List Mgmt. Contract, Trade & Draftee Discussion - 2022 Off Season Edition

[Keys]

Contract status of all players now fully updated

The Contracts Thread

Updated (20/3/24) the status of all contracts for people’s reference : Overall List - 44 Players : Main List(37), Rookie List(5), Cat B(2) Contracted until the end of 2027 (2) : Tom Barrass (8/10/95) - Signed a 5 year extension (2023,2024,2025,2026,2027) on an existing contract set to...

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Bender_]

Eagles, I'll trade you this delicious pair of doorstops for your crummy pick #2 in the ND. As you can see these are worth more in points so really we're doing you a favour.

 

[Superstar swan]

Good deal for you.
Ok deal for Melbourne.
Not so flash for us.

Would want more than your F2 ( as it will be a very late 2nd ) would want a 2nd in the 18- 23 range, to even consider it.

That said I don’t think that proposal would be a “goer” for our recruiters.

FYI: I rate the sweet spot in this years draft in the range of picks 9-15, after that what you get with pick 16 is much the same as what you would get with pick all through to pick 25z

That the primary reason that pick 17 isn’t particularly attractive to me.

What about 14 and swans future first. Which is likely to be lower than 17 unless they get pumped In a granny again

 

[Monocle]

What about 14 and swans future first. Which is likely to be lower than 17 unless they get pumped In a granny again

Still think it’s a long shot.

I reckon if we split pick 2, we can get a better haul than two late firsts.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

I think that’s overall a pretty poor example. Brander was a bust but Venables was a concussion injury…. Not enough evidence there to validate your point.

No problem with your opinion on staying high in the draft just that your example isn’t really showing anything

We don't really have anything else to draw upon... because in the few times we get a look at high picks we trade them out...

The real test is to look at the draft in previous years.
Typically the top 5 are much better than the 5-10.

Yes you can still get some good names there, its still a good pick after all. But there's a lesser chance of a gem.

If you go back 4+ years ago (any earlier is a bit too fresh to call on some players).

2014:
1-5: McCartin, Petracca, Brayshaw, J.Pickett, DeGoey
6-10: Marchbank, Ahern, Wright, Moore, Cockatoo.

2015:
1-5: Weitering, Schache, Mills, Oliver, Parish
6-10: Francis, Hopper, Callum Ah Chee, Weideman, McKay

2016:
1-5: McGrath, Taranto, McLuggage, Ainsworth, Setterfield. You'd call that 80% hit rate on an A-grade player.
6-10: SPP, Scrimshaw, Logue, Brodie, Bowes. 0% A-grade. 80% hit rate still in terms of getting a contributer. But they're all B grade. No elite.

2017:
1-5: Rayner, Brayshaw, Dow, Uniake, Cerra
6-10: Stephenson, Clark, Coffield, Naughton, Obrien.

2018:
1-5: Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine, max King, Rozee
6-10: Ben King, Bailey Smith, T.Thomas, Chayce Jones, Nick Blakey.

By my count for successful A-grade, B-grade or duds:

1-5:
A-graders: 19 (76% hit rate)
B-graders: 1 (4%)
Duds or wasted pick: 5 (20%)

6-10:
A-graders: 5 (20%).
B-graders: 13 (52%)
Duds: 7 (28%)

From that, taking a pick in 1-5 gives you an 80% chance of getting a good player of which there is a 95% chance that player turns out to be A-grade or among your best.
For a pick in the 6-10 region there's a similar chance (72%) of getting a good player but the chance of them being elite/among your best is far less (27%).

So I really do think it's risky to just assume splitting pick 2 even into a couple picks in the 6-10 range means we suddenly get 2x good players instead of 1.
In reality we're likely trading 1 great or elite player, for 2x ok/good players or perhaps not even that...

Rome wasn't built in a day and we don't need to try and lunge to success here. I think we need use that pick 2 and get the best available in the country.. the rest will come with time.

 

[shooshka]

Demons asking for 2 firsts, one in the top 10. How do we avoid our draft haul being compromised next year? Demons would need to give their future second back or something along those lines.

Our future 1st is nominally pick #2 (yes, it depends on where we finish - but it is pretty much agreed that the projection is based on this years ladder position with the upside and downside risk borne by the buyer).

If we were even considering trading that pick I'd like us to look at what the market offers for it are. I'd guess (as it is apparently a superdraft) some teams would come knocking with 2 x top 10 picks (possibly one in the future). Someone like Port might look at if for 8 + F1st (and want Rioli thrown in), hoping that it gets JHF (and it may).

We can probably buy Brisbane's pick 15 with our 2nd rounders.

So essentially trading 8 +15 to Demons, but costing us a downgrade next year (unless port have a shocker), plus some 2nds this year and Rioli.



I'm not advocating for this BTW, just saying if our future 1st is involved then the 'plus, plus' that Melbourne want has to be a lot less - as that future 1st is a very, very high-end pick.

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Points wise wce come out on top on that scenario

Can we use the points on a few Sydney/GWS/Gold Coast/Brisbane academy players?

 

[Barrybran]

I think Jackson, 17 and a future second (say 32ish) for 2 is better than the instant reactions of some here. I would rather keep 14 than 17 though so we would likely decline such an offer.

 

[BeeTee]

We don't really have anything else to draw upon... because in the few times we get a look at high picks we trade them out...

The real test is to look at the draft in previous years.
Typically the top 5 are much better than the 5-10.

Yes you can still get some good names there, its still a good pick after all. But there's a lesser chance of a gem.

If you go back 4+ years ago (any earlier is a bit too fresh to call on some players).

2014:
1-5: McCartin, Petracca, Brayshaw, J.Pickett, DeGoey
6-10: Marchbank, Ahern, Wright, Moore, Cockatoo.

2015:
1-5: Weitering, Schache, Mills, Oliver, Parish
6-10: Francis, Hopper, Callum Ah Chee, Weideman, McKay

2016:
1-5: McGrath, Taranto, McLuggage, Ainsworth, Setterfield. You'd call that 80% hit rate on an A-grade player.
6-10: SPP, Scrimshaw, Logue, Brodie, Bowes. 0% A-grade. 80% hit rate still in terms of getting a contributer. But they're all B grade. No elite.

2017:
1-5: Rayner, Brayshaw, Dow, Uniake, Cerra
6-10: Stephenson, Clark, Coffield, Naughton, Obrien.

2018:
1-5: Walsh, Lukosius, Rankine, max King, Rozee
6-10: Ben King, Bailey Smith, T.Thomas, Chayce Jones, Nick Blakey.

By my count for successful A-grade, B-grade or duds:

1-5:
A-graders: 19 (76% hit rate)
B-graders: 1 (4%)
Duds or wasted pick: 5 (20%)

6-10:
A-graders: 5 (20%).
B-graders: 13 (52%)
Duds: 7 (28%)

From that, taking a pick in 1-5 gives you an 80% chance of getting a good player of which there is a 95% chance that player turns out to be A-grade or among your best.
For a pick in the 6-10 region there's a similar chance (72%) of getting a good player but the chance of them being elite/among your best is far less (27%).

So I really do think it's risky to just assume splitting pick 2 even into a couple picks in the 6-10 range means we suddenly get 2x good players instead of 1.
In reality we're likely trading 1 great or elite player, for 2x ok/good players or perhaps not even that...

Rome wasn't built in a day and we don't need to try and lunge to success here. I think we need use that pick 2 and get the best available in the country.. the rest will come with time.

This is why we keep pick 2.

 

[CountryLad]

Completely hypothetical

If we could get GWS to swap pick 2 and 20 for 3 and 12.

Offer Dees pick 3 for Jackson. I reckon they would seriously look at it and maybe throw in a future 3rd worse case future 2nd in for negotiations.

We have Jackson, 12, 26, 27 and 38

Is Cadman and pick 20 future 3rd > Jackson and pick 12 ?

 

[amazingjoshy]

I think Jackson, 17 and a future second (say 32ish) for 2 is better than the instant reactions of some here. I would rather keep 14 than 17 though so we would likely decline such an offer.

We also lose our future 1st in his scenario

 

[BeeTee]

What about 14 and swans future first. Which is likely to be lower than 17 unless they get pumped In a granny again

14 + 17 + McDonald or Warner might get it done.

 

[Forward Press]

Points wise wce come out on top on that scenario

Points do jack s*** for our list. We don't need to fill extra list spots this year so better off pick 2 than picks 14 and 17. The future 2nd considering Sydney's trajectory won't be crash hot either. Better off giving say Chad Warner (better) or Logan McDonald (worse) instead of one of those picks.

Pick 2 is far more likely to be a jet than the later picks in the teens.

 

[Chris_6678]

At least trades are moving quick for once.

One year it took 4 days for a player to even move clubs.

 

[Forward Press]

These points values of picks are up there with arbitrary grading of players.

I rate your post C+ - fairly content light but could be worthy of a few likes with a bit of support.

 

[shooshka]

14 + 17 + McDonald or Warner might get it done.

I'd probably just give them #2 straight swap for Warner TBH.

Maybe some posturing or steak knives, but it's probably about the right mark.

 

[DanWCE]

Comparing draft points what is even the point in persisting

 

[Forward Press]

At least trades are moving quick for once.

One year it took 4 days for a player to even move clubs.

That would be the 2008 draft where Freo and Carlton were at loggerheads over Robbie Warnock and had to call in a mediator to get it sorted.

2008 AFL draft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Only six done and the other five were fringe players traded for nothing picks or token pick swaps.

 

[Bender_]

I rate your post C+ - fairly content light but could be worthy of a few likes with a bit of support.

You just made an enemy for life.

 

[Neale4brownlow]

Completely hypothetical

If we could get GWS to swap pick 2 and 20 for 3 and 12.

Offer Dees pick 3 for Jackson. I reckon they would seriously look at it and maybe throw in a future 3rd worse case future 2nd in for negotiations.

We have Jackson, 12, 26, 27 and 38

Is Cadman and pick 20 future 3rd > Jackson and pick 12 ?

My issue with getting Jackson is not that he's not worth it (I think he would be)...

It's that we simply don't get many chances at the top end midfield talent. We really struggle at it and we don't get many shots at it.

It's hard to find an elite mid outside the top 5.
It's VERY hard to find an elite mid outside the top 10.

I feel like finding a ruckman at any point that'll be 70-80% as good as Jackson at almost any pick level is a much easier task.
ie Meek this year when Jackson goes to Freo.

It's not as easy to go find the elite mids.

 

[bh90210fan]

Im hoping Hawks get pick 7 and want to move up to pick 2

In 6 & 7
Out 2 & 20

Offer Melbourne 6 & F2 for Jackson

Trade 26 & 27 (Rioli) for Brisbane 15

Walk away with Jackson, 7, 15, 38

happy days

 

[Barrybran]

We also lose our future 1st in his scenario

Fair point. I blindly considered that to be a sunk cost for Jackson. No way we'd be throwing 17 and a future first into that deal so we'd probably land Jackson, 17 and a future second.

I do like the Warner ideas though.

 

[CountryLad]

My issue with getting Jackson is not that he's not worth it (I think he would be)...

It's that we simply don't get many chances at the top end midfield talent. We really struggle at it and we don't get many shots at it.

It's hard to find an elite mid outside the top 5.
It's VERY hard to find an elite mid outside the top 10.

I feel like finding a ruckman at any point that'll be 70-80% as good as Jackson at almost any pick level is a much easier task.
ie Meek this year when Jackson goes to Freo.

It's not as easy to go find the elite mids.

The two elite mids in the top 5 are Hamstrings George and can’t hit a target Tsatas. Go and watch his games and you will see his kicking issues and there’s very little of George cause he’s hardly played.
If your not up to date that’s why a lot of folks are talking about splitting picks

 

[Ambrose Burnside]

Im hoping Hawks get pick 7 and want to move up to pick 2

In 6 & 7
Out 2 & 20

Offer Melbourne 6 & F2 for Jackson

Trade 26 & 27 (Rioli) for Brisbane 15

Walk away with Jackson, 7, 15, 38

happy days

Would go full Randy Marsh all over my computer screen if I see we did a trade like that.

I think Keys posted one that saw us trade down a couple of times to stock up on decent picks which was excellent too. Oh yes.

 

[Eastcoasteagle]

Split pick 2 = #8 + F1 = Jackson offer .

Pretty high offer if bottom four in 2023 .

Especially if F1 was pick 1 = Harley Reid.

 

[ThePuma #9]

Im hoping Hawks get pick 7 and want to move up to pick 2

In 6 & 7
Out 2 & 20

Offer Melbourne 6 & F2 for Jackson

Trade 26 & 27 (Rioli) for Brisbane 15

Walk away with Jackson, 7, 15, 38

happy days

Or


Hawks.
OUT: Pick 6
IN: Bowes, Pick 2


GC.
OUT: Bowes, Pick 7
IN: WC Future Second


WC.
OUT: Pick 2, Future Second Rounder
IN: Pick 6,7



Gold Coast get our future second in sending Bowes to Hawks, we split 2 for two top 10 picks.

We then offer pick 6 or 7 and 20 to Demons for Jackson.

It might not be two first rounders but it would be a hell of a lot better than Fremantles offer of two first round picks in the teens.

We get Jackson, a top ten pick in this years draft and still get to keep next years first.

Jackson ends up costing us a pick downgrade and two second round picks.

Basically the same picks you suggested packaged a little differently.