Rumour GFC 2016 Player Trading, Drafting, FA, Rumours, and Wish lists.

[Boxhead_31]

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

Will go to North

 

[Lana]

Even if pick one were a Chris Judd-esque superkid with a very good chance of being a superstar one day, there would still be no incentive for us to make that trade unless we on-traded the pick for someone equally talented or better than Motlop at the moment. We need guys who can help us while we're challenging, not players who will peak in five or six years time when the rest of our core is past it.

We'll if there was a wonder kid especially a KPF I'd consider it and back the rest of the squad to be good enough to win it without Motlop.

But you don't get to chose when you get a guy like Motlop, his type of player is such a lottery. If I trade him out it would have to be a for ridiculously sure bet.

 

[Lana]

I hope he is contracted.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

We should be trying to have a crack at KK this year. I know he is under contract but there is a bad smell up there and we have a good stable culture to offer him.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I hope he is contracted.

He is until end of next year.

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

There's a few at Freo that would be worth a look at. They will obviously be cleaning out a few. Depending how some other things go Mayne or Clarke could be decent backups. If Kersten leaves I'd take Mayne. If Vrady and/or Clarke go I'd look at Zak Clarke.
De Boer or Pearce could be handy depth as free agents. I like Barlow and he'd be cheap with still potentially 3-4 years left but possibly Menegola and Scooter have taken a spot he could take.

 

[Mad_Hatter]

We should be trying to have a crack at KK this year. I know he is under contract but there is a bad smell up there and we have a good stable culture to offer him.

Agree.
Rats are jumping ship as soon as they can, give KK a call and entice him to come to a great club and play alongside his brother....

What would it cost?

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Agree.
Rats are jumping ship as soon as they can, give KK a call and entice him to come to a great club and play alongside his brother....

What would it cost?

Because he is under contract you would probably be looking at motlop (with possibly some pick swaps) or a first rounder and at least one best 22 player going to them. He was picked at 5 and has franked his draft position with his performances so far. Doubt it happens this year as we dont have the currency but KK would seriously be regretting re-signing there you would reckon.

 

[Lana]

Because he is under contract you would probably be looking at motlop (with possibly some pick swaps) or a first rounder and at least one best 22 player going to them. He was picked at 5 and has franked his draft position with his performances so far. Doubt it happens this year as we dont have the currency but KK would seriously be regretting re-signing there you would reckon.

I wouldn't presume that he'd be regretting anything, he'd be on more coin at GC then he'd be at most other clubs, he has security at selection.

This 'exodus' isn't as bad as the names sound. Swallow and O'Meara have played a collective 6 games in the last two years. Prestia has played 22 games in two years due to knee issues. Hitting a partial reset button might help them a lot more then hurt in the long run. They just have to make sure they don't let any of them walk for a low price. They odds of all three of them overcoming their injuries at the same time to buid a midfield around doesn't seem very high.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I wouldn't presume that he'd be regretting anything, he'd be on more coin at GC then he'd be at most other clubs, he has security at selection.

This 'exodus' isn't as bad as the names sound. Swallow and O'Meara have played a collective 6 games in the last two years. Prestia has played 22 games in two years due to knee issues. Hitting a partial reset button might help them a lot more then hurt in the long run. They just have to make sure they don't let any of them walk for a low price. They odds of all three of them overcoming their injuries at the same time to buid a midfield around doesn't seem very high.

Money is not everything though and i think he would regret staying.

Agree with your 2nd paragraph.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The hidden picks was the loophole. A great change in the rules. Hurts some of Pure_Ownage 's Machiavellian plots. Completely reverses academy teams immediate draft trading incentives. It also almost removes the value from picks that get created from the left overs of a matched bid. Which created a feedback loop that gave the acedemy clubs even more bidding power

Couple of comments on this one. I am surprised more hasn't been made of the fact that GWS til have the expanded list size until 2018/19 I think. They have had the extra slots but they keep passing on 2-3 ND and PSD picks each year (I assume for salary cap reasons). So with the proposed rule change that would give them a big advantage compared to the other 3 academy clubs (GC Bris and Syd) as for a year or two they can still use more hidden icks than what the others can. The other thing that gives clubs flexibility is you can go at 38 not 40 on the senior list and take the 2 vacant spots into the draft so you can use 2 hidden picks for bids, and then just pass on your last 2 ND picks. In effect you're giving up your last 2 rookie picks to use 2 hidden picks so it's not a huge price. I do think it will kill off the 'trade a first rounder for 4 or 5 late picks' thing as thats too many list spots, but say one pick for two slightly lower ones is still viable. I think they way around it is with future picks, for example GC might have 8 or 9 picks in the first 2 rounds this year so sure they wont downgrade one pick for two, but they might say downgrade a first rounder for a second rounder this year and a second rounder next year. So there's still flexibility and we might try to get in on that.

On our movements I think a lot depends on the Stanley/Kersten/Vardy/Clark. With all being OOC this late in the year and the fact we cant fit them all in the 22 I'd say at least one requests a trade. If two do we probably need to bring in a backup depth tall and if the 2 are Stanley/Vardy/Clark and not Kersten then we would want to bring in a backup ruck for Smith. Ideally we only lose one of those guys.

Then it's if either Enright or Lonergan retire which is unknown yet. Unless he gets injured again Cowan is probably earning a 1 year extension and we have no delistable prospects (on the senior list, we do have guys on the rookie list who will get delisted I think) except maybe Luxford but it would be pretty confusing I would have thought to delist and re-rookie him after elevating him 12 months ago.

So the list spots will be tight which is why I expect us to be willing to trade depth guys like Vardy/GHS/Murdoch etc for the right deal. I think if our list spots are tight ideally we try and trade 2 or 3 of our mid range picks to get into the first round (or possibly a current and future second round to a club for a first rounder) or we try and trade some of the depth guys out for 2017 picks rather than 2016 picks, as we will probably have more list spots open next year.

 

[Turbocat]

In this years draft I wouldn't take pick 1

yes but would you take 2 R1 picks?

I agree that this year P1 is not quite the standard of some in the past , yet I feel just below that there is a pool of players perhaps 20-30 that would normally be around the standard for late R1's that we have taken plenty of over the years... and the top 15 could all be top 5. IMO , the value would be in multiples , which then give one a double hit at getting a legit 200 game player etc.

Depending on how early they were ... If I had the chance to get a Ainsworth and McGrath , or perhaps a Marshall and an English if we wanted tall ..even slightly later Shai Bolton as an exciting goal kicker & Alex Witherden / Jy Simpkin all from a trade with with Motlop , id have to seriously consider doing it.

 

[Lana]

Couple of comments on this one. I am surprised more hasn't been made of the fact that GWS til have the expanded list size until 2018/19 I think. They have had the extra slots but they keep passing on 2-3 ND and PSD picks each year (I assume for salary cap reasons). So with the proposed rule change that would give them a big advantage compared to the other 3 academy clubs (GC Bris and Syd) as for a year or two they can still use more hidden icks than what the others can.

I think they spend up the cession of GWS's list concessions. Such that all clubs operate under the same list rules (other than the rent allowance for the former COLA teams) by the start of next year.

The other thing that gives clubs flexibility is you can go at 38 not 40 on the senior list and take the 2 vacant spots into the draft so you can use 2 hidden picks for bids, and then just pass on your last 2 ND picks. In effect you're giving up your last 2 rookie picks to use 2 hidden picks so it's not a huge price. I do think it will kill off the 'trade a first rounder for 4 or 5 late picks' thing as thats too many list spots, but say one pick for two slightly lower ones is still viable.

But in this scenario they aren't "hidden" extra picks they are on the draft board.

Another thing to keep in mind is that a matched bid also creates a draft pick from the left over points. I assume that if they are allocated pick and they have more picks then list spots then their last pick is removed from the board and can't be used to match a bid.

But I think your either misunderstand how rookie picks are allocated or your just using the wrong terminology. If they pass on picks in the national they'll gain extra rookie picks such that they have a total of 44 primary listed players and category A rookies.

I think they way around it is with future picks, for example GC might have 8 or 9 picks in the first 2 rounds this year so sure they wont downgrade one pick for two, but they might say downgrade a first rounder for a second rounder this year and a second rounder next year. So there's still flexibility and we might try to get in on that.

I agree with you that there is an opportunity re the future picks, there are a lot of different permutations for how this could happen, it just depends on how creative teams can be.

So the list spots will be tight which is why I expect us to be willing to trade depth guys like Vardy/GHS/Murdoch etc for the right deal. I think if our list spots are tight ideally we try and trade 2 or 3 of our mid range picks to get into the first round (or possibly a current and future second round to a club for a first rounder) or we try and trade some of the depth guys out for 2017 picks rather than 2016 picks, as we will probably have more list spots open next year.

The rule change will make in next to impossible to convert multiple late picks into a single early one. There is just no incentives anymore for the academy teams do so. We might get some small improvements by trading a player and a pick for another pick half a dozen (to a dozen depending on the round and player) spots higher. But I don't think it will get us close to the first round.

I think that rather than reach for an early pick we should try to hit the 2nd and 3rd rounds hard and get another couple of later picks. I think the list spots will sort itself out in the end.

On our movements I think a lot depends on the Stanley/Kersten/Vardy/Clark. With all being OOC this late in the year and the fact we cant fit them all in the 22 I'd say at least one requests a trade. If two do we probably need to bring in a backup depth tall and if the 2 are Stanley/Vardy/Clark and not Kersten then we would want to bring in a backup ruck for Smith. Ideally we only lose one of those guys.

Then it's if either Enright or Lonergan retire which is unknown yet. Unless he gets injured again Cowan is probably earning a 1 year extension and we have no delistable prospects (on the senior list, we do have guys on the rookie list who will get delisted I think) except maybe Luxford but it would be pretty confusing I would have thought to delist and re-rookie him after elevating him 12 months ago.

I feel confident in saying that we won't have Clark and Vardy on our list next year. I think the Stanley rumors are rubbish and I don't see the incentive for a team to try and poach Kersten, he is a decent prospect but you can't build something around him. But he'd be silly to leave for anything less.

Luxford is a delist for me with no re-rookie, he hasn't really improved this year, compared to his stellar development the years before. He should be dominating at VFL level but he is only solid. Has some nice attributes but I can't see him getting selected at AFL level for the foreseeable future.

I think we'll try to trade one of Murdoch or GHS, even if it is for something really cheap, I'm talking middle third rounder (pick 45 territory). It frees up a little bit of money. I think they are too far down the depth chart to get regular selection.

Our level of success will determine how many retirements we have. If win it we could have up to three players retire.

 

[Turbocat]

We'll if there was a wonder kid especially a KPF I'd consider it and back the rest of the squad to be good enough to win it without Motlop.

But you don't get to chose when you get a guy like Motlop, his type of player is such a lottery. If I trade him out it would have to be a for ridiculously sure bet.

IMO , no "wonder kids" this just a lot of very good players , the type we built a flag. ..but is there really any thing as sure bet? Thats sounds like insider trading .

 

[Turbocat]

Couple of comments on this one. I am surprised more hasn't been made of the fact that GWS til have the expanded list size until 2018/19 I think. They have had the extra slots but they keep passing on 2-3 ND and PSD picks each year (I assume for salary cap reasons). So with the proposed rule change that would give them a big advantage compared to the other 3 academy clubs (GC Bris and Syd) as for a year or two they can still use more hidden icks than what the others can. The other thing that gives clubs flexibility is you can go at 38 not 40 on the senior list and take the 2 vacant spots into the draft so you can use 2 hidden picks for bids, and then just pass on your last 2 ND picks. In effect you're giving up your last 2 rookie picks to use 2 hidden picks so it's not a huge price. I do think it will kill off the 'trade a first rounder for 4 or 5 late picks' thing as thats too many list spots, but say one pick for two slightly lower ones is still viable. I think they way around it is with future picks, for example GC might have 8 or 9 picks in the first 2 rounds this year so sure they wont downgrade one pick for two, but they might say downgrade a first rounder for a second rounder this year and a second rounder next year. So there's still flexibility and we might try to get in on that.

On our movements I think a lot depends on the Stanley/Kersten/Vardy/Clark. With all being OOC this late in the year and the fact we cant fit them all in the 22 I'd say at least one requests a trade. If two do we probably need to bring in a backup depth tall and if the 2 are Stanley/Vardy/Clark and not Kersten then we would want to bring in a backup ruck for Smith. Ideally we only lose one of those guys.

Then it's if either Enright or Lonergan retire which is unknown yet. Unless he gets injured again Cowan is probably earning a 1 year extension and we have no delistable prospects (on the senior list, we do have guys on the rookie list who will get delisted I think) except maybe Luxford but it would be pretty confusing I would have thought to delist and re-rookie him after elevating him 12 months ago.

So the list spots will be tight which is why I expect us to be willing to trade depth guys like Vardy/GHS/Murdoch etc for the right deal. I think if our list spots are tight ideally we try and trade 2 or 3 of our mid range picks to get into the first round (or possibly a current and future second round to a club for a first rounder) or we try and trade some of the depth guys out for 2017 picks rather than 2016 picks, as we will probably have more list spots open next year.

But is still the case... I thought this had been altered , and they would have to reign it in sooner.

 

[Lana]

IMO , no "wonder kids" this just a lot of very good players , the type we built a flag. ..but is there really any thing as sure bet? Thats sounds like insider trading .

Other than freak injuries, there are. We've talked about those vanilla types that get taken really early in the draft, pre draft they get talked up as being well rounders, no weakness and good leadership but the real case is that it is really hard to tell what is there outstanding attribute (more often then not it is just a them being a having a tank that is closer to AFL standard then the other kids they play against). But you know that at the very least you'll get a consistent contributor for 200 games and if your lucky they have the right mentality to do so much more.

 

[Lana]

yes but would you take 2 R1 picks?

I agree that this year P1 is not quite the standard of some in the past , yet I feel just below that there is a pool of players perhaps 20-30 that would normally be around the standard for late R1's that we have taken plenty of over the years... and the top 15 could all be top 5. IMO , the value would be in multiples , which then give one a double hit at getting a legit 200 game player etc.

Depending on how early they were ... If I had the chance to get a Ainsworth and McGrath , or perhaps a Marshall and an English if we wanted tall ..even slightly later Shai Bolton as an exciting goal kicker & Alex Witherden / Jy Simpkin all from a trade with with Motlop , id have to seriously consider doing it.

When you get to two first round picks you start getting my attention but no team would trade that for Motlop. They'd be taking a huge risk.

 

[Turbocat]

Other than freak injuries, there are. We've talked about those vanilla types that get taken really early in the draft, pre draft they get talked up as being well rounders, no weakness and good leadership but the real case is that it is really hard to tell what is there outstanding attribute (more often then not it is just a them being a having a tank that is closer to AFL standard then the other kids they play against). But you know that at the very least you'll get a consistent contributor for 200 games and if your lucky they have the right mentality to do so much more.

We Im not sure any of the players I listed were that Vanilla type but thats just me . Id say they all have aspects of elite "trick" , something that gives them a chance to separate from the pack . Ainsworth for instance is about as Vanilla as Choc Chip RockRoad. English presents as a that could be doing eye catching stuff like 2mp not too far down the track (although not a forward , he is more ruck his skills set make him a probable Cox like)

 

[Turbocat]

When you get to two first round picks you start getting my attention but no team would trade that for Motlop. They'd be taking a huge risk.

Its very difficult to project who would be interested , who would have the trade ammo and who would appeal to the player. The player has to have a strong say in his place of employment.
If it was our choice , a Gold Coast trade would be something that could really land us a good result..Right now they could endup with that many picks and cap room ... 2 quality picks would be probably doable.

 

[Lana]

We Im not sure any of the players I listed were that Vanilla type but thats just me . Id say they all have aspects of elite "trick" , something that gives them a chance to separate from the pack . Ainsworth for instance is about as Vanilla as Choc Chip RockRoad. English presents as a that could be doing eye catching stuff like 2mp not too far down the track (although not a forward , he is more ruck his skills set make him a probable Cox like)

That's the thing is I would get rid of a guy like Motlop to draft a kid who might be a "Motlop type". It's impossible to predict which tricks stand up at AFL level and which don't.

Its very difficult to project who would be interested , who would have the trade ammo and who would appeal to the player. The player has to have a strong say in his place of employment.
If it was our choice , a Gold Coast trade would be something that could really land us a good result..Right now they could endup with that many picks and cap room ... 2 quality picks would be probably doable.

I'd be comfortable in saying that no one would be interested at that price. Anyone with that kind of currency is probably in a position where they need to take it to the draft. I looked over Gold Coast's list last night, there'd bring in a whole midfield before they'd consider a Motlop type. What I mean with teams not taking a risk is that Motlop will be 26 next year, has questionable professionalism (not that I have an issue with him but how a list manager would assess him)and isn't the type of player to hold up a poor team on his shoulders. A guy like Treloar gets two first rounders since other a freak injury occurring Collingwood know that he is capable of holding up a midfield for the next 7+ years.

On another note they have a *-tonne of half back flankers and most of them aren't the type to develop into mids, I'd be definitely be looking there post Mackie,

 

[Turbocat]

That's the thing is I would get rid of a guy like Motlop to draft a kid who might be a "Motlop type". It's impossible to predict which tricks stand up at AFL level and which don't.

Well we could make that observation about most if not all kids. One has to look and assess them then use ones own judgement on what will be transferable , or what will standup at the higher level. Thats surely the art of talent id

I'd be comfortable in saying that no one would be interested at that price. Anyone with that kind of currency is probably in a position where they need to take it to the draft. I looked over Gold Coast's list last night, there'd bring in a whole midfield before they'd consider a Motlop type. What I mean with teams not taking a risk is that Motlop will be 26 next year, has questionable professionalism (not that I have an issue with him but how a list manager would assess him)and isn't the type of player to hold up a poor team on his shoulders. A guy like Treloar gets two first rounders since other a freak injury occurring Collingwood know that he is capable of holding up a midfield for the next 7+ years.

On another note they have a ****-tonne of half back flankers and most of them aren't the type to develop into mids, I'd be definitely be looking there post Mackie,

A club like GC can not have it both ways... they don't want picks , they want players... they have more picks than they want to use (although id be looking to go draft heavy , thats not what it appears they prefer to do). But if Motlop is only worth a R2 pick etc of course it doesnt happen. A P12 and p24.. would/could be better than the pick number this year because of the draft year... in the end it depends on just how much they want to keep SM.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I think they spend up the cession of GWS's list concessions. Such that all clubs operate under the same list rules (other than the rent allowance for the former COLA teams) by the start of next year.

I am pretty sure (correct me if I am wrong) but GWS are still allowed to have 44 on the senior list next year they don't have to reduce it until 2018. Now they won't fill past 40 because of salary cap reasons but it allows them an advantage re the 'hidden pick' changes. i.e. if you go into the draft with 36 spots on your senior list you can't now use your 5th or 6th pick to match any bids as you only have 4 spots on the senior list. But in the Giants case they still (technically) have 8 vacant spots which means they could use the 5th and 6th picks to pay for bids but just pass after they have filled the 40th spot. I could be misreading the rule but if it allows that it advantages them over every other team.

But I think your either misunderstand how rookie picks are allocated or your just using the wrong terminology. If they pass on picks in the national they'll gain extra rookie picks such that they have a total of 44 primary listed players and category A rookies.

Yeah I phrased it wrong what I meant was you could go into the draft with vacant spots up to 40 but you pass on your last 2 ND picks meaning you only fill 38 but you still had enough corresponding vacancies at the draft-so in the secnario where you started the draft with 34 on your list you can still use the 5th and 6th pick you have to match bids even though you don't intend taking more than 4 players (as we did last year). What I meant was then you are giving up 2 picks at the very end of the ND (for being able to use 2 hidden picks) but you will get 2 extra picks at the end of the RD so you aren't losing a lot.

I agree with you that there is an opportunity re the future picks, there are a lot of different permutations for how this could happen, it just depends on how creative teams can be.

I think this is the likely outcome as some years clubs will want more picks and some less depending on how many vacancies they are likely to have and the strength they rate each draft at, so they will get more flexibility from future pick trading. If we try to get an additional first rounder this year this might be something we can use.

The rule change will make in next to impossible to convert multiple late picks into a single early one. There is just no incentives anymore for the academy teams do so. We might get some small improvements by trading a player and a pick for another pick half a dozen (to a dozen depending on the round and player) spots higher. But I don't think it will get us close to the first round.

I think that rather than reach for an early pick we should try to hit the 2nd and 3rd rounds hard and get another couple of later picks. I think the list spots will sort itself out in the end.

Don't necessarily disagree with that. I think one way around it though could be that that we look to try and trade our 2nd (34) this year and our 2nd next year (and possibly add in one of the fringe players you mentioned if needs be) for another club's first rounder next year. This would give us flexibility as it would mean we couldn't trade our 1st rnd in 2017 (having traded the 2nd round from that year) but having taken first rounders in 2016 and 2017 it would let us trade our 2018 first rounder in next year's trade period if we want. It would be a one in one out for the trading club i.e. they swap one pick this year for one this year plus one next year, so it doesn't really affect the hidden pick stuff.

I feel confident in saying that we won't have Clark and Vardy on our list next year. I think the Stanley rumors are rubbish and I don't see the incentive for a team to try and poach Kersten, he is a decent prospect but you can't build something around him. But he'd be silly to leave for anything less.

Luxford is a delist for me with no re-rookie, he hasn't really improved this year, compared to his stellar development the years before. He should be dominating at VFL level but he is only solid. Has some nice attributes but I can't see him getting selected at AFL level for the foreseeable future.

I think we'll try to trade one of Murdoch or GHS, even if it is for something really cheap, I'm talking middle third rounder (pick 45 territory). It frees up a little bit of money. I think they are too far down the depth chart to get regular selection.

Our level of success will determine how many retirements we have. If win it we could have up to three players retire.

I agree Clark and Vardy are the most likely of the four tall guys to leave, Stanley will stay and Kersten is 50/50. If we lost Clark and Vardy would you trade or FA in a KPF/Ruck backup and if so who?
I just struggle to see us being prepared to go into next year with only Smith Stanley and Blicavs (at a pinch) as our only ruck options given the issues we have had with ruck injuries previously.

I'm not sure on Luxford, I don't know if he will ever fit in the 22 long term but I think he's been good at vfl level this year. It would just baffle me as to why they elevated him in the first place to delist him a year later. I know they did it with Burbury but he was injured a lot in the year he was delisted, and Luxford has been more durable.

I would be fairly happy with a pick in the 40s for either HS or Murdoch given our record with picks in that range, so long as we are not paying part of their contracts and their new clubs are taking on the last 2 years of each of their contracts.

 

[Lana]

I am pretty sure (correct me if I am wrong) but GWS are still allowed to have 44 on the senior list next year they don't have to reduce it until 2018.

That was the initial plan, I believe the AFL unilaterally brought it forward to this year.

Now they won't fill past 40 because of salary cap reasons but it allows them an advantage re the 'hidden pick' changes. i.e. if you go into the draft with 36 spots on your senior list you can't now use your 5th or 6th pick to match any bids as you only have 4 spots on the senior list. But in the Giants case they still (technically) have 8 vacant spots which means they could use the 5th and 6th picks to pay for bids but just pass after they have filled the 40th spot. I could be misreading the rule but if it allows that it advantages them over every other team.

If the rules aren't/hadn't been charged you'd be correct that they'd have an advantage but this is separate from the hidden picks.

 

[TheCattery2007]

A bit left field but would we consider trading Duncan. Great player but very valuable at other clubs and we have upcoming midfield depth with Cockatoo and Lang. Duncan could give us a high draft pick or be a useful player for player type trade. Don't get me wrong I'm a fan, just thinking through how Scott and co might approach the draft.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk