep scratching my head as to why Wellingham's name keeps being mentioned as a potential trade?

That ship has long sailed. He is very much a required player and is a young star.

 

[soreplums]

Outlandish is an understatement- Adelaide would not go for this. They aren't Freo.

Still, I keep scratching my head as to why Wellingham's name keeps being mentioned as a potential trade?

That ship has long sailed. He is very much a required player and is a young star.

Don't want to lose Wellingham, but sooner or later something has to give. The competition is designed like that. We will lose someone to another club over the next couple of years, it's just a matter of being able to manage it a best we can.

 

[HFF]

Don't want to lose Wellingham, but sooner or later something has to give. The competition is designed like that. We will lose someone to another club over the next couple of years, it's just a matter of being able to manage it a best we can.

I understand we have to lose someone but over the next year or so we will have a few more "retirees" with guys like Davis and Johnson not getting any younger, Tarrant too (eventually).

IMO, these guys must be held onto at all costs:

Harry
Pendles
Daisy
N Brown
Beams
Reid
Wellingham
Sidebottom
Dawes
Cloke
Shaw.

Guys like Swanny, Dids, Maxy, Jolly, Ball etc will not leave us so that is why I didn't include them.

I think the above players I mentioned should be able to be retained without something "having to give".

We have plenty of other depth players we can move on if we need to without compromising the core of our list.

 

[soreplums]

I understand we have to lose someone but over the next year or so we will have a few more "retirees" with guys like Davis and Johnson not getting any younger, Tarrant too (eventually).

IMO, these guys must be held onto at all costs:

Harry
Pendles
Daisy
N Brown
Beams
Reid
Wellingham
Sidebottom
Dawes
Cloke
Shaw.

Guys like Swanny, Dids, Maxy, Jolly, Ball etc will not leave us so that is why I didn't include them.

I think the above players I mentioned should be able to be retained without something "having to give".

We have plenty of other depth players we can move on if we need to without compromising the core of our list.

I was just about to post the same thing! Totally agree. Cloke does worry me a little though. Not so much GWS, but getting a big offer from another Victorian club.

 

[HFF]

Cloke will be fine. He will forever be one of ours.

Writing up his own contract for next time round going by his output.

 

[Bay Pie]

Cloke will be fine. He will forever be one of ours.

Writing up his own contract for next time round going by his output.

Cloke contract finishes in 2012. His 8th year at the club. Yes he'd qulaify for limited free agency but also gets closer to his 10 years with the club. His next deal, if it's a 3 year deal, will have that 3rd year on our veterans list. No club will outbid us in that case unless GWS have not taken an uncontracted Pie player at that point.

Happy Days

 

[skinnyjim]

I'm wondering what the back line looks like when Brown comes back in - does Tarrant go forward?

 

[TheFreshBanana]

I think either Tarrant or Brown will go forward.

 

[Knightmare]

I'm wondering what the back line looks like when Brown comes back in - does Tarrant go forward?

I'd move Brown back to full back.

Tarrant to take oppo 3rd tall because he does have that flexibility to play v any size.

Tarrant is a better back than forward now. But from next year should be moved forward if Cloke/Dawes have to miss because he does have that ability to play forward to a high standard.

 

[look at him goooo!]

Cloke contract finishes in 2012. His 8th year at the club. Yes he'd qulaify for limited free agency but also gets closer to his 10 years with the club. His next deal, if it's a 3 year deal, will have that 3rd year on our veterans list. No club will outbid us in that case unless GWS have not taken an uncontracted Pie player at that point.

Happy Days

Are you saying Cloke is eligible for the veterans list for 2015? Correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that a player must have served 10 years already AND be turning 30 years old by september 30th in the year that the club intends to put them on the veterans list.

Hence why Tarrant isnt on the veterans list yet, coz he only fills the age requirement atm, not the years played requirement (will go on the vets list next year). Another example is Didak, who is in his 11th year, but is still not on the veterans list, coz he doesnt turn 30 until the 2013 season, the season in which he is eligible to be put on the vets list.

From my calculations, we won't be able to put Cloke on the veterans list until 2017, the year in which he turns 30, not the 2015 season.

 

[TradeDraft]

I think either Tarrant or Brown will go forward.

I be looking at Tarrant to do that as Brown is the Future KPD for 10+ Seasons

 

[Knightmare]

Also should mention P1 of thread updated.
A little more work on the order based on performance - didn't update thoughts on many of the players.
Put effort into this years delistings and have finally settled on who should be delisted.
Added what I consider to be our future core group who we should look to build our list around over the next 3-4 years.
Also went into detail with some potential draft thoughts + some potential prospects.

 

[Ron]

Are you saying Cloke is eligible for the veterans list for 2015? Correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that a player must have served 10 years already AND be turning 30 years old by september 30th in the year that the club intends to put them on the veterans list.

Hence why Tarrant isnt on the veterans list yet, coz he only fills the age requirement atm, not the years played requirement (will go on the vets list next year). Another example is Didak, who is in his 11th year, but is still not on the veterans list, coz he doesnt turn 30 until the 2013 season, the season in which he is eligible to be put on the vets list.

From my calculations, we won't be able to put Cloke on the veterans list until 2017, the year in which he turns 30, not the 2015 season.

Nah they have changed the rules, or i should say they are changing the rules for the veterans list for next year.

Under the old rule it is correct a player needed both to be 30 years old and have 10 years experience at the club.
The new rule will mean that a player only needs 10 years at the club, no matter how old he is.

 

[look at him goooo!]

Nah they have changed the rules, or i should say they are changing the rules for the veterans list for next year.

Under the old rule it is correct a player needed both to be 30 years old and have 10 years experience at the club.
The new rule will mean that a player only needs 10 years at the club, no matter how old he is.

No way! thats fricken awesome!!!!!!!!!!!! that means next year all of johnson, davis, tarrant, didak and swan will be on the veterans list!! with maxwell to join them the year after! that frees up so much cap space, especially as swan is arguably our highest paid player with didak sure to be in the top 5! just a bit exicited about this haha

 

[soreplums]

No way! thats fricken awesome!!!!!!!!!!!! that means next year all of johnson, davis, tarrant, didak and swan will be on the veterans list!! with maxwell to join them the year after! that frees up so much cap space, especially as swan is arguably our highest paid player with didak sure to be in the top 5! just a bit exicited about this haha

Don't think it works quite like that sport. I think we can have only two on the Vets list counted outside the salary cap.

 

[Ron]

No way! thats fricken awesome!!!!!!!!!!!! that means next year all of johnson, davis, tarrant, didak and swan will be on the veterans list!! with maxwell to join them the year after! that frees up so much cap space, especially as swan is arguably our highest paid player with didak sure to be in the top 5! just a bit exicited about this haha

Yeah we can have as many on the vets list as we want as long as they have played 10+ years at the club. However not all of them will have 50% of their salary cap not counted.

The way it works is like this

2 players on vet list means 50% of their salary not counted
3 players on vet list means 33% of their salary not counted
4 players 25% and so on

 

[Bay Pie]

Are you saying Cloke is eligible for the veterans list for 2015? Correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that a player must have served 10 years already AND be turning 30 years old by september 30th in the year that the club intends to put them on the veterans list.

Hence why Tarrant isnt on the veterans list yet, coz he only fills the age requirement atm, not the years played requirement (will go on the vets list next year). Another example is Didak, who is in his 11th year, but is still not on the veterans list, coz he doesnt turn 30 until the 2013 season, the season in which he is eligible to be put on the vets list.

From my calculations, we won't be able to put Cloke on the veterans list until 2017, the year in which he turns 30, not the 2015 season.

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=89810

"The Veterans List allowance will be amended to apply to players with 10 years service at one club and will be based on a set amount of TPP per player calculated as a percentage of TPP".

http://www.afl.com.au/tabid/208/default.aspx?newsid=89810

It will be amended to 10 years service, appearing to remove the 30 years old clause as part of the AFL changes to combat free agency.

10 years service and unrestricted free agent but also veterans list qualify to allow current team to offer more coin to keep.

This comes in at the same time as free agency for the 2013 season. Trav should qualify in 2015, as will Dids and Swanny for the 2013 season. Heath Shaw for 2014. Swanny and Heater will not be 30 at that time either.

I've tried to obtain clarification on the matter form the AFL but got nothing. This article from the AFL site is what I had and it makes no mention of the need to be 30 years old, which makes sense to combat free agency.

 

[carnthepies19]

Taz wouldn't be on the vet list any time soon, the rule states that the player has to have served 10 years at the one club, unfortunately