Strategy Trade and List Management Thread Part 8 (opposition supporters - READ posting rules before posting)

[_Mike_]

Opposition supporters coming to troll , you have been warned

 

[Doggy]

Don’t underestimate Geelong, they are apparently moving on the salary cap increase for him, they will be getting desperate with Danger not able to stay on the park, and the gap between their experienced but old players and the younger inexperienced players.

Everyone forgets it is what Zak wants not what chasing teams want, need or what assets they have.

Case in point is the main board thread all over what Richmond could offer. Who cares, he has said his decision will be football based so he isn't going there to will spoons and sit at the foot of the ladder

 

[HK_Bulldog]

Things can turn around quickly with good management. Hawthorn showed that in the last couple years.

 

[BIG_BONTS]

if geelong nabs him i will literally spew up

 

[dergert]

What did the losers talk about on gettable today?

 

[VitalDread]

What did the losers talk about on gettable today?

Blues chasing Buku again

That's all from our side

 

[MaxiBont]

Blues chasing Buku again

That's all from our side

They had their chance

 

[Pencil case]

What did the losers talk about on gettable today?

Apart from the buku stuff already mentioned, Cal said Dogs have been working on Butters for years and are the clear favourites, with all our eggs in that basket.

 

[Mojorisin]

They had their chance

You'd think they would have to offer him alot more this time. All because they expected him for a pick in the 40s

 

[threenewpadlocks]

You'd think they would have to offer him alot more this time. All because they expected him for a pick in the 40s

Isn't he now an unrestricted free agent because of his 8 years in the system?

 

[Mojorisin]

Isn't he now an unrestricted free agent because of his 8 years in the system?

Yeah thats right. They wouldn’t have to give up any draft capital but his form demands a bigger contract in my view. Also clubs generally pay more for the luxury of not needing to trade.
Either way now I think he stays as long as we get close to what he'd attract on the open market considering his reason for changing clubs was purely about getting games.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yeah thats right. They wouldn’t have to give up any draft capital but his form demands a bigger contract in my view. Also clubs generally pay more for the luxury of not needing to trade.
Either way now I think he stays as long as we get close to what he'd attract on the open market considering his reason for changing clubs was purely about getting games.

Right, and you're saying the desire to avoid paying a pick in the 20s or 30s instead of thinking a pick in the 40s last year would be enough, has cost them to the amount of having to offer a much bigger contract a year later.

Obviously, any team would happily trade pick 30 for 45 and 300k in cap space, if such a thing was allowed.

I didn't quite get what you were saying but it makes sense. But I would also argue that Carlton would have offered a pick earlier than the 40s anyway if they knew for certain that his form would be this good for the first 4 weeks. Neither they nor us could have predicted that, so I'm not so sure it's a perfect point. While they might have to pay more this year, they are more likely to get a good player for 2027 than they would have been 4 round ago.

 

[Mojorisin]

Right, and you're saying the desire to avoid paying a pick in the 20s or 30s instead of thinking a pick in the 40s last year would be enough, has cost them to the amount of having to offer a much bigger contract a year later.

Obviously, any team would happily trade pick 30 for 45 and 300k in cap space, if such a thing was allowed.

I didn't quite get what you were saying but it makes sense. But I would also argue that Carlton would have offered a pick earlier than the 40s anyway if they knew for certain that his form would be this good for the first 4 weeks. Neither they nor us could have predicted that, so I'm not so sure it's a perfect point. While they might have to pay more this year, they are more likely to get a good player for 2027 than they would have been 4 round ago.

Thats the gamble you take. Nothing is certain in this world and more so in football. He could sign a contract and have his form slump terribly its all speculative. All we can do now is speculate and or look in hindsight.
The point I was poorly trying to make was that offering a pick in the 40s (we reportedly wanted one in the 30s) costed them a player they got to nominate them and obviously rated regardless of his recent form spike. It may of only cost them an extra 300k a year and 12 months of service but more likely now that he is entrenched in our best 22 he doesn't leave at all.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Thats the gamble you take. Nothing is certain in this world and more so in football. He could sign a contract and have his form slump terribly its all speculative. All we can do now is speculate and or look in hindsight.
The point I was poorly trying to make was that offering a pick in the 40s (we reportedly wanted one in the 30s) costed them a player they got to nominate them and obviously rated regardless of his recent form spike. It may of only cost them an extra 300k a year and 12 months of service but more likely now that he is entrenched in our best 22 he doesn't leave at all.

Yeah I get your point.

But Khamis could do his ACL against Hawthorn this week, knock on wood, (as he would have for Carlton in the same round in the alternate universe) and Carlton thus would have avoided the deadweight of giving up pick 45 and salary this year to a player that won't play more than 5 rounds before getting injured.

And Carlton would then be glad that they didn't execute the trade, not happy as you're now making them out to be, should that injury occur.

All clubs can do is act upon their assessment of possible future outcomes, with the information that they hold at the time. I'm not quite sure you can claim that Khamis' good form four weeks in should have been a factor upon Carlton's decision making last year, because they had no reason to believe then that his form would be this much better.

I do get your point and yes obviously Carlton negotiated poorly to not offer a pick in the 30s for what they would consider to be an immediate best 22 player that wanted to play there, with information they held at the time. In the same vein we offered pick 37, not a pick in the 40s, for Budarick, a similar player who was not always getting a game at his old club but was recruited to be an immediate best 22 (like Khamis). The fact that Khamis' form has been good with us is just post-hoc thinking, even if I'm being a bit of a dick in explaining it here (yes, I'm aware, I'll try not to be in the future).

 

[Lindsay_Gilbee]

How often does a team botch a trade and then land the player down the track? Bryce Gibbs is the only one I can think of in recent times.

Swans missed their chance with Daniher.. essendon with Dunkley... Will be the same with Merrett/Hawks and Buku/carlton.

 

[doggiesin08]

Yeah I get your point.

But Khamis could do his ACL against Hawthorn this week, knock on wood, (as he would have for Carlton in the same round in the alternate universe) and Carlton thus would have avoided the deadweight of giving up pick 45 and salary this year to a player that won't play more than 5 rounds before getting injured.

And Carlton would then be glad that they didn't execute the trade, not happy as you're now making them out to be, should that injury occur.

All clubs can do is act upon their assessment of possible future outcomes, with the information that they hold at the time. I'm not quite sure you can claim that Khamis' good form four weeks in should have been a factor upon Carlton's decision making last year, because they had no reason to believe then that his form would be this much better.

I do get your point and yes obviously Carlton negotiated poorly to not offer a pick in the 30s for what they would consider to be an immediate best 22 player that wanted to play there, with information they held at the time. In the same vein we offered pick 37, not a pick in the 40s, for Budarick, a similar player who was not always getting a game at his old club but was recruited to be an immediate best 22 (like Khamis). The fact that Khamis' form has been good with us is just post-hoc thinking, even if I'm being a bit of a dick in explaining it here (yes, I'm aware, I'll try not to be in the future).

On the Budarick comparison it's worth noting he did play the last 13 games including 2 finals, and played 19 games in total last year, so was essentially a regular albeit not in his preferred position. He was also out of contract which is a key point of difference. But I take your overarching point that we didn't risk losing out on to North who also expressed interest for the sake of a pick in the 30s vs 40s.

On Carlton's approach with Buku, I'm less critical of them for what they were or were not prepared to trade in general, but more so for even bothering to waste our time (and Buku's) based on what they were prepared to pay. We had the option of:

1. Trade Buku for a pick in the 40s in a draft widely regards as being quite weak, and I suppose bank a small amount of extra cap space being the difference between Buku's current salary and another draftee; or
2. Or keep Buku for an extra year - he either works his way into the best 23 or at worst provides very capable AFL-ready depth in structurally important positions at both ends of the ground - and then if he still wants out we most likely get a pick even better than what Carlton were offering as FA compensation (Charlie Spargo got end of R2).

From the above we would never be accepting Option 1, and so if that was the most they were ever going to offer then there was no point even starting discussions.

 

[Doggies7]

I imagine at this stage a lot of it would be an smart player manager using a club like Carlton as leverage in his contract talks to try and extract the most $ before he re-signs. Dogs offering 600K, Carlton offering $800K, can we meet around 700k? (Just an example).

 

[threenewpadlocks]

On the Budarick comparison it's worth noting he did play the last 13 games including 2 finals, and played 19 games in total last year, so was essentially a regular albeit not in his preferred position. He was also out of contract which is a key point of difference. But I take your overarching point that we didn't risk losing out on to North who also expressed interest for the sake of a pick in the 30s vs 40s.

On Carlton's approach with Buku, I'm less critical of them for what they were or were not prepared to trade in general, but more so for even bothering to waste our time (and Buku's) based on what they were prepared to pay. We had the option of:

1. Trade Buku for a pick in the 40s in a draft widely regards as being quite weak, and I suppose bank a small amount of extra cap space being the difference between Buku's current salary and another draftee; or
2. Or keep Buku for an extra year - he either works his way into the best 23 or at worst provides very capable AFL-ready depth in structurally important positions at both ends of the ground - and then if he still wants out we most likely get a pick even better than what Carlton were offering as FA compensation (Charlie Spargo got end of R2).

From the above we would never be accepting Option 1, and so if that was the most they were ever going to offer then there was no point even starting discussions.

We would lose the compensation this year on the basis of if we also got Butters (or anyone else) as a free agent, but yes I agree with your point - because pick 40s in a weak draft is worth essentially zero, above and beyond taking that list spot to the rookie draft, passing over that pick, then inviting players to your pre-season training to assess as late as March who is training well and who you can add to your list via SSP (where you can assume that good training form in pre-season is a sign for their value in the upcoming season, vs. not knowing how well a draftee might be training for your club).

Carlton as a club can defend their lack of executing the trade to its fans and to Buku himself as the fact that they were busy negotiating the Curnow deal, but that's all a bit strange. Clubs have to be able to do multiple things at once during trade week. God knows that GC and Brisbane have been able to do that over the last few years. We managed to with Kennedy and Smith. There was no particular reason why Carlton had to prioritise trading for Ben Ainsworth (pick 29) over trading that same pick for Khamis - that was a choice that they should have to defend other than simply saying "oh shucks it was al too difficult for us to manage".

 

[threenewpadlocks]

I imagine at this stage a lot of it would be an smart player manager using a club like Carlton as leverage in his contract talks to try and extract the most $ before he re-signs. Dogs offering 600K, Carlton offering $800K, can we meet around 700k? (Just an example).

Of course, but that's the nature of free agency. It gives players more freedom and leverage, and the net benefit evens out at all clubs.

No different than our interest in Jack Silvagni being used by Silvagni's management to leverage St Kilda.

 

[Doggies7]

Of course, but that's the nature of free agency. It gives players more freedom and leverage, and the net benefit evens out at all clubs.

No different than our interest in Jack Silvagni being used by Silvagni's management to leverage St Kilda.

Oh yeah 100%, more just saying that's where the Carlton talk is likely coming from at this stage. Even if he 100% wants to stay and plans to, his manager should be talking to other clubs right now to try and get his $ up as high as he can.

 

[dergert]

I have no concerns about buku leaving. He's a dog for life.

 

[dogwatch]

... I would also argue that Carlton would have offered a pick earlier than the 40s anyway if they knew for certain that his form would be this good for the first 4 weeks. ...

And if we'd known that same fact we wouldn't have accepted their pick in the 30s. Probably not even in the 20s, considering how desperate we were to get a half-decent tallish defender.

Or to put it another way, considering what we might have been offering to get Wilkie or Silvagni, how much would we have offered to get a player who has performed like Khamis has over this first month of 2026?

The wonderful uncertainty of players' careers!
Keeping Khamis has been the best bargain of the three. He's not as good as Wilkie (but about 4-5 years younger). He's younger and probably better and sounder than Silvagni. And he cost us nothing in trade assets.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

And if we'd known that same fact we wouldn't have accepted their pick in the 30s. Probably not even in the 20s, considering how desperate we were to get a half-decent tallish defender.

Or to put it another way, considering what we might have been offering to get Wilkie or Silvagni, how much would we have offered to get a player who has performed like Khamis has over this first month of 2026?

The wonderful uncertainty of players' careers!
Keeping Khamis has been the best bargain of the three. He's not as good as Wilkie (but about 4-5 years younger). He's younger and probably better and sounder than Silvagni. And he cost us nothing in trade assets.

Fair points, but the idea is that we were willing to part with Khamis for a pick in the 20s and 30s - as much as been confirmed. The fact that such a deal was not executed is due to Carlton, not ours, though I agree with you right now we'd be ruing how, in this alternate universe, how we let Khamis win Carlton the game against North with some outstanding defensive efforts, while we are 3-1 with one narrow low to either Brisbane or Adelaide, all just so we could have drafted some kid with pick 28 or whatever that's not playing that well in our reserves right now.

 

[Mr. Walker]

Of course, but that's the nature of free agency. It gives players more freedom and leverage, and the net benefit evens out at all clubs.

No different than our interest in Jack Silvagni being used by Silvagni's management to leverage St Kilda.

Just on the bolded bit I am not clear on what you mean. My view is free agency benefits the big clubs due to the ability for a player to play in blockbusters an “generally” play with a more successful club. The players association would veto it but to try and even out the competition I would only let free agents join a non-finalist from the previous year.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Just on the bolded bit I am not clear on what you mean. My view is free agency benefits the big clubs due to the ability for a player to play in blockbusters an “generally” play with a more successful club. The players association would veto it but to try and even out the competition I would only let free agents join a non-finalist from the previous year.

Oh of course I don't agree with it in practical terms of how it plays out, but in theory that's what the system is designed to do - we lose out with Khamis, but we equally gain with the potential of the Khamis equivalent on 17 other teams. In theory. In theory, not in practice, as you correctly point out.

 

[Mojorisin]

We would lose the compensation this year on the basis of if we also got Butters (or anyone else) as a free agent.

Jury is still out Whether we get Butters as a free agent (or at all).

If i had to guess out of the 3 options I'd say we get butters in a trade rather then him staying/going somewhere else or coming as a free agent, that would leave any free agency compensation we get from a free agent of our own untouched.