Recruiting Trade & Free Agency VII

[Lore]

We can't trade our first without bringing another first in.

 

[TheGrizz]

If we cut list sizes to 35 (which is ludicrous by the way) and have only two rounds in the draft, how do trades work?

I imagine the value of 2021 draft picks go up as
1. They are most likely to get traded
2. The 2021 draft is all of a sudden gonna be stacked

 

[eth-dog]

If we cut list sizes to 35 (which is ludicrous by the way) and have only two rounds in the draft, how do trades work?

I imagine the value of 2021 draft picks go up as
1. They are most likely to get traded
2. The 2021 draft is all of a sudden gonna be stacked

I like the idea of just getting rid of the Cat A rookie list and having lists of 40.

 

[TheGrizz]

I like the idea of just getting rid of the Cat A rookie list and having lists of 40.

I have floated that a few times in this board and other boards and it seems the most logical solution. With SSP and rookies lists balloon out to 45-46.

If the AFL is serious about cutting costs than simply culling list spots wont do anything. The salary you would be paying to players 41-45 on your list will just get absorbed by the remaining list spots or at the very least top salary will remain the same.

I would cut list spots to 40 (keep cat B rookies) and lower the cap. The cap is somewhere around $11.5m currently with it scheduled to be $12.4m by 2022; so i would lower it to $10.5m next year and $9.5m in 2022.

I would also cap the maximun amount of a contract like they do in the NBA.
So for example in a $9.5m salary cap the max you can pay one player $807k (8.5% of salary cap).

This means you paying less players, less money. Not lesser players no money and the top end of town keep their bloated contracts.

 

[Vindicater]

2 round draft. And we have 21 OOC in a list of 47.

So 26 current contracts plus 2 draft picks would mean we would only be able to re-sign 7 of our players currently out of contract. Ouch.

 

[eth-dog]

So 26 current contracts plus 2 draft picks would mean we would only be able to re-sign 7 of our players currently out of contract. Ouch.

Yep. Not including trades. So which of Saad, McGrath, Ham, Stewart, Daniher (if he decides to stay), Ridley, Langford, Gleeson, McKernan, Bellchambers (assuming he doesn't retire), Cutler and Snelling miss out? I'm guessing Daniher leaves and Bellchambers retires.

 

[TheGrizz]

Yep. Not including trades. So which of Saad, McGrath, Ham, Stewart, Daniher (if he decides to stay), Ridley, Langford, Gleeson, McKernan, Bellchambers (assuming he doesn't retire), Cutler and Snelling miss out? I'm guessing Daniher leaves and Bellchambers retires.

They wouldnt go to 35 straight away surely. They would run into all sorts of contract issues with teams that would need cut contracted players to get down to 35 players for 2021 as they wouldnt have enough out of contract.

They would have to do it incrementally, like 40 in 2021, 38 in 2022 and 35 in 2023.
A new broadcast deal is due to begin in 2023 so it would be easier to adjust the salary cap accordingly for a 35 man list then then.

 

[eth-dog]

They wouldnt go to 35 straight away surely. They would run into all sorts of contract issues with teams that would need cut contracted players to get down to 35 players for 2021 as they wouldnt have enough out of contract.

They would have to do it incrementally, like 40 in 2021, 38 in 2022 and 35 in 2023.
A new broadcast deal is due to begin in 2023 so it would be easier to adjust the salary cap accordingly for a 35 man list then then.

The only reason they'ed cut to 35 is so that clubs aren't ruined financially next year. If anything it'll be the opposite.

 

[yaco55]

It's not about list sizes, it's the value of salary cap, if the aim is to cut costs.

 

[Vindicater]

Yep. Not including trades. So which of Saad, McGrath, Ham, Stewart, Daniher (if he decides to stay), Ridley, Langford, Gleeson, McKernan, Bellchambers (assuming he doesn't retire), Cutler and Snelling miss out? I'm guessing Daniher leaves and Bellchambers retires.

Ouch.

Quick answer without really thinking about list management

We keep: McGrath, Saad, Daniher, Ridley, Ham, Gleeson and Langford (McKernan stays if Daniher chooses to leave)

 

[Milanista28]

Would rather get mutual with some older players before losing a young player that we rate.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Surely they don’t go under 38 players per squad. 35 is too low. We’re talking an extra 54 players league wide and most (all) earning five figure salaries.

 

[TheGrizz]

Ouch.

Quick answer without really thinking about list management

We keep: McGrath, Saad, Daniher, Ridley, Ham, Gleeson and Langford (McKernan stays if Daniher chooses to leave)

Would keep Snelling over Langford personally.

 

[yaco55]

There is nothing wrong with reducing the salary cap which means hit the top-payed players in lieu of dramatically reducing player lists - Playing lists can be reduced in a phased three year period.

 

[Mikevk123]

Retire: Bellchambers
Delist: Mutch, Laverde, Crauford, Stewart,
Gown, Begley
Trade: Daniher and Fantasia

 

[Atavistic]

Retire: Bellchambers
Delist: Mutch, Laverde, Crauford, Stewart,
Gown, Begley
Trade: Daniher and Fantasia

Harsh on Crauf. He hasn't played a bad game since he got here.

 

[TDay]

Harsh on Crauf. He hasn't played a bad game since he got here.

Yeah from memory there has only been one game where he was available to play, for which he wasnt the walk up no 1 ruckman

 

[ant555]

They wouldnt go to 35 straight away surely. They would run into all sorts of contract issues with teams that would need cut contracted players to get down to 35 players for 2021 as they wouldnt have enough out of contract.

They would have to do it incrementally, like 40 in 2021, 38 in 2022 and 35 in 2023.
A new broadcast deal is due to begin in 2023 so it would be easier to adjust the salary cap accordingly for a 35 man list then then.

I suspect they will as a cost cutting measure. Carlton have dumped their alignment and clubs are being asked to cut costs. The cost of running a VFL side is between $750k and $1 mil. By not running there is a massive saving to be made. Personally I do not like it but I think it is the way it will go. How that effects the VFL ? who knows other than player will probably nominate a VFL club to play for if he is not in the AFL side or doing a specific training block. The AFL would have to put some effort into keeping the VFL going as the second tier comp with Box Hill , Casey , Frankston , Coburg , Williamsotwn , Port Melbourne , Sandringham, Werribee and Pretson / Northern ? making a 9 team comp.
I know the clubs believe they can do a lot of player development in house and do not need the players playing week in and week out in a lower competition but rather have them playing some footy at stages and doing specific blocks of training in house.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I suspect they will as a cost cutting measure. Carlton have dumped their alignment and clubs are being asked to cut costs. The cost of running a VFL side is between $750k and $1 mil. By not running there is a massive saving to be made. Personally I do not like it but I think it is the way it will go. How that effects the VFL ? who knows other than player will probably nominate a VFL club to play for if he is not in the AFL side or doing a specific training block. The AFL would have to put some effort into keeping the VFL going as the second tier comp with Box Hill , Casey , Frankston , Coburg , Williamsotwn , Port Melbourne , Sandringham, Werribee and Pretson / Northern ? making a 9 team comp.
I know the clubs believe they can do a lot of player development in house and do not need the players playing week in and week out in a lower competition but rather have them playing some footy at stages and doing specific blocks of training in house.

Can you realistically not have a reserves team at all though? From the discussion around the switch from Bendigo to Essendon VFL an alignment is cheaper than an in-house team, and Carlton have only cut ties so they don't have to fund Preston through the shutdown - the moment footy's back they'll have their own reserves team up and running as Carlton VFL.

 

[ant555]

Can you realistically not have a reserves team at all though? From the discussion around the switch from Bendigo to Essendon VFL an alignment is cheaper than an in-house team, and Carlton have only cut ties so they don't have to fund Preston through the shutdown - the moment footy's back they'll have their own reserves team up and running as Carlton VFL.

I am telling you it is not as cut and dry and the clubs do actually feel they can develop the players without them having to play every week. It has already been happening with players often being fit but not playing VFL every week.
The clubs (and AFL) are looking at ways to save money. One save is $750k for no VFL side plus the saving of having less players on the main list. The discussion about cutting list back to 35 is very real at the moment. Sides can easily farm out the 10 or so players they need to give a game to.
I hope it does not happen but trust me it is a real option being discussed at the top level.

 

[GUMBLETRON]

From what you hear is that just a temporary measure driven by cost or do clubs realistically think they're better off without a reserves system?

 

[HirdyLannister]

Would love to see 30 man lists for senior and reserves and the reserves play before the seniors. Would be mint.

 

['51 Bewick]

Would love to see 30 man lists for senior and reserves and the reserves play before the seniors. Would be mint.

do do do do ... you have just entered the Twilight Zone

 

[ant555]

From what you hear is that just a temporary measure driven by cost or do clubs realistically think they're better off without a reserves system?

I think this will be a moment in time for a correction given there are always 6 or so clubs who are pretty much insolvent .

 

[GUMBLETRON]

I think this will be a moment in time for a correction given there are always 6 or so clubs who are pretty much insolvent .

Maybe. The AFL has a vested interested in there being enough clubs financially dependent on head office to back whatever agenda they need to run at any given point in time.

 

[rumply]

There is nothing wrong with reducing the salary cap which means hit the top-payed players in lieu of dramatically reducing player lists - Playing lists can be reduced in a phased three year period.

Which will be fine provided at the same time AFL introduces a fluid in season player movement system the equivalent of NFL practice squads for example.