List Mgmt. Trade and F/A - Part 3

[sr36]

The 3 year deal is after the fact designed to give the required player illusion to bring in a high pick. That wasn't offered last year or start of this year, basically when he said he's going

I'm a bit skeptical of stories like that, as the gain seems pretty small for the risk of ending up with a bloke on your list that you don't want - for the next three years. Club could easily get played by a manager.

 

[Jen2310]

The 3 year deal is after the fact designed to give the required player illusion to bring in a high pick. That wasn't offered last year or start of this year, basically when he said he's going

yeah, it was offered in August, by then it was clear he was leaving. His manager said (though the media) that he has no interest in signing with the dogs. Clearly the offer was just a way to get leverage. They knew he was leaving.

 

[pugsville]

What do you mean hardly? We nailed 1 set of first rounders (2014) in 8 consecutive drafts. This sort of stuff obliterates the list.

I divided the drafting and trading. Your making an agrument that includes both whihc isn't what I was saying.

2012

• Pick 18, Brodie Grundy
• Pick 19, Ben Kennedy
• Pick 20, Tom Broomhead

2012 really poor draft the
next 5 picks all de-listed none made 100 games.
5 of the top 17 did not mark 50 games., 11 of the top 25 not 50 games.
Melbourne took toumpas at 4, GWS O;Rouke at 2,

2013

• Pick 6, Scharenberg
• Pick 10, Freeman

I covered this yup it;s ne three selections that did not work out Scharenerg could play.
Talented, perhaps questionable rather than bad at worst, for Scharenberg.

2014

• Pick 5, De Goey
• Pick 9, Moore=

• Pick 7, traded for Treloar

Trading not drafting.

2016

• Pick 7, traded for Treloar

Trading not drafting.

2017

• Pick 6, Jaidyn Stephenson

Talented, perhaps player management rather than drafting. questionable rather than bad at worst,.

2018

• Pick 18, traded for Dayne Beams

2019

• first round pick, traded for Dayne Beams

Trading not drafting.

As I said comes dowb to three picks, 2 questionable (injuries player development./management maybe rather than drafting and 1 bad,
All clubs stuff picks the success rate for round 1 picks is less than 80%

 

[HFF]

It means a lot. It means the club would like to keep him.

Clubs offer contracts to players all the time.
The value isn’t in the terms....it’s in the games they play.
He played Farrkk all in 5 or so years.

North offered Tarrant a one year contract and only stumped up another and more money when he told them he was out.
It means little....

 

[Trickster]

I'm a bit skeptical of stories like that, as the gain seems pretty small for the risk of ending up with a bloke on your list that you don't want - for the next three years

Jen's summed it up well. Also I'd suspect in case it goes to mediation they can argue to AFL the draft pick in return should be higher given length WB offered.

 

[partypie]

I wonder if they did that to increase his potential worth at a trade. The Dogs must have known he would want to go due to no real opportunity on the horizon.

Yeah it's a bit hard to argue for the price you want if you (haven't) allegedly put a contract offer in front of the player showing that they are a "required" player.

Exactly the same gambit Sydney tried on with Murray when we traded for him, let's hope we don't fall for it like suckers this time around.

 

[sr36]

Jen's summed it up well. Also I'd suspect in case it goes to mediation they can argue to AFL the draft pick in return should be higher given length WB offered.

Is this based on inside knowledge or theory? As the practice seems stupid to me - if clubs are doing it. Risking having someone stuck on your list for 3 years who you don't want, for a small potential gain of a slight upgrade in the middle or back end of a draft - a gain that might never actually materialise. Shrewd player managers would take advantage of clubs pissing fart around like that.

 

[partypie]

Jen's summed it up well. Also I'd suspect in case it goes to mediation they can argue to AFL the draft pick in return should be higher given length WB offered.

The AFL doesn't mediate in trades in that way, they either go through or fall over and the player in question has to go through the draft (or PSD) to get to another club. For example if we offer our future 4th for Lipinski and the Dogs say they want our future 2nd instead because of X, Y and Z then it's not like the AFL will force us to give our our future 2nd if we rejected that asking price out of hand, or anything other than what we have offered.

If they (the AFL) did interfere with trade negotiations in this manner then whoever ends up in charge of trade and draft aspects of the AFL's operations would be inundated with mediation requests, as clubs would manipulate the system in a similar manner willy-nilly to hedge their bets that the AFL would give them the price they are asking for.

The only reason the Treloar trade went to mediation (if that is what you were basing this on) was because it was basically agreed to by both parties and approved by the AFL just prior to the deadline but then disagreement arose over finer print of the deal, in terms of the wage subsidy to be paid, when the paperwork needed to be sorted out after the deadline.

Putting a new contract offer in front of an OOC player is indeed a gambit to attempt to increase their perceived value in the eyes of the football media / general public and get the other club to blink at the trade table (or at worst have the wantaway player choose to stay on a "bird in the hand" basis), but I don't think (competent) list managers are fooled by such "offers" even for a moment.

 

[partypie]

I wish Kelly had some outliers to his name.

Especially the sort that win you a prelim against a white hot favourite and then nearly help you get over the line in a GF the next week.

 

[Everybody Panic]

Clubs offer contracts to players all the time.
The value isn’t in the terms....it’s in the games they play.
He played Farrkk all in 5 or so years.

North offered Tarrant a one year contract and only stumped up another and more money when he told them he was out.
It means little....

He's played more games than Josh Daicos despite being drafted same year. Do you guys not watch other teams play football? He's behind the most stacked Midfield the game has ever seen, and still played double digits games this year.

 

[Everybody Panic]

Is this based on inside knowledge or theory? As the practice seems stupid to me - if clubs are doing it. Risking having someone stuck on your list for 3 years who you don't want, for a small potential gain of a slight upgrade in the middle or back end of a draft - a gain that might never actually materialise. Shrewd player managers would take advantage of clubs pissing fart around like that.

It's complete fantasy. Dogs offered him a contract because he's an AFL quality mid. Dogs want to have their cake and eat it too.

 

[sr36]

He's played more games than Josh Daicos despite being drafted same year. Do you guys not watch other teams play football? He's behind the most stacked Midfield the game has ever seen, and still played double digits games this year.

I watch a lot, but with the sound off. I daresay he shares the same name as many other low profile players from other teams, "That bloke." I like "that bloke" "That bloke's playing well." That bloke's not much chop." "Why are they playing that bloke on him."

 

[Scodog10]

He's played more games than Josh Daicos despite being drafted same year. Do you guys not watch other teams play football? He's behind the most stacked Midfield the game has ever seen, and still played double digits games this year.

I watch too much footy (average roughly 6 matches a round) and I wish he was the same level as Daicos! In an open draft I think it’s doubtful that you could find a guy of Lipinski’s quality, but as soon as the negotiation process kicks off with one party having leverage it’s a whole different ball game. For instance at any hint of a pick below 50 being the asking price I’m walking away from the trade table if I’m Collingwood because we can just pick him up in the PSD.

 

[Everybody Panic]

I watch too much footy (average roughly 6 matches a round) and I wish he was the same level as Daicos! In an open draft I think it’s doubtful that you could find a guy of Lipinski’s quality, but as soon as the negotiation process kicks off with one party having leverage it’s a whole different ball game. For instance at any hint of a pick below 50 being the asking price I’m walking away from the trade table if I’m Collingwood because we can just pick him up in the PSD.

I'd say they are on par, apart from Daicos season in 2020 which is above what Lipinski has done so far. Now I agree with you about the strategy, although not the number. I'd happily part with 39, or something in 40s if we could arrange that. I don't think too much about PSD until the player comes out adamantly saying they only want to get to us. He'd be first team for a number of other mids including Carlton, Stkilda and North Melbourne, not to mention inter state teams. If North came out and said they would take him pick 1 PSD, what would you value him at?

 

[Scodog10]

I'd say they are on par, apart from Daicos season in 2020 which is above what Lipinski has done so far. Now I agree with you about the strategy, although not the number. I'd happily part with 39, or something in 40s if we could arrange that. I don't think too much about PSD until the player comes out adamantly saying they only want to get to us. He'd be first team for a number of other mids including Carlton, Stkilda and North Melbourne, not to mention inter state teams. If North came out and said they would take him pick 1 PSD, what would you value him at?

PSD is just another lever for average teams to pull and whilst I don’t like it as a general rule I think it’s a card we should be playing on either Lipinski or Kreuger. In the scenario where North would take him in the PSD I’d let him go. Make no mistake despite being a guy I’ve wanted to bring in since 2019 he’s not a difference maker or a guy that I’d compromise our draft strategy to bring in (I think moving 450 draft points does that).

To ease the heart palpitations of those easily impacted by my blasé attitude towards Lipinski the deal will get done and most probably involving Lynch, but not at the value you’re willing to pay. That’s a win too because in a competitive market he’s worth what you’re suggesting and we need all the wins we can get right now.

 

[Countrypie]

I see Sier as been stuck behind a defensive game plan.

Buxs and eve

Based on rumors unfortunately, less reliable than stats in my opinion.

If we had an attacking game plan that required fast ball movement, Sier would be stuck behind everybody, gasping for air and hacking his lungs out. There's a reason he hasn't had opportunity. He doesn't want it enough.

 

[Trickster]

Is this based on inside knowledge or theory? As the practice seems stupid to me - if clubs are doing it. Risking having someone stuck on your list for 3 years who you don't want, for a small potential gain of a slight upgrade in the middle or back end of a draft - a gain that might never actually materialise. Shrewd player managers would take advantage of clubs pissing fart around like that.

Theory but with logic attached to it. I mean I don't doubt the dogs want to keep him, they do. It's just they want him for the 8 or so games when their preferred players are not available. He'd be great for them from a depth perspective for as long as he's needed. He may replace Libba in 2 to 3 years.

So that's why they offer a belated deal to either keep him as depth or try and force a better trade.

 

[Obese Arachnid]

That one has a closed mind TD don't bother.

 

[Trickster]

The AFL doesn't mediate in trades in that way, they either go through or fall over and the player in question has to go through the draft (or PSD) to get to another club. For example if we offer our future 4th for Lipinski and the Dogs say they want our future 2nd instead because of X, Y and Z then it's not like the AFL will force us to give our our future 2nd if we rejected that asking price out of hand, or anything other than what we have offered.

If they (the AFL) did interfere with trade negotiations in this manner then whoever ends up in charge of trade and draft aspects of the AFL's operations would be inundated with mediation requests, as clubs would manipulate the system in a similar manner willy-nilly to hedge their bets that the AFL would give them the price they are asking for.

The only reason the Treloar trade went to mediation (if that is what you were basing this on) was because it was basically agreed to by both parties and approved by the AFL just prior to the deadline but then disagreement arose over finer print of the deal, in terms of the wage subsidy to be paid, when the paperwork needed to be sorted out after the deadline.

Putting a new contract offer in front of an OOC player is indeed a gambit to attempt to increase their perceived value in the eyes of the football media / general public and get the other club to blink at the trade table (or at worst have the wantaway player choose to stay on a "bird in the hand" basis), but I don't think (competent) list managers are fooled by such "offers" even for a moment.

I'm not basing mediation on Treloar, I'm basing it on the AFL intervening when things ground to a halt to ensure the player gets to where he wants. The Treloar mediation was over dollars, trade already went through.

AFL did get involved a few years back and I'm sure part of working through to ensure a trade goes through is independent advice from them surrounding contract dollars, contract length offered by both clubs and then how the trades offered align with that for the player using other trades as a bencmark. They may even try and get another club involved if necessary.

 

[magpies42]

If it were to land Andrew and we rate him at say 5 in 2021 then why not? He looks every bit the talent of Jackson and is the perfect foil to Grundy because he can play forward minutes and take over as the number one ruck in 5 years time. I’m not sold on doing it for a ground level player, but I think the club should at least have the discussion around moving that pick post a Daicos bid. You never know adding Daicos and Andrew to the midfielders we brought in last year plus Henry could see us rise.

I don’t know who the Andrew is you’re referring to, but our KPF for the future must be that and only that. Having a team full of part time ruckman/KP forwards is not a formula that will work for us.

 

[magpies42]

Based on Hornes performance in the SANFL over the weekend, I’d say he’s a definite number 1 pick. Saves us some points at least.

 

[sr36]

If it were to land Andrew and we rate him at say 5 in 2021 then why not? He looks every bit the talent of Jackson and is the perfect foil to Grundy because he can play forward minutes and take over as the number one ruck in 5 years time. I’m not sold on doing it for a ground level player, but I think the club should at least have the discussion around moving that pick post a Daicos bid. You never know adding Daicos and Andrew to the midfielders we brought in last year plus Henry could see us rise.

I'm sure they'll have the conversation and if someone offers pick 8 and there is a bloke available they rate high enough to think he's the equivalent of the top few in 2022 - why not? Jeez it must be difficult for them to have a gauge on that 2022 crop though - the vic kids anyway.

 

[HFF]

Based on Hornes performance in the SANFL over the weekend, I’d say he’s a definite number 1 pick. Saves us some points at least.

Be prepared either way.

 

[partypie]

I'm not basing mediation on Treloar, I'm basing it on the AFL intervening when things ground to a halt to ensure the player gets to where he wants. The Treloar mediation was over dollars, trade already went through.

AFL did get involved a few years back and I'm sure part of working through to ensure a trade goes through is independent advice from them surrounding contract dollars, contract length offered by both clubs and then how the trades offered align with that for the player using other trades as a benchmark. They may even try and get another club involved if necessary.

Sorry but they just attempt to push trades through in the manner you are describing and never ever have from what I can recall.

The AFL might, in very rare circumstances, assist with arbitration on request to help work through an impasse between two clubs in a trade, but only in a strictly faciliatory capacity (ie. bringing the relevant parties back to the table to talk it through if possible) and the clubs in question can still very much choose to walk away. There is certainly no "benchmark" setting by the AFL in the manner you describe and they certainly do not recruit other clubs into a trade to try to get it over the line - ultimately the outcome of putting together an agreed-upon trade is the job of the clubs and player agent(s) in question to hash out.

During this process the AFL only advises on potential approvals or rejections for proposed trades based on some fairly fixed parameters, usually involving ensuring both clubs are still compliant with requirements around list sizes and picks they each must carry into the draft in situations where a future first round or latter round pick has already been traded and or one/both clubs are required to retain specific picks.

Ultimately though there is no "price setting" or "seller's preferred price enforcement" done on any level (as you have put forward) by the AFL if both parties cannot come to an agreement on a trade. If no agreement is achieved then the trade discussions fall over and the player goes into one of the drafts to get to another club, or chooses to stay at their current club.

TL;DR - If Lipinski agrees to terms with us, we offer the Bulldogs a future 4th in return as our first and final offer and they aren't willing to accept it then Lipinski goes to the PSD instead where we will pick him up. it really is that simple - no further arbitration necessary in this case.

 

[Everybody Panic]

Sorry but they just don't force trades through in the manner you are describing and never ever have from what I can recall. What they do assist with is the terms of potential trade scenarios when clubs negotiating at the trade table want advice on whether a proposed trade something can / will go through, call them "pre-approvals" if you will.

The AFL might, in very rare circumstances, assist with arbitration on request to help work through an impasse between two clubs in a trade, but only in a strictly faciliatory capacity (ie. bringing the relevant parties back to the table to talk it through if possible) and the clubs in question can still very much choose to walk away. There is certainly no "benchmark" setting by the AFL in the manner you describe and they certainly do not recruit other clubs into a trade to try to get it over the line - this is the job of the clubs and player agent(s) in question to hash out.

Otherwise the AFL only advises on potential approvals or rejections for proposed trades based on some fairly fixed parameters, usually involving ensuring both clubs are still compliant with requirements regarding picks they each must carry into the draft in situations where a first round or latter round picks has already been traded.

Ultimately though there is no "price setting" or "seller's preferred price enforcement" done on any level (as you have put forward) by the AFL if both parties cannot come to an agreement on a trade. If no agreement is achieved then the trade discussions fall over and the player goes into one of the drafts to get to another club, or chooses to stay at their current club.

TL;DR - If we offer the Bulldogs a future 4th, they want a future 2nd/3rd and we don't want to pay that price then Lipinski comes to us through the PSD instead. it really is that simple - no further arbitration necessary.

Unless North want him, which if they get CCJ through a trade, makes Lipinski likely the best PSD pick available.