Rumour GFC 2021 Player Trading, Drafting FA, Rumours and Wish lists... Part II

[Larry Donohue]

WE may as well as for advice from Higgins and trade in Goldstein.



We need to think about how our actions and non actions have worked out. You either pay someone for water or dig the well for yourself. Fair chance when you pay for the water its not the best..they keep that for themselves

Did try the goldy option too.
Think if we get ceglar he might surprise some
If they are paying a good whack of his salary, no major loss.
P 41 and presto.
Wouldn't use it anyway
I reckon Fort will stay nonetheless

 

[Grimoz]

No, he would sign as a delisted free agent (DFA), which means no pick would be used and he'd be on our senior list.

So he has to be signed (hopefully by us) in the next week or so or nominate for the draft, is that how it works?

 

[BORIS332]

Lachie Henderson too.

Henderson was a rookie.

 

[BORIS332]

So he has to be signed (hopefully by us) in the next week or so or nominate for the draft, is that how it works?

I'm not entirely sure. Unrestricted free agency closes tomorrow, I don't know if that applies to delisted free agents too.

 

[Turbocat]

He may not have long left but Goldstein and Ceglar are polar opposites in their ability to play their position. It would have be great if we had’ve been able to get Goldstein instead of Higgins.

At least he is a first picked antique... or has been. These guys can trip over the edge at any time.

 

[#cats2021]

All this talk of Ceglar... particularly on trade radio. WTF are we not just going for Lynch? Surely perfect moneyball... a thousand years younger.

Maddening.

 

[strauchnyy]

Ideal scenario

1. Clark for 19. He’s contracted, we don’t need to nor should we bow down to Freo… we are calling the shots. On draft night, trade 19 (21) for the best available offer. Potentially a 5 pick downgrade + a FR2 or a good FR1.

2. Package 30 + 41 for bulldogs 23

3. Only go for ceglar if it’s a direct swap for fort (Brisbane pick to hawks).

4. Sign Stengle DFA.

Hit the draft with 19 (subject to best offer on night 2), 23, 32 and 34.

 

[CatsDoItBetter]

There's a few keyboard experts in here when it comes to players from other clubs - like Ceglar.

Personally I'd trust the club to make the right call on a player if they firmly believe he ticks a box, or helps fill a gap. There's no more than idle speculation that Ceglar is coming to Geelong. But if he does, I'd back the experts to manage our list spots and determine what needs we have. As for Ceglar's age (and ruckman in general) I don't think 30/31 is over the top - I remember a bloke called Ottens who played his best footy in the backend couple of years of his career for us. I'm not saying Ceglar is like for like with Ottens, but he has missed a lot of senior footy because he was behind McEvoy (who was ultimately captain of the club and always selected ahead of him) ..... and injured.

Rather than make myself out to be an expert on list management (particularly players from other clubs), I think I'll just leave it in the hands of the blokes who are paid to do that job.

Fair enough, I’d have to ask why you’d be bothered coming in here then.

 

[Shadow89]

As it stands:

Jenkins (senior list), Taheny (senior list), Jarvis (senior list), Constable (senior list).

Brownless (rookie list), Henderson (rookie list), Okunbor (Cat B Rookie).

If Ceglar comes in, it means Fort goes, so that changes nothing on our senior list. If Constable stays, it'll be as a rookie, so he's off the senior list otherwise. If Clark gets traded, that will give us another pick, but another list spot.

If we take Stengle as a DFA and upgrade Atkins and Close (inevitable), then we only have 2 senior list spots for the draft and 3 rookie spots. This is a problem.

Maybe either Close or Atkins will agree to stay rookie listed? (I'm not sure how that works given they already have contracts?). Either that, or we just take 2 picks in the national draft and two or 3 in the rookie draft? Are we able to rookie Dahlhaus if he has an LTI and we're just keeping him on for cap purposes?

Genuinely curious about what we'll do here...

EDIT: Kreuger gone makes 3, so that works a bit better now with the picks we have/might obtain

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I think we are going to give our Clark pick to Hawthorn 22 for Ceglar and pick 30 for Gunstan

Lol no.

 

[iameviljez]

Henderson was a rookie.

My mistake

 

[Shadow89]

Ideal scenario

1. Clark for 19. He’s contracted, we don’t need to nor should we bow down to Freo… we are calling the shots. On draft night, trade 19 (21) for the best available offer. Potentially a 5 pick downgrade + a FR2 or a good FR1.

2. Package 30 + 41 for bulldogs 23

3. Only go for ceglar if it’s a direct swap for fort (Brisbane pick to hawks).

4. Sign Stengle DFA.

Hit the draft with 19 (subject to best offer on night 2), 23, 32 and 34.

We'll only have two senior list spots by the calculations I just did, and Bulldogs would be able to get more than 30 and 41 for 23, IMO

 

[Grimoz]

Honestly if its taking this long for the Clarke deal to happen just tell them to **** off and come back next year. Freo have always been pricks to deal with and this is no exception.

 

[Grimoz]

Ideal scenario

1. Clark for 19. He’s contracted, we don’t need to nor should we bow down to Freo… we are calling the shots. On draft night, trade 19 (21) for the best available offer. Potentially a 5 pick downgrade + a FR2 or a good FR1.

2. Package 30 + 41 for bulldogs 23

3. Only go for ceglar if it’s a direct swap for fort (Brisbane pick to hawks).

4. Sign Stengle DFA.

Hit the draft with 19 (subject to best offer on night 2), 23, 32 and 34.

You can forget 19, its not going to happen, Freo already ruled that out.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

As it stands:

Jenkins (senior list), Taheny (senior list), Jarvis (senior list), Constable (senior list).

Brownless (rookie list), Henderson (rookie list), Okunbor (Cat B Rookie).

If Ceglar comes in, it means Fort goes, so that changes nothing on our senior list. If Constable stays, it'll be as a rookie, so he's off the senior list otherwise. If Clark gets traded, that will give us another pick, but another list spot.

If we take Stengle as a DFA and upgrade Atkins and Close (inevitable), then we only have 1 senior list spot for the draft and 3 rookie spots. This is a problem.

Maybe either Close or Atkins will agree to stay rookie listed? (I'm not sure how that works given they already have contracts?). Either that, or we just take 2 picks in the national draft and two in the rookie draft? Are we able to rookie Dahlhaus if he has an LTI and we're just keeping him on for cap purposes?

Genuinely curious about what we'll do here...

You forgot kreuger off senior list but yes spots are a problem.
Close and atkins can legally stay rookies one more year and be upgraded next year but equally if another club offers them a senior list spot they are UFAs and can walk with no trade. So it depends if they have outside interest. We can rookie dahl but then part of the contract payout comes under the cap and that may put us over the cap limit. More likely we keep him now put him on the inactive list in january and fill his spot with an extra rookie then (SSP).
We only have to take 2 picks if doing a rookie upgrade.
If we have more picks than list spots we will trade up the order or trade into future picks imo.

 

[bombersboy]

No, he would sign as a delisted free agent (DFA), which means no pick would be used and he'd be on our senior list.

Stengle is not a DFA. He retired with a year to go on his contract and Adelaide asked him to stay. he said no so they negotiated a settlement on his contract. I am not sure what the position would be if he wanted to come to Geelong or any other club.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

You can forget 19, its not going to happen, Freo already ruled that out.

We decide that not them because he is contracted. Its what we want or he stays.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Stengle is not a DFA. He retired with a year to go on his contract and Adelaide asked him to stay. he said no so they negotiated a settlement on his contract. I am not sure what the position would be if he wanted to come to Geelong or any other club.

He is a DFA because every club passed him in the MSD he can go straight onto any list.

 

[BORIS332]

As it stands:

Jenkins (senior list), Taheny (senior list), Jarvis (senior list), Constable (senior list).

Brownless (rookie list), Henderson (rookie list), Okunbor (Cat B Rookie).

If Ceglar comes in, it means Fort goes, so that changes nothing on our senior list. If Constable stays, it'll be as a rookie, so he's off the senior list otherwise. If Clark gets traded, that will give us another pick, but another list spot.

If we take Stengle as a DFA and upgrade Atkins and Close (inevitable), then we only have 2 senior list spots for the draft and 3 rookie spots. This is a problem.

Maybe either Close or Atkins will agree to stay rookie listed? (I'm not sure how that works given they already have contracts?). Either that, or we just take 2 picks in the national draft and two or 3 in the rookie draft? Are we able to rookie Dahlhaus if he has an LTI and we're just keeping him on for cap purposes?

Genuinely curious about what we'll do here...

The Dahlhaus and Higgins contracts look a bit silly right now. Even Rohan. Unfortunately, I don't think we can upgrade Atkins or Close.

 

[Jumping Jack]

Fair enough, I’d have to ask why you’d be bothered coming in here then.

Pretty sure it's up to me as to why / when I come in here?

But I just find it a bit comical at the extreme nature of commentary from some in here who hold themselves out to be more informed than the people actually paid to do the job. Those within the inner sanctum of the club. By all means people can have an opinion - but I think it's a bit much when some hold themselves out to know more than the experts actually in charge of list management.

I can speak from first hand experience through professional interactions with list managers and recruiting managers - and there's so much more to these decisions that the average punter just would not appreciate. So again, fine for people to express a view or an opinion, but to suggest (as some posters do) that the decisions are "maddening" "perplexing" "not based on any common sense" then I think it's opportune just to call it out.

 

[BORIS332]

Pretty sure it's up to me as to why / when I come in here?

But I just find it a bit comical at the extreme nature of commentary from some in here who hold themselves out to be more informed than the people actually paid to do the job. Those within the inner sanctum of the club. By all means people can have an opinion - but I think it's a bit much when some hold themselves out to know more than the experts actually in charge of list management.

I can speak from first hand experience through professional interactions with list managers and recruiting managers - and there's so much more to these decisions that the average punter just would not appreciate. So again, fine for people to express a view or an opinion, but to suggest (as some posters do) that the decisions are "maddening" "perplexing" "not based on any common sense" then I think it's opportune just to call it out.

While I broadly agree, the club can get it wrong - see Higgins, Dahlhaus, Jenkins, etc. etc.

 

[calder_daddy]

I agree, but he's 31 at the start of next season and only played 12 games in 2021. If the rumours are true that we'd give up a second rounder, we could be sacrificing a 10-year player for 1-2 years of a seconds ruckman.

I agree if we give up too much it’s not worth it.
But if Hawks pay his salary and we give up a pick in the 40’s or a FR3 I’m all for it.

There's a few keyboard experts in here when it comes to players from other clubs - like Ceglar.

Personally I'd trust the club to make the right call on a player if they firmly believe he ticks a box, or helps fill a gap. There's no more than idle speculation that Ceglar is coming to Geelong. But if he does, I'd back the experts to manage our list spots and determine what needs we have. As for Ceglar's age (and ruckman in general) I don't think 30/31 is over the top - I remember a bloke called Ottens who played his best footy in the backend couple of years of his career for us. I'm not saying Ceglar is like for like with Ottens, but he has missed a lot of senior footy because he was behind McEvoy (who was ultimately captain of the club and always selected ahead of him) ..... and injured.

Rather than make myself out to be an expert on list management (particularly players from other clubs), I think I'll just leave it in the hands of the blokes who are paid to do that job.

The speculation actually came from Well’s mouth.
If Fort leaves we will sign Ceglar is what he said

 

[calder_daddy]

Anyone hear SCHLENSOGS manager on trade radio a few hours ago?
He said and I quote Blake is a DFA so he can go down that path.

It’s been a question I don’t think we’ve ever had the exact answer on and now we do

 

[Kyuss]

But if Hawks pay his salary and we give up a pick in the 40’s or a FR3 I’m all for it.

This is most likely the reason we are looking at him over other options.
Trading a pick we likely will not use and no cap constraint for some ruck depth.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The Dahlhaus and Higgins contracts look a bit silly right now. Even Rohan. Unfortunately, I don't think we can upgrade Atkins or Close.

If they are happy to stay as rookies we are ok its up to them so hopefully they are.