Delist or Trade

[Carmelo Anthony]

I know, and they said that the days off fat contracts were over... the mere fact that the Suns dumped Marbury for capspace only to go sign Nash for nearly 70 million

Not 1 player hasnt been paid properly... Atlanta gave a 3 mil deal to Collier who has played good for 20 games in about 4 seasons.

The way things are going, Austin Croshere will be underpaid

 

[Stiffy_18]

Makes me realise I am in the wrong profession. What has the world come to when a dud can sign a multimillion dollar contract

 

[Carmelo Anthony]

Its alright, if you look at New Yorks salary cap, theres plenty of millionaires there that dont even play basketball

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Carmelo Anthony
Its alright, if you look at New Yorks salary cap, theres plenty of millionaires there that dont even play basketball

GOLD

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

macca23, we cannot get Schammer for a simple reson that he has signed a new 3 year deal that ties him to the Dockers until the end of 2007. Remember the "Heffernan Rule" where a player can't be traded unless he has served 1st year of his new contract.

Yes, I'm aware of that rule.

A couple of questions though:

Does the Heffernan rule apply to a re-signing of a contract - probably does?

Because he signed a new deal THIS year, wouldnt this season then count as year 1, ending October 31?

Can the player be traded in his first year of a contract if he is agreeable?

The other reason that I thought it might be able to be done is that KG and Cornesy were speaking to Schammer this week and talked about him coming back to SA in a trade for Josh Carr, which Schammer certainly didn't rule out.

I'm confused now.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by macca23
Yes, I'm aware of that rule.

A couple of questions though:

1. Does the Heffernan rule apply to a re-signing of a contract - probably does?

2. Because he signed a new deal THIS year, wouldnt this season then count as year 1, ending October 31?

3. Can the player be traded in his first year of a contract if he is agreeable?

1. Yes it does. It applies to every contract.

2. No because, when he got drafted he signed a 2 year deal that expires at the end of THIS year. What he has done a month or so ago is sign a new contract that is effective as of next season (ie the first year of his new 3 year deal is in 2005) hence he cannot be traded until he serves the first year of his new contract.

3. My understanding is no because if the player is agreeable to trade he had the option of waiting until the end of the year. I am sure there would be exceptions is something urgent came up so the player was asking for a trade. Then I reckon there could be a way out but from the sound of things Schammer sounds very happy at Freo.

 

[Riddler]

Do you think it's worth going after Joel Smith??

Hasn't signed yet and sounds a bit reluctant to until he hears what's happening at the end of the year.

I know he's 27 but has about 5 - 6 years left in him.

Thoughts??

 

[tribey]

Originally posted by Riddler
Do you think it's worth going after Joel Smith??

Thoughts??

He is a rubbish with a capital R. Just runs around getting cheap ineffective kicks and is a chocolate teapot defensively.

 

[Mong]

Stick with youngsters I reckon.

I still think the best way for us to go is purely through the draft. Obviously if Stenglein wants to go then we will have to facilitate a trade for him but I really don't think we should be going out and trying to trade for other established players. If we do any trades I'd rather we stock up on draft picks or if we do trade for players they should be promising young players. The reality is though that young promising players aren't given up easily.

The way to build a premiership contender is through the draft.


****

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by ****
Stick with youngsters I reckon.

I still think the best way for us to go is purely through the draft. Obviously if Stenglein wants to go then we will have to facilitate a trade for him but I really don't think we should be going out and trying to trade for other established players. If we do any trades I'd rather we stock up on draft picks or if we do trade for players they should be promising young players. The reality is though that young promising players aren't given up easily.

The way to build a premiership contender is through the draft.


****

I agree with ****.

Anyone over te age of 23 should be out of hte question. I would much rather we get draft picks of good promising youngsters.

We have an excess of HB flankers as it is. The last thing we need is another one in Joel Smith.

 

[Skippy_14]

Joel Smith IS a FAIRY

Like Mike Sheahan said, there's nothing special about him. His ball-handling skills aren't anything to CROW about... haha, get it? CROW about? Oh well, I thought it was funny.
Anyway, all he does is run around getting ineffective kicks that anyone could get, and most of them go to the opposition anyway! He's rubbish, and EXTREMELY over-rated!... In my opinion, at least.

... And he BADLY needs a haircut!

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I agree with ****.

Anyone over te age of 23 should be out of hte question. I would much rather we get draft picks of good promising youngsters.

We have an excess of HB flankers as it is. The last thing we need is another one in Joel Smith.

Stiffy thats wrong to put an age limit on recruitment.
Depends on whose available, the cost of getting him, and most importantly our needs and salary cap considerations.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World
Stiffy thats wrong to put an age limit on recruitment.
Depends on whose available, the cost of getting him, and most importantly our needs and salary cap considerations.

No its not considering the situation we are in.

The primary objective for the AFC this year is to get some quality YOUTH on our list and a 27 year old injury prone HB flanker hardly fits that category. As it stands we already have excess of HB flankers so to me going after Smith under any circumstances is pointless.

We already have plenty of players in the 27-30 age category. We hardly need more. I don't care who is up for trade if they are over the age of 23 they should be crossed off. Thats why I am not overly keen on Ottens for the reason that he will be 25 next year and will cost an arm and a leg to get. If he came cheap I would consider it but we all know Richmond will not let their top 3 player go for peanuts.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
No its not considering the situation we are in.
Youth is overated? Quality youngsters give you potentially 10-15 years of service, often the first 3 years inconsistent service.
A 23-25 quality player gives you 7-10 years of consistent service because they don't suffer the same form inconsistencies.
It really just a question of length of service isn't it?

The primary objective for the AFC this year is to get some quality YOUTH on our list and a 27 year old injury prone HB flanker hardly fits that category. As it stands we already have excess of HB flankers so to me going after Smith under any circumstances is pointless.
Yes agreed, but there's a limit of how many young inexperienced players you can have on a list of 38.
So if you are going to radically change your list structure, they all can't be 18 year olds.

We already have plenty of players in the 27-30 age category. We hardly need more. I don't care who is up for trade if they are over the age of 23 they should be crossed off. Thats why I am not overly keen on Ottens for the reason that he will be 25 next year and will cost an arm and a leg to get. If he came cheap I would consider it but we all know Richmond will not let their top 3 player go for peanuts.
Forget Smith, I agree with your position on that.
But as a general principle I disagree.
Its horses for courses and list balance.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18

I don't care who is up for trade if they are over the age of 23 they should be crossed off. Thats why I am not overly keen on Ottens for the reason that he will be 25 next year and will cost an arm and a leg to get. If he came cheap I would consider it but we all know Richmond will not let their top 3 player go for peanuts.

As a general principle, I like your idea of not trading for players over a certain age, be that 23 or 24.

I'd still take Ottens though, as long as we could do that by trading players and not first round draft picks.

Unlikely to happen though.

 

[maccas_no1]

Originally posted by Stiffy_18
I got 1 question for you.

What would you rather get for Reilly Pick 20 or Pick 5 in the draft??????

Pick 5 for sure, I know it's a huge debate, Im glad Im not making these desicions.

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by maccas_no1
Pick 5 for sure, I know it's a huge debate, Im glad Im not making these desicions.

If thats the case then why would you trade him while his value is down??????

Isn't it better to wait until he is 24 or 25 and when his value is its peak than trading him after 3 years on an AFL list??????

Its simple really. Trade players when their value is high not when a player will get you less than you have given for him.

 

[spindoctor]

Yes Stiffy but you're being short-sighted in a magnificent way here. If Reilly is kept for another 4 or 5 years, becomes an excellent player and an integral part of our midfield, losing him will leave a HUGE hole in our midfield, something a pick 5 would be highly unlikely to cover in the immediate few years after their drafting.

Kane Johnson leaving has left a big hole in our midfield, Reilly if he is in the same position in 4-5 years could do the same.

On the other hand he could turn out to never be that great, in which case pick 20 now might be a steal for him.

Even then, it might be safer to get pick 20 now if Reilly is making noises about going home sooner or later, and before he becomes a key component of our midfield like Johnson was.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Yes Stiffy but you're being short-sighted in a magnificent way here. If Reilly is kept for another 4 or 5 years, becomes an excellent player and an integral part of our midfield, losing him will leave a HUGE hole in our midfield, something a pick 5 would be highly unlikely to cover in the immediate few years after their drafting.

Kane Johnson leaving has left a big hole in our midfield, Reilly if he is in the same position in 4-5 years could do the same.

On the other hand he could turn out to never be that great, in which case pick 20 now might be a steal for him.

Even then, it might be safer to get pick 20 now if Reilly is making noises about going home sooner or later, and before he becomes a key component of our midfield like Johnson was.

Good post
People only want to trade players who they think are dispensable.

 

[conVINCEd]

True, Wayne, which is why I don't want to trade Reilly.

 

[macca23]

Originally posted by Wayne's-World

People only want to trade players who they think are dispensable.

At times, but certainly not always, that could be expanded to being dispensable at their club.

Thre are some win wins where players who are dispensable at one club become part of a trade and end up being a very good player at the new club. eg Wellman, as part of the Jarman trade.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

Originally posted by macca23
At times, but certainly not always, that could be expanded to being dispensable at their club.

Thre are some win wins where players who are dispensable at one club become part of a trade and end up being a very good player at the new club. eg Wellman, as part of the Jarman trade.

Macca yes I meant dispensable by their club.
But IMO the Wellman trade occurred because he hadn't established himself at the Crows, and in fact was struggling to hold a position.
The supporters did not bat an eyelid over losing Wellman.

But fast forwrd Wellmans career 3 years and that trade would not have occurred and the backlash from supporters would have been immense.

My point we judge players on today, on their performance now, not what they may blossom into.
We've seen how 1 good season, or even 3-4 good games changes peoples opinions on whether we should trade them or even de-list them

 

[Stiffy_18]

Originally posted by spindoctor
Yes Stiffy but you're being short-sighted in a magnificent way here. If Reilly is kept for another 4 or 5 years, becomes an excellent player and an integral part of our midfield, losing him will leave a HUGE hole in our midfield, something a pick 5 would be highly unlikely to cover in the immediate few years after their drafting.

Kane Johnson leaving has left a big hole in our midfield, Reilly if he is in the same position in 4-5 years could do the same.

On the other hand he could turn out to never be that great, in which case pick 20 now might be a steal for him.

Even then, it might be safer to get pick 20 now if Reilly is making noises about going home sooner or later, and before he becomes a key component of our midfield like Johnson was.

So you are telling me we were not fairly compensated by Richmond for Sugar??????

Of course that leaves a hole in your line up but that can be filled with either trading player for player or player for draft pick and using that draft pick to draft a gun youngster.

Kane Johnson did leave a hole in our team but that spot should have gone to a youngster and it would have been better for us in the long term.

Either way you will get a fair compensation then its a matter of how you use that. Either way I would much rather get pick 5 down the track even if we are losing integral member of our side than get pick 20 now for an up and coming youngster especially since that pick 20 is a game of russian roullete and you have more chance of drafting a dud than you do with pick 5.

I wonder if macca_no1 or anyone else who wants to trade Reilly, would bag the Crows in 5 years time when Reilly gets to be AA for letting him go for a mid draft pick?????? I am pretty sure the AFC would cop plenty if this happened and we would keep hearing how incompetent AFC are when it comes to trading.

 

[Carmelo Anthony]

Joel Smith is a gun, if we could get him without giving too much up I'd take him. When was he injury prone? 2-3 years ago... He is a wonderful player and the only shining light from Hawthorn the past 1-2 years. Im sure Hawthorn will end up giving him a fat contract because hes there 2nd best player. 27 isnt old, I mean hes still got 5-6 years left in him...thats over 100 games of football. It all depends what we have to give up though..which im sure will be alot...hence we wont go after him IMO.

 

[RaDaR ReiLLy]

Originally posted by meh


and whoever said trade brent reilly. are you stupid??
what time of the night did u write this??
isnt he good enough for you??
u try keep aaron davey to 2 goals and have 30 urself!
did he reject when you tried to do dirty dancing with him?

Post of the year!!!!!! GOLD

And yes, he probably did reject him, who wouldnt?!


And what indication has Reilly given that he will want to go home to Vic at one stage? He's dead set loving Adelaide and I heard from the grapevine that he bought a house somewhere here...

He will be a 250 game player for the club, no doubt. Trading him would just be plain stupid. And if anyone said that Reilly was injury prone, just look at James Hird now. Theres potential there that he could be that good one day.