Restricted Free Agent Zak Butters

[txbyhull]

Also becomes a terrible look for the Dogs and other player managers will become weary of them if they go after a top 5 player in the comp but then offer below average picks and can’t satisfy a deal.

Other players will think twice if that’s their approach as we’ve seen for years the power of the managers and their players.

I’m not confident at all that he wants to stay but if it’s between Port and say WCE in the draft, I’m very confident he’d instead remain at Port.

Dogs thinking they’ll get him for a first this year (likely late 15+), a F1 which likely becomes 25-30+ and another in that range is just fanciful stuff.

We saw this exact discourse all back half of last year when it was re: NAS

The last thing the AFL will let happen is have an OOC top 5 player forced into the draft. They’ll magic up a way to get Butters to Victoria if he wants it that badly.

The fanciful thinking is Port thinking they have the power, Butters has all the power. And frankly I hate it, I think it is one of the worst parts of the game, but it’s definitely the case. The only reason Merrett didn’t move last year is because he had a year left on his deal.

 

[KanesBurner]

I just don’t see where the picks come from firstly, given where Butters wants to go, and secondly I’d posit that GWS’ picks would not translate very well at all in this situation given they gave 2 2nds back

The other thing I’ve noticed in threads like this is that everyone thinks clubs can only use what they currently have.

If Butters nominates a club they will be finding ways to get a deal done. GWS are also in a unique position where they are one of the few clubs who could do that and it wouldn’t bother them.

If Port ended up with 3 picks in the teens I think a deal is done. Port fans will lose it, the clubs he goes to will complain (they shouldn’t). If it’s the Dogs they are probably perennial flag faves while Bont is still there.

 

[txbyhull]

The other thing I’ve noticed in threads like this is that everyone thinks clubs can only use what they currently have.

If Butters nominates a club they will be finding ways to get a deal done. GWS are also in a unique position where they are one of the few clubs who could do that and it wouldn’t bother them.

If Port ended up with 3 picks in the teens I think a deal is done. Port fans will lose it, the clubs he goes to will complain (they shouldn’t). If it’s the Dogs they are probably perennial flag faves while Bont is still there.

I’d agree with the last bit, if Dogs or Cats can get 3 first this year or 2 firsts this year and their 2 future firsts then I think port have to take it and run, which is what I said previously

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

We saw this exact discourse all back half of last year when it was re: NAS

The last thing the AFL will let happen is have an OOC top 5 player forced into the draft. They’ll magic up a way to get Butters to Victoria if he wants it that badly.

The fanciful thinking is Port thinking they have the power, Butters has all the power. And frankly I hate it, I think it is one of the worst parts of the game, but it’s definitely the case. The only reason Merrett didn’t move last year is because he had a year left on his deal.

Oh we absolutely don’t have the power and certainty not suggesting he will actually end up in any draft format it was just making a the point that while yes we don’t hold the power, the other party still has to put a reasonable offer on the table and not simply chase a top 5 talent and put average picks on the table.

Majority of the discussions on NAS last year was that if we were to find a suitable deal, it would have to include either trading Butters or Bergman as a couple of middling/late firsts isn’t enough for a player of this calibre.

Obviously we’re heading in the opposite direction of the Dogs on the ladder so those picks in fact would have been much higher. The point remains though that a couple picks between 15-30 won’t be satisfactory.

They don’t have to trade players to us but in the same manner the expectation was we’d have to make some trades to improve our hand, the Dogs (or whoever) will likely have to find a way to improve those picks.

It will still be unders as you can’t really offer an equivalent trade for someone like Butters. However, there is a middle ground around that area of a top 10 pick, F1 around 12-18 with Tassie pushing them back and another in that 20-30. Just have to get a bit creative moving them forward.

 

[txbyhull]

Oh we absolutely don’t have the power and certainty not suggesting he will actually end up in any draft format it was just making a the point that while yes we don’t hold the power, the other party still has to put a reasonable offer on the table and not simply chase a top 5 talent and put average picks on the table.

Majority of the discussions on NAS last year was that if we were to find a suitable deal, it would have to include either trading Butters or Bergman as a couple of middling/late firsts isn’t enough for a player of this calibre.

Obviously we’re heading in the opposite direction of the Dogs on the ladder so those picks in fact would have been much higher. The point remains though that a couple picks between 15-30 won’t be satisfactory.

They don’t have to trade players to us but in the same manner the expectation was we’d have to make some trades to improve our hand, the Dogs (or whoever) will likely have to find a way to improve those picks.

It will still be unders as you can’t really offer an equivalent trade for someone like Butters. However, there is a middle ground around that area of a top 10 pick, F1 around 12-18 with Tassie pushing them back and another in that 20-30. Just have to get a bit creative moving them forward.

Yeah my previous post somewhere ways back was about how they can’t really drum up extra picks without giving away established players. Theres wiggle room given how much of a boost butters gives them, but someone of serious talent would have to go.

I think there is a missed trick in a lot of trade talks right now that there will be a LOT of competition for Tasmanian picks given they’re static in a fixed draft position rather than reliant on a clubs performance. Think they hold the key to the deal

 

[KanesBurner]

I’d agree with the last bit, if Dogs or Cats can get 3 first this year or 2 firsts this year and their 2 future firsts then I think port have to take it and run, which is what I said previously

I didn’t see the earlier posts tbh if that’s where you were coming from the whole time haha. Apologies if so.

Yeah that would be too much to refuse and would fall into the category of Port fans hating it (due to where the picks are) club he goes to fans hating it (because they’ll just see 4 1st’s) and Butters getting to his destination.

 

[ABAB]

Oh what we’ll get will be way less than he’s worth, no one will argue that. I just think it’s going to be more than people think. And based on the people in this thread, significantly more.

Jon Ralph (not that I trust him with draft stuff) has already come out and said F1’s are basically junk stocks because of the expansion drafts. His view was it’ll be 4 1st’s if it involves future picks. People love to say. ‘Port have no leverage’ but neither did GWS with Cameron and they ended up with a pretty solid haul.

My view from the start has been all parties have too much at stake for it to blow up. Port will get less than they want, the club he goes to will give up more than they want and Butters will get to his desired club.

That's not a "pretty solid haul" for GWS.....pick 13 and 15 for Cameron is robbery.

 

[Doggy]

Also becomes a terrible look for the Dogs and other player managers will become weary of them if they go after a top 5 player in the comp but then offer below average picks and can’t satisfy a deal.

Other players will think twice if that’s their approach as we’ve seen for years the power of the managers and their players.

I’m not confident at all that he wants to stay but if it’s between Port and say WCE in the draft, I’m very confident he’d instead remain at Port.

Dogs thinking they’ll get him for a first this year (likely late 15+), a F1 which likely becomes 25-30+ and another in that range is just fanciful stuff.

You would not have a clue what the dogs would offer. They always trade fairly.

The poster above suggesting we sell Sanders for a "late first" though...

 

[KanesBurner]

You would not have a clue what the dogs would offer. They always trade fairly.

The poster above suggesting we sell Sanders for a "late first" though...

I mean….there’s been a fair few Dogs posters basically saying Port will accept crap and like it.

If he’s going to nominate one of the top VIC clubs the Dogs are the ones I’d want it to be because they are more likely to not make it a drawn out nightmare despite the BigFooty posters opinions.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

You would not have a clue what the dogs would offer. They always trade fairly.

The poster above suggesting we sell Sanders for a "late first" though...

Of course I don’t have a clue what the Dogs will offer. My response is based on the presumptions from some and comments here that if that’s where he wants to go, that they can simply put on the table what they hold in terms of their draft hand and act as if it’s good enough and we will have to take it.

Particularly with how good they’re looking and assuming they will finish quite highly, I’m simply implying that they will likely have to find ways to improve that hand for a reasonable offer.

 

[Doggy]

I mean….there’s been a fair few Dogs posters basically saying Port will accept crap and like it.

If he’s going to nominate one of the top VIC clubs the Dogs are the ones I’d want it to be because they are more likely to not make it a drawn out nightmare despite the BigFooty posters opinions.

Might he 3 first rounders but we would want points back given the number of academy and father son prospects this year (4)

 

[Doggy]

Of course I don’t have a clue what the Dogs will offer. My response is based on the presumptions from some and comments here that if that’s where he wants to go, that they can simply put on the table what they hold in terms of their draft hand and act as if it’s good enough and we will have to take it.

Particularly with how good they’re looking and assuming they will finish quite highly, I’m simply implying that they will likely have to find ways to improve that hand for a reasonable offer.

We have future picks. You also can't trade players out if they don't want to go.

All of our quality players and kids are signed up.

I have seen suggests like Sanders and Richards. That simply isn't going to Happen, particularly Richards. Sanders is rumoured to possibly be into a 2 year extension too.

 

[KanesBurner]

Might he 3 first rounders but we would want points back given the number of academy and father son prospects this year (4)

Hey outside of the box thinking!

Lucky for the Dogs is this scenario Port have their own and Carlton’s 2nd round picks which could be pretty helpful for bid matching. Where are your draftees rated (if known) could go a long way to covering a chunk of points.

 

[txbyhull]

We have future picks. You also can't trade players out if they don't want to go.

All of our quality players and kids are signed up.

I have seen suggests like Sanders and Richards. That simply isn't going to Happen, particularly Richards. Sanders is rumoured to possibly be into a 2 year extension too.

How do you think you get Butters? Realistically. If you want to say the Dogs always trade fair?

I think the suggestion that they require either 3 FRP this year, 1 being pretty decent, or 2 shit FRP this year and 2 future 1sts, suits the fair trade quota.

 

[Doggy]

Hey outside of the box thinking!

Lucky for the Dogs is this scenario Port have their own and Carlton’s 2nd round picks which could be pretty helpful for bid matching. Where are your draftees rated (if known) could go a long way to covering a chunk of points.

Khaled El Souki likely first round
Hok Marial (potential to get into the first round if he puts it all together)
Levi West - maybe second round
Jaxon Cooney - 3rd - late

 

[Doggy]

How do you think you get Butters? Realistically. If you want to say the Dogs always trade fair?

I think the suggestion that they require either 3 FRP this year, 1 being pretty decent, or 2 shit FRP this year and 2 future 1sts, suits the fair trade quota.

4 first round picks is just not going to happen. Regardless of the quality of those picks or the quality of the player to be traded).

That has never happened.

Word is the dogs are very confident in Butters nominating them and also securing him. How they do that is up to them but all of their good players are signed up so I suspect they aren't planning on trying to push them.

 

[txbyhull]

4 first round picks is just not going to happen. Regardless of the quality of those picks or the quality of the player to be traded).

That has never happened.

Word is the dogs are very confident in Butters nominating them and also securing him. How they do that is up to them but all of their good players are signed up so I suspect they aren't planning on trying to push them.

sooo, you have no idea?

I said before that 1st, F, and FF would be the offer, but i only double take because you said Dogs are all about fair trading. That’s pulling Ports pants down, even though yes it’s the most likely situation right now.

They’ll have to move some serious assets for it to not be a struggle that lasts all trade window

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

So essentially the expectation is pay bugger all for Butters to also ensure the Dogs can also match their 4 academy/FS players coming?

Somethings got to give as both of those won’t be happening without parting with a few other things. Where they come from, who knows but something will have to give.

 

[KanesBurner]

4 first round picks is just not going to happen. Regardless of the quality of those picks or the quality of the player to be traded).

That has never happened.

Word is the dogs are very confident in Butters nominating them and also securing him. How they do that is up to them but all of their good players are signed up so I suspect they aren't planning on trying to push them.

You’re right but I don’t think we’d seen a player traded for 3 1sts and 2 players until last year.

Using the past to evaluate trades in the future is a bit of fools gold because the rules keep changing so deals are being done under different sets of rules.

Like 2-3 years ago 1.5 million was an insane salary, next year there could be multiple $2 million players. I suspect things are going to be pretty rapidly changing in the coming years.

 

[ABAB]

So essentially the expectation is pay bugger all for Butters to also ensure the Dogs can also match their 4 academy/FS players coming?

Somethings got to give as both of those won’t be happening without parting with a few other things. Where they come from, who knows but something will have to give.

GWS had to accept bugger all for Cameron, essentially they were picks 13 and 15 since Cameron only wanted to join Geelong who didn't have high picks.

 

[Doggy]

So essentially the expectation is pay bugger all for Butters to also ensure the Dogs can also match their 4 academy/FS players coming?

Somethings got to give as both of those won’t be happening without parting with a few other things. Where they come from, who knows but something will have to give.

Or ... we get points back which has been said a number of times...

 

[Doggy]

sooo, you have no idea?

I said before that 1st, F, and FF would be the offer, but i only double take because you said Dogs are all about fair trading. That’s pulling Ports pants down, even though yes it’s the most likely situation right now.

They’ll have to move some serious assets for it to not be a struggle that lasts all trade window

They have 3 first rounders already.

Port can huff and puff about wanting them in certain years, doesn't mean they will get it.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

GWS had to accept bugger all for Cameron, essentially they were picks 13 and 15 since Cameron only wanted to join Geelong who didn't have high picks.

There was also a third round 1 in there.

Cameron was also 2 years older (not reducing the fact he’s a gun but few more years of Butters in his prime), trading rules have also changed and we’re seeing greater prices being paid.

and with Tassie, any future picks will be worth significantly less.

So if they offer similar picks 13,15 and 20 whereby 15 and 20 are futures, that becomes around 13,25 and 35, it’s not at all unreasonable to tell them to find a way to improve that. Cats offer that to GWS and they likely say bugger off.

Curnow last year (yes contracted), went for a good 22 player, pick 11 and two F1s. Much more than previous trades whether contracted or not. Asking prices are increasing.

 

[powerrrrrrrrrrrr]

Or ... we get points back which has been said a number of times...

So we take 3 low firsts (essentially a first and 2 seconds), while also sending packaged with Butters some extra picks as well? Yeah don’t see that phone call being answered.

 

[Doggy]

So we take 3 low firsts (essentially a first and 2 seconds), while also sending packaged with Butters some extra picks as well? Yeah don’t see that phone call being answered.

You're really hell bent on the dogs trading out quality players aren't you. None would want to go to Port and they are all contracted so they don't have to go to any other club.

There is no guarantee where a pick will land within any round either.

Port's trading history shouldn't fill you with much confidence that they are going to hold anyone over a barrel.