List Mgmt. Possible trades for 2016

[Pdub]

How do you know they could afford him as a free agent? They still had to recruit other players.

Their options were

• Danger field as a free-agent don't pick up Smith, Henderson and Selwood
• Risk Dangerfield in the PSD and trade for Smith, Henderson and Selwood
• Trade for all players

The best option for their club was to trade for all, but since the other options were available to them it weakened our bargaining position.

I think if they had to choose between Dangerfield and Smith, Henderson and Selwood they would have cut the other 3 loose and paid everything they had to get Dangerfield.

 

[Crowstar]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, the format is a bit unusual. Are you suggesting that it's a real possibility that we give up our 1st, 2nd (which we don't have), Grigg and Mackay to get Gray and Ports 3rd with Butcher thrown in.

Lol no im being facetious. I'm saying we get their 1/2/gray for Grigg/Mackay/3rd and if we baulk they'll throw in butcher.
Similar to the port fan saying our 1st/McGovern for Hartlett

 

[Henrys]

Their options were

• Danger field as a free-agent don't pick up Smith, Henderson and Selwood
• Risk Dangerfield in the PSD and trade for Smith, Henderson and Selwood
• Trade for all players

The best option for their club was to trade for all, but since the other options were available to them it weakened our bargaining position.

I think if they had to choose between Dangerfield and Smith, Henderson and Selwood they would have cut the other 3 loose and paid everything they had to get Dangerfield.

Just curious as to how trading him and not making a free agent bid would have affected anything . The contract that Geelong offered would be the same even if we matched the free agent bid had one been made, meaning then a trade would be required. Of course Geelong knew we were matching any free agent offer so they orchestrated a trade which was done fairly quickly, but had we matched an offer of one was made they still would have had to trade, which would have had the same outcome as just trading for him from the beginning.

 

[Bacon8]

Dangerfield, the restricted free agent as we matched the offer which makes him no different to any other uncontracted player - Jenkins for example.

Think most clubs would have taken Carlisle ahead of Jenkins due to his age and him being a proven KP defender against the best in the comp.

I'm all for this pick #3 and #21 for Jenkins but it's not happening, not even close.


When has a club official ever come out and said they did poorly with their trade? Maybe many years down the track but they wouldn't.

We got pick #9 and #28 for someone that won our club b&f and will most likely take out the brownlow this year. Won't ever be happy with that deal. Then compare it to the above suggestion, thinking we're possible to getting #3 and #21 for Jenkins, it just ain't happening.

Jenkins + 15

 

[Pdub]

Just curious as to how trading him and not making a free agent bid would have affected anything . The contract that Geelong offered would be the same even if we matched the free agent bid had one been made, meaning then a trade would be required. Of course Geelong knew we were matching any free agent offer so they orchestrated a trade which was done fairly quickly, but had we matched an offer of one was made they still would have had to trade, which would have had the same outcome as just trading for him from the beginning.

We weren't going to match any offer, we would have made an offer to Dangerfield that was the maximum we could squeeze into our cap and we would not have matched anything over that, because if he accepted, we would breach the salary cap. Plus I don't think the AFL allows you to match a bid when you don't actually have the room to match it.

So Dangerfield and his management knew exactly what our matching point was and they would have passed that information onto Geelong since he was willing to play for them for less, so Geelong would have known exactly how much they have to pay Dangerfield in order for us not to match.

 

[1970crow]

How do you know they could afford him as a free agent? They still had to recruit other players.

And once RFA contracts are lodged the value is almost immediately public knowledge. This would have destroyed Geelong much vaunted salary cap parity system. Even if they could pay Danger $1.2m per year, it would be culture destroying for that to become common knowledge. I'm not convinced he's not on $1m+, but I am quite certain that Geelong couldn't afford for that to become public information.

If that pick was never on the table, they need only have spent it first on Henderson. Which was continually being stated as going to occur by various Geelong supporting flogs who had NFI.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

Jenkins + 15

3 + 21 for Jenkins + 15 equates to ~pick 5 for Jenkins based on last seasons bidding system.

Would I give pick 5 for Jenkins, no. But if I'm Brisbane and I'm willing to pay him $750k pa for 5 years then maybe.

I came up with this trade because we will need to put a sweetener on the table to stop Brisbane from just using pick 3 in the draft to grab him. So how do we get Brisbane to give us pick 3? By upgrading their second rounder from pick 21 to 15.

 

[1970crow]

We weren't going to match any offer, we would have made an offer to Dangerfield that was the maximum we could squeeze into our cap and we would not have matched anything over that, because if he accepted, we would breach the salary cap. Plus I don't think the AFL allows you to match a bid when you don't actually have the room to match it.

So Dangerfield and his management knew exactly what our matching point was and they would have passed that information onto Geelong since he was willing to play for them for less, so Geelong would have known exactly how much they have to pay Dangerfield in order for us not to match.

Obviously we wouldn't match any offer, you are correct there. But the rest is rubbish. We never made a final offer to Danger, so they have NFI where we were in relation to cap space. They wouldn't know if we were one of the club's who'd banked under spending and had an extra $500k to splash. How many re-contracting events do you think might have occurred between Danger's last indicative contract figure and when the club knew he wasn't staying. Would have been a lot of room to manoeuvre, one would think. Unless you think one of our negotiation tactics when dealing with the hottest property in the AFL is to completely open our books and declare our hand. You may not place much faith in Noble and his team, but I'm quite confident we didn't handicap ourselves to that degree.

It's odd how some people while trying to defend an action end up implying something even less defensible.

 

[Pdub]

Obviously we wouldn't match any offer, you are correct there. But the rest is rubbish. We never made a final offer to Danger, so they have NFI where we were in relation to cap space. They wouldn't know if we were one of the club's who'd banked under spending and had an extra $500k to splash. How many re-contracting events do you think might have occurred between Danger's last indicative contract figure and when the club knew he wasn't staying. Would have been a lot of room to manoeuvre, one would think. Unless you think one of our negotiation tactics when dealing with the hottest property in the AFL is to completely open our books and declare our hand. You may not place much faith in Noble and his team, but I'm quite confident we didn't handicap ourselves to that degree.

It's odd how some people while trying to defend an action end up implying something even less defensible.

You think we never made an offer to Danger? Danger doesn't make a decision until he has all the cards on the table and that includes our final offer and the club would be dumb if they were offering him less than what they were willing to pay him to play. They would be dumb to match any offer over what they would actually pay him to play for the club and they would be dumb not to offer him their best offer.

 

[Mego Red]

How do you know they could afford him as a free agent? They still had to recruit other players.

They didn't have to retain as many players or bring in people such as Smith. They could have gone one or two short. They could have done any number of things - IF they wanted to get him as a free agent and not give up assets.

They didn't. They wanted to maintain salary parity and gave up picks instead.

We live in a post-Buddy age and there's any number of things a team COULD do to acquire a RFA. Geelong chose to negotiate instead of doing a midnight raid with bundles of cash.

 

[Bacon8]

They didn't have to retain as many players or bring in people such as Smith. They could have gone one or two short. They could have done any number of things - IF they wanted to get him as a free agent and not give up assets.

They didn't. They wanted to maintain salary parity and gave up picks instead.

We live in a post-Buddy age and there's any number of things a team COULD do to acquire a RFA. Geelong chose to negotiate instead of doing a midnight raid with bundles of cash.

Geelong have gone 2 short on their senior list as it is.

 

[Mego Red]

Their options were

• Danger field as a free-agent don't pick up Smith, Henderson and Selwood
• Risk Dangerfield in the PSD and trade for Smith, Henderson and Selwood
• Trade for all players

The best option for their club was to trade for all, but since the other options were available to them it weakened our bargaining position.

I think if they had to choose between Dangerfield and Smith, Henderson and Selwood they would have cut the other 3 loose and paid everything they had to get Dangerfield.

Yeah, especially as they still had the picks to get Henderson.

I think they would have paid everything to get Dangerfield, gone and gotten Henderson and not resigned one of their veterans (Mackie, Bartel, etc).

 

[Mego Red]

Obviously we wouldn't match any offer, you are correct there. But the rest is rubbish. We never made a final offer to Danger, so they have NFI where we were in relation to cap space. They wouldn't know if we were one of the club's who'd banked under spending and had an extra $500k to splash. How many re-contracting events do you think might have occurred between Danger's last indicative contract figure and when the club knew he wasn't staying. Would have been a lot of room to manoeuvre, one would think. Unless you think one of our negotiation tactics when dealing with the hottest property in the AFL is to completely open our books and declare our hand. You may not place much faith in Noble and his team, but I'm quite confident we didn't handicap ourselves to that degree.

It's odd how some people while trying to defend an action end up implying something even less defensible.

Surely your position ISN'T that there is no deal that Geelong could have offered that we wouldn't match??

Obviously, there are things they COULD have done to get him as a free agent and not give up draft picks. They didn't want to, and preferred to give away picks instead of losing their salary parity. That was their choice.

They chose - as did we - to go down a path that was beneficial for both sides instead of going the nuclear route and signing Danger to a Buddy deal.

They gave us close to his value, and got to have all the additional benefits that came with it. We chose to get close to his value instead of sending Danger into the PSD - or whatever - because we wanted to get the best longterm result for our team.

I think it is pretty naive to argue anything else.

 

[GrommoT]

... They chose - as did we - to go down a path that was beneficial for both sides instead of going the nuclear route and signing Danger to a Buddy deal.
They gave us close to his value, and got to have all the additional benefits that came with it. We chose to get close to his value instead of sending Danger into the PSD - or whatever - because we wanted to get the best longterm result for our team.
I think it is pretty naive to argue anything else.

It seemed from what I read at the time that the two clubs may have been in discussion for quite a while leading up to the draft period so probably nutted out all the possibilities and coming up with something acceptable to both clubs, hence quick resolution at the start of the draft.

 

[1970crow]

You think we never made an offer to Danger? Danger doesn't make a decision until he has all the cards on the table and that includes our final offer and the club would be dumb if they were offering him less than what they were willing to pay him to play. They would be dumb to match any offer over what they would actually pay him to play for the club and they would be dumb not to offer him their best offer.

It was consistently reported by people like Roo that we hadn't made an offer to Danger. Had he asked for one I expect we would have done as you suggest, but it never came to that because Danger never intended to stay and didn't play us by getting us to submit an offer he had no intention of signing. However, I'm sure that indicative figures would have been mentioned up to a point. But Patty never sat down with a firm and final offer from us. At least that's what was always reported and makes the most sense given Patty's situation and relationship with the club.

Geelong didn't part with picks to just be good guys. They had no idea where we were at and probably didn't want to run the risk of Danger's contract going public.

 

[dylan123]

Are you planning to just ignore the fact that pick 28 was included as well? Doesn't fit your story so ignoring it?

So Treloar went for the equivalent of a first and a second as well.

That doesn't make sense.

Collingwood gave up two first round picks for Treloar + #28. Getting #28 in return doesn't suddenly then make the other first rounder Collingwood gave up the value of a 2nd rounder now. Unless you think we could get two picks in the twenties and trade them up for a top 10 pick? Surely not.

I suppose there's a bit of hindsight in that it might have been expected Collingwood would have finished around the 8 which would make that pick a little less valuable.

I also think it's dubious to make the enormous projection that, if we'd been adversarial in the trade, Geelong would have just given us more than a first, a second and a player.

They COULD afford him as a free agent. They CHOSE to give us assets to save money. They gave up picks INSTEAD of extra money.

Or we could have done what you wanted to do, Sanders, and just given him up for nothing. Good to see you be critical on how negotiations went, when if you were in their shoes you would have just let Danger go.

Is it as 'crazy' of a projection to make as that Geelong could have outbid us for his services but because of some good will they decided to give up assets just to be the good guys and save a few bucks in the process? If they've got the space, why would they be willing to part with #9?

 

[Mego Red]

That doesn't make sense.

Collingwood gave up two first round picks for Treloar + #28. Getting #28 in return doesn't suddenly then make the other first rounder Collingwood gave up the value of a 2nd rounder now. Unless you think we could get two picks in the twenties and trade them up for a top 10 pick? Surely not.

I suppose there's a bit of hindsight in that it might have been expected Collingwood would have finished around the 8 which would make that pick a little less valuable.

Well, actually it makes some obvious sense. Collingwood thought they were going to be finalists and were giving up a pick that would be in the teens. Historically, two picks in the 20's have equalled a pick in the teens - look at WB last year.

Is it as 'crazy' of a projection to make as that Geelong could have outbid us for his services but because of some good will they decided to give up assets just to be the good guys and save a few bucks in the process? If they've got the space, why would they be willing to part with #9?

They want salary parity. They didn't want to lose players, but they were happy to lose picks.

That was their choice. Give up picks and get Danger and the players they want to get/keep. Pay more for Danger and have him and the picks, but miss out on players they'd have to cut or not recruit - and open the door to other players wanting more cash as well.

 

[1970crow]

Surely your position ISN'T that there is no deal that Geelong could have offered that we wouldn't match??

Obviously, there are things they COULD have done to get him as a free agent and not give up draft picks. They didn't want to, and preferred to give away picks instead of losing their salary parity. That was their choice.

They chose - as did we - to go down a path that was beneficial for both sides instead of going the nuclear route and signing Danger to a Buddy deal.

They gave us close to his value, and got to have all the additional benefits that came with it. We chose to get close to his value instead of sending Danger into the PSD - or whatever - because we wanted to get the best longterm result for our team.

I think it is pretty naive to argue anything else.

The answer to your first question is in the first sentence you quoted. I'm not sure why you bothered asking it. Anyways, the e main points are;

Geelong had no idea of our cap space situation
They couldn't afford to blow us out of the water without making Danger's value known and destroying their parity system.
They traded only because they had to, meaning that we have the opportunity to maximise our outcome.
If $850k would have gotten through as implied by Pdub , then they could have lodged that for a potential gain of retaining the picks without risk. They didn't.

Ultimately we agree on the factors involved. Where we disagree is whether we could have gotten that extra 1st rounder. You naively consider the deal we got to be the best purely based on the fact that it's what we got. If we walked out with only the first rounder, your argument would be no different. You would not be in here suggesting that we could have gotten their 2nd rounder.

 

[Pdub]

The answer to your first question is in the first sentence you quoted. I'm not sure why you bothered asking it. Anyways, the e main points are;

Geelong had no idea of our cap space situation
They couldn't afford to blow us out of the water without making Danger's value known and destroying their parity system.
They traded only because they had to, meaning that we have the opportunity to maximise our outcome.
If $850k would have gotten through as implied by Pdub , then they could have lodged that for a potential gain of retaining the picks without risk. They didn't.

Ultimately we agree on the factors involved. Where we disagree is whether we could have gotten that extra 1st rounder. You naively consider the deal we got to be the best purely based on the fact that it's what we got. If we walked out with only the first rounder, your argument would be no different. You would not be in here suggesting that we could have gotten their 2nd rounder.

I never implied $850k would have gotten through, I said PD would have known exactly what our top offer was and would have passed that information to Geelong, so Geelong would have known what offers were likely to get matched and what offers would likely go through unmatched.

 

[1970crow]

You expend a lot of energy being negative.

I'm not sure I understand what you get out of it?

Maybe Hamish thought a first, a second and a player was about right for someone out of contract?

Just worth noting, that I expend no more energy thinking critically and posting those thoughts in here than you do in supporting the decisions that the club makes and prosecuting those views.

 

[Mego Red]

The answer to your first question is in the first sentence you quoted. I'm not sure why you bothered asking it. Anyways, the e main points are;

Geelong had no idea of our cap space situation
They couldn't afford to blow us out of the water without making Danger's value known and destroying their parity system.
They traded only because they had to, meaning that we have the opportunity to maximise our outcome.
If $850k would have gotten through as implied by Pdub , then they could have lodged that for a potential gain of retaining the picks without risk. They didn't.

Ultimately we agree on the factors involved. Where we disagree is whether we could have gotten that extra 1st rounder. You naively consider the deal we got to be the best purely based on the fact that it's what we got. If we walked out with only the first rounder, your argument would be no different. You would not be in here suggesting that we could have gotten their 2nd rounder.

I went in feeling that two first rounders or a first, a second and a player was a result that I'd feel satisfied with.

I think there was risk on both sides. Neither Geelong nor Adelaide REALLY knew how far the other team was willing to go - so, I don't disagree at all with what you're saying there. I probably said exactly that on the Cats board more than once.

The thing is - we have a situation that has risk on both sides, a situation where we came down in a position that wasn't THAT far from what we had hoped for. It was probably a situation that both sides were a bit unhappy with, which i think means it is at least close to a fair and equitable outcome.

 

[Mego Red]

Just worth noting, that I expend no more energy thinking critically and posting those thoughts in here than you do in supporting the decisions that the club makes and prosecuting those views.

Yeah, but I also get to feel happy with the world.

I don't think it's worth the calories just so at the end I get the chance to hold a half-empty glass.

 

[1970crow]

I never implied $850k would have gotten through, I said PD would have known exactly what our top offer was and would have passed that information to Geelong, so Geelong would have known what offers were likely to get matched and what offers would likely go through unmatched.

But that wouldn't have happened because we were always in a reactionary situation and Patty was never staying purely for the cash. We would not have divulged our position unless we were confident of retaining his services. And we know that was never the case throughout the whole shebang. Geelong would have had little idea what we were capable of matching, but they did know we were prepared to do it. Hence their need to trade.

 

[Elite Crow]

They didn't have to retain as many players or bring in people such as Smith. They could have gone one or two short. They could have done any number of things - IF they wanted to get him as a free agent and not give up assets.

They didn't. They wanted to maintain salary parity and gave up picks instead.

We live in a post-Buddy age and there's any number of things a team COULD do to acquire a RFA. Geelong chose to negotiate instead of doing a midnight raid with bundles of cash.

Of course they could have done all of that but that means a major overhaul of their list to ensure they could afford him as a free agent. They clearly did not want to do that and hence traded. Thats why we were in a position of strength but we let them achieve all of their goals so now they are sitting on top of the ladder with a real chance at a premiership.

Smith has been a great pick up and has filled a deficiency for them.
If they had to lose more players to pay Danger more that clearly makes them a weaker team.

 

[1970crow]

Yeah, but I also get to feel happy with the world.

I don't think it's worth the calories just so at the end I get the chance to hold a half-empty glass.

If you were standing on my scales you'd be looking to eat into as many calories as possible. But I am very happy with much of the world around me, including much of the present AFC. Serenity now, insanity later .