Strategy Trade and List management Thread Part 5 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[Kermit]

Don’t think it would have made a difference, we’d have wanted more than the compo pick for him and would have matched the offer, forcing the Lions to trade and putting everyone in the exact same position as we are now.

By matching the offer, he is effectively under contract the they would have to give more to get him out. Being out of contract helps them now

 

[Generation West]

Brisbane’s trade hall looks pretty sparse without Dunkley. McStay out Gunston in and accumulate the points they need for Ashcroft and fletcher.

Big deal.

Gunston instantly becomes their best tall forward but Daniher and Hipwood are poor versions of Gunston.

Atleast McStay is a big bodied, physical presence in their forward line who can chop out in the ruck. No physicality or grunt with those 3 now.
We land Jones and Lobb and some astute drafting with 2 highish draft picks and we are on par with a main rival next year.

Dunks can go to North rather than give them the advantage.

 

[TiAn_]

By matching the offer, he is effectively under contract the they would have to give more to get him out. Being out of contract helps them now

No because if we match an RFA and there’s no trade and he doesn’t want to stay he just goes into the same PSD/draft process as now.

 

[Del165892]

F1 and 21. That for me is about right. If we take less, I'll consider that a loss. If we get better, I'll consider it a win. Sure Taranto went for slightly better, but if I'm being honest with myself, he's also a slightly better player and a year younger. There's no way that Brisbane won't eventually make that offer if we hold out for long enough. They'd be insane to let him go to the draft rather than pay that. If it goes to mediation, that'll be the price it ends up being. All this bullshit has really just been a battle for our pick 39, which they won't get.

As far as Lobb is concerned, I really don't know what the right price is. It's an ugly situation where he's actually of more value to them than he would be to us. What are you supposed to do with that? I really want us to take that 21 to the draft. I feel like we need to keep young talent coming through the door rather than spend premium picks on 30-year-olds. Pick 30 feels fine but we probably need to compromise. Pick 30 and F2 or F3 sounds acceptable to me.

 

[LittleG]

Of all the off-season moves to improve your list I would put:
Port
Tigers

Cats
North
Dees

Bulldogs
WC
Lions (IF they get Dunkley)
Crows
Pies

The rest, except GWS & GC who went backwards a long way.


As much as I would like more, Lobb & Jones are FF & FB. They are bookends and senior bodies where we have been playing youngsters. This will really improve us. None of this Cordy, Raak, OBrien stuff any more.

 

[missfinland]

F1 and 21. That for me is about right. If we take less, I'll consider that a loss. If we get better, I'll consider it a win. Sure Taranto went for slightly better, but if I'm being honest with myself, he's also a slightly better player and a year younger. There's no way that Brisbane won't eventually make that offer if we hold out for long enough. They'd be insane to let him go to the draft rather than pay that. If it goes to mediation, that'll be the price it ends up being. All this bullshit has really just been a battle for our pick 39, which they won't get.

As far as Lobb is concerned, I really don't know what the right price is. It's an ugly situation where he's actually of more value to them than he would be to us. What are you supposed to do with that? I really want us to take that 21 to the draft. I feel like we need to keep young talent coming through the door rather than spend premium picks on 30-year-olds. Pick 30 feels fine but we probably need to compromise. Pick 30 and F2 or F3 sounds acceptable to me.

How do compare Hopper with Taranto and Dunkley ?

Hopper, still in contract went for a future 1st and 31 with steak knives late picks.

 

[TiAn_]

Brisbane’s trade hall looks pretty sparse without Dunkley. McStay out Gunston in and accumulate the points they need for Ashcroft and fletcher.

Big deal.

Gunston instantly becomes their best tall forward but Daniher and Hipwood are poor versions of Gunston.

Atleast McStay is a big bodied, physical presence in their forward line who can chop out in the ruck. No physicality or grunt with those 3 now.
We land Jones and Lobb and some astute drafting with 2 highish draft picks and we are on par with a main rival next year.

Dunks can go to North rather than give them the advantage.

Their mix will be interesting because Gunston can’t move like he used to, e.g. his disposals and uncontested possessions have dropped from 17 and 11 per game in 2018 to 10 and 6 per game this year. So presumably he has to play closer to goal than McStay, who did a lot of their CHF grunt work.

 

[Del165892]

How do compare Hopper with Taranto and Dunkley ?

Hopper, still in contract went for a future 1st and 31 with steak knives late picks.

If Dunkley was contracted then he'd be worth two firsts with an average value of 10-12.

Hopper's not that good and is probably being overpaid next year, which lowers his trade value.

 

[ossie_21]

It’s sucks that this mercenary is taking us into the last day with most of us none the wiser.

It will probably be a fizzer, but it could be a massive last day of the trade period as GWS try to gather the rest of the picks 1-18

 

[ExRoyboy]

I have a query and I wonder if someone can help me understand whether I have this right or not.

So when a player reaches restricted free agency he can choose to leave to join any club he likes however the original club can choose to match the contract offer and keep him at his original club. This would then force the other club to have to trade for him but he would then be under contract.

However if a player goes out of contract before reaching restricted free agency (ala Dunks) then he can still opt to leave and nominate his club of choice but this club doesn’t have the risk of the original club matching the contract offer and can basically low ball the original club on the trade offer and the only leverage that club has is to send that player into the PSD where they receive absolutely nothing in return. Hence the discussion about the Dogs just accepting whatever crumbs that Brisbane are offering. So what is fair here? When free agency was first introduced, players had to serve a certain amount of years before they could force their way out of a club to the club of their choice. So there were meant to be some sort of controls in place that make it harder for players to move to wherever they want prior to free agency. But in reality, players have even more power to force a move before restricted free agency because the original club has basically no leverage other than to threaten to put them in the PSD if the other club decides to not engage in a fair trade.

Like Brisbane could offer us pick 35 and pick 45 for example and just say take it or leave it. And what are we meant to do, just take it because otherwise we lose him for nothing? Where is there any onus on the receiving club to negotiate in good faith? But if that player was a restricted free agent, then the original club could match the contract (like Adelaide did with Dangerfield and I think GWS did with Gezza Cameron) and force the other club to trade fairly.

So I think basically, if I’m right, the system is f**ked. And Dunkley is basically f**king the Bulldogs right up the arse by leaving one year prior to FA and thereby ensuring we cannot get properly compensated because the team he chose actually has other higher priorities in regards to Father Son selections and is therefore forcing us to accept a well below market rate because we have zero leverage. At what point do Dunkley and Pickering say to Brisbane you guys sold me on this dream of playing here, what the F are you now doing by not dealing in good faith? Why is it that the Dogs are the ones that have to accept a substantially less than market offer or get nothing. The system is f**ked!

 

[ossie_21]

I have a query and I wonder if someone can help me understand whether I have this right or not.

So when a player reaches restricted free agency he can choose to leave to join any club he likes however the original club can choose to match the contract offer and keep him at his original club. This would then force the other club to have to trade for him but he would then be under contract.

However if a player goes out of contract before reaching restricted free agency (ala Dunks) then he can still opt to leave and nominate his club of choice but this club doesn’t have the risk of the original club matching the contract offer and can basically low ball the original club on the trade offer and the only leverage that club has is to send that player into the PSD where they receive absolutely nothing in return. Hence the discussion about the Dogs just accepting whatever crumbs that Brisbane are offering. So what is fair here? When free agency was first introduced, players had to serve a certain amount of years before they could force their way out of a club to the club of their choice. So there were meant to be some sort of controls in place that make it harder for players to move to wherever they want prior to free agency. But in reality, players have even more power to force a move before restricted free agency because the original club has basically no leverage other than to threaten to put them in the PSD if the other club decides to not engage in a fair trade.

Like Brisbane could offer us pick 35 and pick 45 for example and just say take it or leave it. And what are we meant to do, just take it because otherwise we lose him for nothing? Where is there any onus on the receiving club to negotiate in good faith? But if that player was a restricted free agent, then the original club could match the contract (like Adelaide did with Dangerfield and I think GWS did with Gezza Cameron) and force the other club to trade fairly.

So I think basically, if I’m right, the system is f**ked. And Dunkley is basically f**king the Bulldogs right up the arse by leaving one year prior to FA and thereby ensuring we cannot get properly compensated because the team he chose actually has other higher priorities in regards to Father Son selections and is therefore forcing us to accept a well below market rate because we have zero leverage. At what point do Dunkley and Pickering say to Brisbane you guys sold me on this dream of playing here, what the F are you now doing by not dealing in good faith? Why is it that the Dogs are the ones that have to accept a substantially less than market offer or get nothing. The system is f**ked!

Yes.

 

[Dogs Rule]

I have a query and I wonder if someone can help me understand whether I have this right or not.

So when a player reaches restricted free agency he can choose to leave to join any club he likes however the original club can choose to match the contract offer and keep him at his original club. This would then force the other club to have to trade for him but he would then be under contract.

However if a player goes out of contract before reaching restricted free agency (ala Dunks) then he can still opt to leave and nominate his club of choice but this club doesn’t have the risk of the original club matching the contract offer and can basically low ball the original club on the trade offer and the only leverage that club has is to send that player into the PSD where they receive absolutely nothing in return. Hence the discussion about the Dogs just accepting whatever crumbs that Brisbane are offering. So what is fair here? When free agency was first introduced, players had to serve a certain amount of years before they could force their way out of a club to the club of their choice. So there were meant to be some sort of controls in place that make it harder for players to move to wherever they want prior to free agency. But in reality, players have even more power to force a move before restricted free agency because the original club has basically no leverage other than to threaten to put them in the PSD if the other club decides to not engage in a fair trade.

Like Brisbane could offer us pick 35 and pick 45 for example and just say take it or leave it. And what are we meant to do, just take it because otherwise we lose him for nothing? Where is there any onus on the receiving club to negotiate in good faith? But if that player was a restricted free agent, then the original club could match the contract (like Adelaide did with Dangerfield and I think GWS did with Gezza Cameron) and force the other club to trade fairly.

So I think basically, if I’m right, the system is f**ked. And Dunkley is basically f**king the Bulldogs right up the arse by leaving one year prior to FA and thereby ensuring we cannot get properly compensated because the team he chose actually has other higher priorities in regards to Father Son selections and is therefore forcing us to accept a well below market rate because we have zero leverage. At what point do Dunkley and Pickering say to Brisbane you guys sold me on this dream of playing here, what the F are you now doing by not dealing in good faith? Why is it that the Dogs are the ones that have to accept a substantially less than market offer or get nothing. The system is f**ked

Short and sweet - we need to ensure we f*** over Dunkley, Prickering and the Bears.

 

[ExRoyboy]

They’ll soon offer their future fourth for Dunkley and Pick 11

And that’s my point….. what’s to stop them offering literally any sort of shit and then have everyone say well you better accept it otherwise you lose him for nothing. Cut off your nose to spite your face….. maybe not as ridiculous as this extreme but it is sort of my point. Leaving when out of contract and just prior to free agency is actually the best time to force your way to the club of your choice

 

[glenashley]

Closest recent example is Jack Martin

19

Jack Martin

Age

30

Ht

186cm

Wt

82kg

Pos.

Fwd

Career

Season

Last 5

D

16.2

4star

K

10.0

4star

HB

6.3

4star

M

4.9

5star

T

3.7

5star

G

0.9

4star

D

14.9

4star

K

7.9

3star

HB

7.0

4star

M

4.3

4star

T

3.6

4star

G

1.1

5star

D

8.2

2star

K

4.6

2star

HB

3.6

3star

M

1.8

2star

T

2.0

4star

G

0.6

3star

who couldn't broker a trade from GC to Victoria and was snaffled up by Carlton with pick 1 in the psd.

He named a big contact iirc to assist that selection?

Difference here is:

a) we're not gold coast
b) Brisbane doesn't have an early pick in the psd and dunks likely goes to any number of teams including Norf, bummers, port or ultimately us (if we're interested) before lions.

I suppose if you're that much of a mercenary that you don't care where you go for your nominated contract, then great, PSD for you. Though by it's nature, you're going to a lower placed team.

 

[torq]

I'm among the many who would be proud of the club for holding their ground and refusing an unsatisfactory offer from Brisbane. I'd admire any club who did the same thing, including Freo if our offer for Lobb doesn't meet their expectations. Nathan Buckley was spot on recently - the balance of power is heavily in favour of the players and needs a correction. This is a business and players are commodities. Aside from anything else, refusing to trade Dunkley would serve as a cautionary tale for ALL players not to take as gospel any assurances other clubs or their managers may make.

Just a hypothetical if anyone knows: in the unlikely event that Dunkley enters the PSD and places an exorbitant price on his head to get through to Brisbane, can the player and club simply renegotiate a different contract when he rolls up? You would think it would be considered conduct prejudicial to the draft but there seem to be plenty of loopholes in contracts.

 

[Southern 8]

I wonder if Dodo gets in Pickering’s ear tomorrow if it looks like Dunkley going to PSD. If it gets to that Dunkley will want some control of where he ends up. Could be another club to maybe. I’m no good at this trade scenario fantasy but let’s say Bombers pick 4 for 11 and Dunkley. Bombers future first as well for our future 1st or even better second.
Edit. Guess he could take him in PSD but have to get past other clubs first.

 

[doggies ftw]

And that’s my point….. what’s to stop them offering literally any sort of s**t and then have everyone say well you better accept it otherwise you lose him for nothing. Cut off your nose to spite your face….. maybe not as ridiculous as this extreme but it is sort of my point. Leaving when out of contract and just prior to free agency is actually the best time to force your way to the club of your choice

I don’t think there’s any difference between RFA and non-free agent, I believe if you match it just means they’re no longer a FA, but they don’t have to sign with you they can still go via PSD so the threat is still the same

 

[glenashley]

I'm among the many who would be proud of the club for holding their ground and refusing an unsatisfactory offer from Brisbane. I'd admire any club who did the same thing, including Freo if our offer for Lobb doesn't meet their expectations. Nathan Buckley was spot on recently - the balance of power is heavily in favour of the players and needs a correction. This is a business and players are commodities. Aside from anything else, refusing to trade Dunkley would serve as a cautionary tale for ALL players not to take as gospel any assurances other clubs or their managers may make.

Just a hypothetical if anyone knows: in the unlikely event that Dunkley enters the PSD and places an exorbitant price on his head to get through to Brisbane, can the player and club simply renegotiate a different contract when he rolls up? You would think it would be considered conduct prejudicial to the draft but there seem to be plenty of loopholes in contracts.

I'm guessing, but I think not, at least for the first season.

But yeh, worrying if for subsequent seasons.

but can't see why they wouldn't be allowed since any player can renegotiate so can't see why they would be excluded.

 

[ArNcHiSe]

They’ll give a s**t about the very real chance they won’t get to their destination, and opposition clubs will give a s**t about it too. They’ll know they can’t bend us over and won’t try it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with fans.

Oh this scenario is very much in your head. It’s like your writing fan-fiction No player is going to give a shit.

 

[Dogs Rule]

Oh this scenario is very much in your head. It’s like your writing fan-fiction No player is going to give a s**t.

I think that point is that if it happens players and their managers will know it's not a certainty they'll just walk to wherever they want to go.

 

[dergert]

Where's Matt Spangher when you need him?

 

[Ozzy_Lion]

They’ll give a s**t about the very real chance they won’t get to their destination, and opposition clubs will give a s**t about it too. They’ll know they can’t bend us over and won’t try it.

This has absolutely nothing to do with

Brisbane’s trade hall looks pretty sparse without Dunkley. McStay out Gunston in and accumulate the points they need for Ashcroft and fletcher.

Big deal.

Gunston instantly becomes their best tall forward but Daniher and Hipwood are poor versions of Gunston.

Atleast McStay is a big bodied, physical presence in their forward line who can chop out in the ruck. No physicality or grunt with those 3 now.
We land Jones and Lobb and some astute drafting with 2 highish draft picks and we are on par with a main rival next year.

Dunks can go to North rather than give them the advantage.

Gunston is better than McStay. Ashcroft is the clear #1 draft pick and Fletcher is a top 20 pick. Dunkley is cream.
Lions have more high end academy and F/S picks lined up over the next couple of years. I think they are more than comfortable with however it plays out.
If Dunkley walks to PSD then Dogs just loose the B&F winner for nothing.

 

[dogwatch]

I have a query and I wonder if someone can help me understand whether I have this right or not.

So when a player reaches restricted free agency he can choose to leave to join any club he likes however the original club can choose to match the contract offer and keep him at his original club. This would then force the other club to have to trade for him but he would then be under contract.

However if a player goes out of contract before reaching restricted free agency (ala Dunks) then he can still opt to leave and nominate his club of choice but this club doesn’t have the risk of the original club matching the contract offer and can basically low ball the original club on the trade offer and the only leverage that club has is to send that player into the PSD where they receive absolutely nothing in return. Hence the discussion about the Dogs just accepting whatever crumbs that Brisbane are offering. So what is fair here? When free agency was first introduced, players had to serve a certain amount of years before they could force their way out of a club to the club of their choice. So there were meant to be some sort of controls in place that make it harder for players to move to wherever they want prior to free agency. But in reality, players have even more power to force a move before restricted free agency because the original club has basically no leverage other than to threaten to put them in the PSD if the other club decides to not engage in a fair trade.

Like Brisbane could offer us pick 35 and pick 45 for example and just say take it or leave it. And what are we meant to do, just take it because otherwise we lose him for nothing? Where is there any onus on the receiving club to negotiate in good faith? But if that player was a restricted free agent, then the original club could match the contract (like Adelaide did with Dangerfield and I think GWS did with Gezza Cameron) and force the other club to trade fairly.

So I think basically, if I’m right, the system is f**ked. And Dunkley is basically f**king the Bulldogs right up the arse by leaving one year prior to FA and thereby ensuring we cannot get properly compensated because the team he chose actually has other higher priorities in regards to Father Son selections and is therefore forcing us to accept a well below market rate because we have zero leverage. At what point do Dunkley and Pickering say to Brisbane you guys sold me on this dream of playing here, what the F are you now doing by not dealing in good faith? Why is it that the Dogs are the ones that have to accept a substantially less than market offer or get nothing. The system is f**ked!

Good post. Sounds right.

My understanding is:

RFA - club can match a contract offer (and either retain the player or trade him out as a contracted player) or they can choose not to match and will then receive AFL-determined compensation.

UFA - club cannot match, can only accept AFL-determined compo.

DFA - player can go to whoever he chooses (if they'll have him) and there's no compo for his former club because they de-listed him.

Contracted Player - can request a trade but his club holds all the aces - even if they agree to explore a trade they can say no to a deal that's offered if they don't like it. Player may still need to see out his contract.

Uncontracted player - can request a trade but his club still holds him as a list asset so they can engage in trade negotiations for him. If no deal can be reached he is not obliged to front up next season for training - although he can if he likes sign back on with his old club. Or he can go to the PSD or even the next year's MSD or ND if no deal is reached with his preferred club. If the player opts for any of these drafts I don't think there is any compensation for his old club.


It would be so typical of the AFL not to have thought through the possible scenarios despite having a raft of lawyers, analysts and sharp operators on their payroll. Their usual modus operandi is to get a half-baked idea and just put it into law. Then let the smart people at the clubs work out what the loopholes are. Then patch up the rules after they've been exploited. They have a largely compliant media who don't want to fall out of favour so the AFL won't get much of a caning for it.

If all the above is correct I'm just surprised that nobody has pushed this loophole in the past. Or maybe they have, but common sense and decency have usually prevailed so there hasn't been much fallout. We might just be the unlucky club that exposes the flaw.


Another consideration in all this is that the AFL foreshadowed years ago that it might eventually dump any compensation for free agents. I don't know if that's still in their plans but it would cause a fair stink if they did it. It would exacerbate the gap between the so-called "destination clubs" and the "feeder clubs". It would be a gap that would be hard to close.

The gap would probably just keep on widening over the years, like the EPL where there are now only about half a dozen clubs with any real chance of winning the championship.

 

[Fatcat08]

I'm among the many who would be proud of the club for holding their ground and refusing an unsatisfactory offer from Brisbane. I'd admire any club who did the same thing, including Freo if our offer for Lobb doesn't meet their expectations. Nathan Buckley was spot on recently - the balance of power is heavily in favour of the players and needs a correction. This is a business and players are commodities. Aside from anything else, refusing to trade Dunkley would serve as a cautionary tale for ALL players not to take as gospel any assurances other clubs or their managers may make.

Just a hypothetical if anyone knows: in the unlikely event that Dunkley enters the PSD and places an exorbitant price on his head to get through to Brisbane, can the player and club simply renegotiate a different contract when he rolls up? You would think it would be considered conduct prejudicial to the draft but there seem to be plenty of loopholes in contracts.

No and yes. Let's say you put a 1 year 1million contract on your head. Whoever picks you up has to pay that contract and needs to have it in the salary cap. But there's nothing stopping you after that signing 4 more years at 300k

 

[Dav1d]

Go back on your own board

They want likes for when they go back to their own board, so they can be like look how riled up I got the Dogs forum

Must be really low on confidence & I feel sorry for them