List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2022-->

[Anzacday]

Key dates attached so we know what’s going on when.

• Friday 30 September at 9.00am

• AFL Restricted Free Agency and Unrestricted Free Agency Period commences

Monday 03 October at 9.00am

• AFL Trade Period commences – Players & Selections

Friday 07 October at 5.00pm

• Close of AFL Restricted Free Agency Offer and Unrestricted Free Agency Period.

Monday 10 October

• AFL Draft Nominations open (9am)
• AFL Restricted Free Agency Matching Offer 3 Day Period Ends (5pm)

Wednesday 12 October at 7.30pm

• AFL Trade Period closes – players and selections

Thursday 03 November at 9.00am

• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) commences

Wednesday 09 November at 5.00pm

• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) closes

Friday 11 November at 9.00am

• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) commences

Tuesday 15 November by 5.00pm

• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) closes
• AFL Trade Period closes – selections only

Monday 21 November by 3.00pm

• AFL Draft Nominations close

Monday 28 November at 7.10pm

• 2022 AFL Draft Round One (Venue TBC)
• Father/Son, Academy & NGA and Players Bidding opens.

Tuesday 29 November

• AFL Trade Period – selections only (5.45pm to 6.30pm)
• 2022 AFL National Draft Round two until completion (7pm)
• Rookie Upgrade Period opens (10pm)
• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) commences (10pm)
• Rookie Upgrade Period closes (11pm)
• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) closes (11pm)

Wednesday 30 November

• AFL Pre-Season Draft (3pm, online)
• AFL Rookie Draft (3.20pm, online)

Thursday 01 December by 4.00pm

• Final AFL Club List Lodgement

 

[GCPie]

Grundy out and Michell in and we improve the clearances straight away.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

We're not going to use many picks. Pick 16 and hopefully end up with another one that isn't too deep into the draft. That'll just about do us.

Pick 16… and bundle our next four picks including 27 to upgrade with Brisbane to get their first pick?

 

[LuckyLee]

So Melbourne traded picks 33, 43 and 53 away to Port for pick 27, which we’re apparently going to accept for Grundy.

It begs the question, why didn’t we just trade Grundy for picks 33, 43 and 53? Their combined points value is surely equivalent to a pick in the teens, which is a hell of a lot better than 27.

Melbourne should have been fine with it - they get Grundy and lose those three picks either way. But we could have then on-traded those picks for a first rounder or a future first.

Have we been asleep at the wheel or is there another angle to this that I’m not seeing?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[legendstatus]

I'm not worried about the loss of Treloar, Phillips and Stepho and not even concerned about Grundy.

The one that scares the s**t out of me is Henry has absolute unbelievable potential.

Really ??????

Anyway my inside contact ( sorry Apex I do have one ) mentioned Pies want to get another 1st rounder this year otherwise beyond that they want to load up early in next years draft


Think future first for Henry gets done ( my opinion)


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Prexm]

Pick 16… and bundle our next four picks including 27 to upgrade with Brisbane to get their first pick?

Would work if Brisbane have the list spots. We would have nothing left to trade in Mitchell though if we want him unless we then downgrade one of those picks.

 

[AmericanMustard]

So Melbourne traded picks 33, 43 and 53 away to Port for pick 27, which we’re apparently going to accept for Grundy.

It begs the question, why didn’t we just trade Grundy for picks 33, 43 and 53? Their combined points value is surely equivalent to a pick in the teens, which is a hell of a lot better than 27.

Melbourne should have been fine with it - they get Grundy and lose those three picks either way. But we could have then on-traded those picks for a first rounder or a future first.

Have we been asleep at the wheel or is there another angle to this that I’m not seeing?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Because (in my opinion) using the points system to value equality of a trade is irrelevant unless you actually require the points to obtain a player

 

[LuckyLee]

Because (in my opinion) using the points system to value equality of a trade is irrelevant unless you actually require the points to obtain a player

But if for argument’s sake picks 33, 43 and 53 have a combined points value equal to say pick 18, why wouldn’t we grab those picks and on-trade them to another club for say pick 22, instead of lazily copping pick 27?

Part of a list manager’s job is marketing and messaging i.e. demonstrating to supporters that they’re managing our trade/draft capital (and salary’s cap) as effectively as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Everybody Panic]

But if for argument’s sake picks 33, 43 and 53 have a combined points value equal to say pick 18, why wouldn’t we grab those picks and on-trade them to another club for say pick 22, instead of lazily copping pick 27?

Part of a list manager’s job is marketing and messaging i.e. demonstrating to supporters that they’re managing our trade/draft capital (and salary’s cap) as effectively as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Why would Port trade them for 27 if there was a club willing to give 22 for them?

 

[AmericanMustard]

But if for argument’s sake picks 33, 43 and 53 have a combined points value equal to say pick 18, why wouldn’t we grab those picks and on-trade them to another club for say pick 22, instead of lazily copping pick 27?

Part of a list manager’s job is marketing and messaging i.e. demonstrating to supporters that they’re managing our trade/draft capital (and salary’s cap) as effectively as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

That’s my point though, I’m not sure there’s anyone would do it.

Theoretically on points value alone you could trade picks 20, 25 and 31 for the equivalent of pick 7. There’s not a single club or person out there that would think it’s a good deal

 

[Unknown Identity]

So Melbourne traded picks 33, 43 and 53 away to Port for pick 27, which we’re apparently going to accept for Grundy.

It begs the question, why didn’t we just trade Grundy for picks 33, 43 and 53? Their combined points value is surely equivalent to a pick in the teens, which is a hell of a lot better than 27.

Melbourne should have been fine with it - they get Grundy and lose those three picks either way. But we could have then on-traded those picks for a first rounder or a future first.

Have we been asleep at the wheel or is there another angle to this that I’m not seeing?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Because unless we have another trade lined up to ontrade these for a better pick, we could end up getting stuck with them and not enough list spots to even use them at the draft.

 

[Prexm]

So Melbourne traded picks 33, 43 and 53 away to Port for pick 27, which we’re apparently going to accept for Grundy.

It begs the question, why didn’t we just trade Grundy for picks 33, 43 and 53? Their combined points value is surely equivalent to a pick in the teens, which is a hell of a lot better than 27.

Melbourne should have been fine with it - they get Grundy and lose those three picks either way. But we could have then on-traded those picks for a first rounder or a future first.

Have we been asleep at the wheel or is there another angle to this that I’m not seeing?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Makes sense what you are saying. We would then have 6 picks between 33 and 53 but not easy to get rid of them all as clubs must have list spots available to make use of them. It would likely require small steps in trading for instance 2 picks for Brisbanes Pick 35 and 2 for Essendons 40s pick. It is a good idea but maybe it becomes to complicated.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Would work if Brisbane have the list spots. We would have nothing left to trade in Mitchell though if we want him unless we then downgrade one of those picks.

Future pick?

I’m also assuming we retain henry, but if we don’t there’s another pick we could utilise

 

[unplugged]

And if it's Jackson to West Coast, how does that affect us?

Don't think it really matters. I just think Melbourne could be reluctant (or unable) to bring in Grundy until they're confident that Jackson is cleared from their books.

Otherwise I'm sure a club would be happy to turn to Melbourne and say "you have to get rid of him now, you've got Grundy" essentially.

 

[unplugged]

Then Mitchell to Collingwood

Correct, that would be the next domino in that I doubt we can afford Mitchell (or anyone else) without having Grundy (at least partially) off our books.

 

[Prexm]

Future pick?

I’m also assuming we retain henry, but if we don’t there’s another pick we could utilise

We have already given our 2nd away and our 3rd by all reports is going to Adelaide. Still would be hoping for 18 for Henry or no trade. I will be impressed if we can bring in Mitchell and have 3 first rounders this year if Henry leaves.

 

[regpies]

That won’t happen. The total points of our 3rd rounders doesn‘t come close to that picks points

It does, our three 3rd rd picks fall about 70 points short of pick 15’s value. With other trades if we end up with another 3rd or 4th it’ll be worth about 200 more than pick 15 making it worth the Lions doing.

 

[regpies]

Carlton’s ‘full to the brim for the next 6 yrs’ salary cap may have something to say about that.

What salary cap? Spirit of John Elliott is alive and well at Carlton again.

 

[regpies]

So Melbourne traded picks 33, 43 and 53 away to Port for pick 27, which we’re apparently going to accept for Grundy.

It begs the question, why didn’t we just trade Grundy for picks 33, 43 and 53? Their combined points value is surely equivalent to a pick in the teens, which is a hell of a lot better than 27.

Melbourne should have been fine with it - they get Grundy and lose those three picks either way. But we could have then on-traded those picks for a first rounder or a future first.

Have we been asleep at the wheel or is there another angle to this that I’m not seeing?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

I thought exactly the same when I saw that trade, 400 points difference and the Lions would’ve surely been keen, we’d end up with 15 instead of 27 for Grundy.

Why are we going to accept 27? We’d want to be paying only 100k of his deal for a pick that lousy

 

[unplugged]

So Melbourne traded picks 33, 43 and 53 away to Port for pick 27, which we’re apparently going to accept for Grundy.

It begs the question, why didn’t we just trade Grundy for picks 33, 43 and 53? Their combined points value is surely equivalent to a pick in the teens, which is a hell of a lot better than 27.

Melbourne should have been fine with it - they get Grundy and lose those three picks either way. But we could have then on-traded those picks for a first rounder or a future first.

Have we been asleep at the wheel or is there another angle to this that I’m not seeing?


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

Because if we did that trade there's no guarantee anyone would even do a swap/upgrade for those picks with us. Then you're stuck with 3 s**t picks.

It's a good question but I hope the answer is in that we will get 27 and SOMETHING (anything!)

 

[Prexm]

It does, our three 3rd rd picks fall about 70 points short of pick 15’s value. With other trades if we end up with another 3rd or 4th it’ll be worth about 200 more than pick 15 making it worth the Lions doing.

it is more than that now as our picks have gone out in the last few days. Now 41 50 51. Also it would have to be real appealing to Brisbane. Think it would have to be 3 picks maximum as they have to find list spots. if it is to happen 27 for Grundy would need to be part of it.

 

[LuckyLee]

That’s my point though, I’m not sure there’s anyone would do it.

Theoretically on points value alone you could trade picks 20, 25 and 31 for the equivalent of pick 7. There’s not a single club or person out there that would think it’s a good deal

Yes, good point.

Still feels like we haven’t pushed as hard as we could have on the Grundy trade but I guess that one really hinges on the dollars side of it, not the picks side.

Hopefully we’re pushing Geelong much harder on the Henry trade.



Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[LuckyLee]

Because unless we have another trade lined up to ontrade these for a better pick, we could end up getting stuck with them and not enough list spots to even use them at the draft.

Yeah, with disappointment, I can see that side of it.


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[Ugene41]

It does, our three 3rd rd picks fall about 70 points short of pick 15’s value. With other trades if we end up with another 3rd or 4th it’ll be worth about 200 more than pick 15 making it worth the Lions doing.

Lions can get a lot more value for their pick 15 than 200 extra points.

 

[Kings_Gambit]

I would rather Ollie Henry go to North in PSD than Geelong getting him for anything less than a first rounder. We seem to be screwed by everyone and we need to make a stand and send a message.

 

[manicpie]

I would rather Ollie Henry go to North in PSD than Geelong getting him for anything less than a first rounder. We seem to be screwed by everyone and we need to make a stand and send a message.

He'll just stay with us if he can't get to Geelong, actually, I can't see how he get's to Geelong to be honest