General Trade Discussion 2022

[The Big Richo]

yeah, thanks. The first part makes sense, it is what I thought but I probably expressed it poorly.

However, I thought clubs altered contracts all the time. Isn‘t that how they get into these backended arrangements? The media are always speculating that in order to fit the big name free agents in, clubs go to the other players on their lists and alter their contracts along these same lines.

Sounds like that is just media click bait then.

You definitely can do that but I think there is strict rules about it and it has to be at no disadvantage to the player.

So for example if Dustin has three years left at a million two each year and we wanted to add on two more at 800 for the 5, the AFL would approve because it is maintaining his market value over a longer period.

In GC and Bowes case it would hard to justify as anything more than a way to drop his cost. Your salary cap is calculated over three years and you can bank spare cap over that time up to 5%. They could easily bump up a salary to get them to 97-98% for a couple of years and then drop it to create a huge whack as well as getting to 105% in the same year.

 

[Redford]

Frockers offer $180,000 + match payments Cartoon offered $1M over 3 years
So chose Cartoon and their limitless salary cap

Even Rat Barrett was complaining on air yesterday about their seemingly unlimited salary cap.

 

[Leysy Days]

Melbourne are going to get Grundy for pick 27. Meanwhile we paid pick 4 equivalent for Taranto.

It's a stupid comparison. There is not a club on earth that would trade 4 for 12 & 19.

And it's not (or won't be) pick 4 anyway.

 

[Smoking Aces]

It's a stupid comparison. There is not a club on earth that would trade 4 for 12 & 19.

And it's not (or won't be) pick 4 anyway.

Thank you Leysy. This infatuation with points is doing my head in. It’s completely irrelevant.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Have a listen to North Melbourne.
We won't accept any deal.
They are after 2 1st rounders and Riley Bonner.
What does Polec need a friend in the 2's.
North are fked

 

[Redford]

Thank you Leysy. This infatuation with points is doing my head in. It’s completely irrelevant.

Nah disagree.

The points table for picks is a reference point for clubs to use when negotiating with one another and for the AFL to use when trying to apply equitable outcomes. If you don’t have any reference point at all, you’re just making up ambit valuations.

And I can 110% tell you that the clubs use it when talking with other clubs and also when evaluating internally the merits of a trade.

If it wasn’t of use, it wouldn’t exist. But it does. For a number of logical reasons.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

That's what we shouldve done

 

[Smoking Aces]

Nah disagree.

The points table for picks is a reference point for clubs to use when negotiating with one another and for the AFL to use when trying to apply equitable outcomes. If you don’t have any reference point at all, you’re just making up ambit valuations.

And I can 110% tell you that the clubs use it when talking with other clubs and also when evaluating internally the merits of a trade.

If it wasn’t of use, it wouldn’t exist. But it does. For a number of logical reasons.

Then what benefit does it provide to a club who can’t use these draft picks as a points value? People are saying pick 12 & 19 is equivalent to pick 4. It might be but that doesn’t give GWS the 4th pick in the draft. It’s a wank.

 

[Redford]

Then what benefit does it provide to a club who can’t use these draft picks as a points value? People are saying pick 12 & 19 is equivalent to pick 4. It might be but that doesn’t give GWS the 4th pick in the draft. It’s a wank.

It’s about assessing fairness and equivalency in a deal. If you don’t use anything, how do you know if you’re getting overs or unders when multiple picks are at play ? Or, if you’re trying to assess a deal v deals of a similar nature historically, how does it stack up ?

You’re just guessing if you don’t have some sort of standardised point of reference to use.

If it wasn’t of value it wouldn’t exist and clubs wouldn’t use it - which they do.

 

[deedee]

It's absolutely relevant, a second rounder is fair weight given he is coming back from injury & probably factors in some level of uncertainty but Hopper is commanding next year's first and then some. That for a player who has had two knee operations is a high price to pay, in fact I would say Hopper's value should only be fractionally more than Grundy, largely due to age, but not the current asking price.

I think Hooper gets us closer to a flag, I don't think Grundy does.

 

[Smoking Aces]

It’s about assessing fairness and equivalency in a deal. If you don’t use anything, how do you know if you’re getting overs or unders when multiple picks are at play ? Or, if you’re trying to assess a deal v deals of a similar nature historically, how does it stack up ?

You’re just guessing if you don’t have some sort of standardised point of reference to use.

If it wasn’t of value it wouldn’t exist and clubs wouldn’t use it - which they do.

I understand the concept and the rationale but in reality it’s irrelevant. The draft pick number is just that.

 

[Scoop]

The only issue I have with points and I don’t know how to fix it is that it doesn’t judge the depth of the draft.

A pick 4 in a average draft is worth the same points as in a strong draft.

You are really at the mercy of your internal information to truly understand value.

 

[btoz_01]

Points only matter when it come to FS picks
Multi picks shouldn’t be combined to somehow justify a trade as a top 10 pick

 

[Redford]

I understand the concept and the rationale but in reality it’s irrelevant. The draft pick number is just that.

Again, disagree. It’s a meaningful reference point for traders to use. Every half decent trade environment uses some sort of value system, of some sort.

 

[Ricemagic]

Who cares if Taranto's points value is equivalent to a pick 4.
If we're banging on about him being equivalent to a pick 4 then I was always under the impression drafting at pick 4 you'd want them to be a 7-10 year AFL player?
Isn't that what we're expecting from him? He's on a 7 year contract, he could go another 2-3 years after as well.
Or are we expecting him to be a Cale Morton, Anthony Morabito, Jimmy Toumpas, Jarrod Pickett (Pick 4's the last 15 years)

 

[deedee]

Again, disagree. It’s a meaningful reference point for traders to use. Every half decent trade environment uses some sort of value system, of some sort.

So do you think pick 12 and 19 is equal to pick 4? I mean what would you want to use at this years draft, 12 and 19 or 4?

 

[Redford]

So do you think pick 12 and 19 is equal to pick 4? I mean what would you want to use at this years draft, 12 and 19 or 4?

Yes. And if it wasn’t you wouldn’t have clubs splitting picks and numerous posters on this thread and other threads, plus the media, and clubs themselves all talking about splitting picks year on year. Whether a club wants to do it or not is another question ie what they value the player at an earlier pick at v multiples later.

 

[Liam_Nissan]

We were into Peter Wright years ago. Free agent next year is he gettable?

 

[jimbob]

The points value is irrelevant. For mine. When totting up points on draft picks it is still on unproven talent who haven’t played a game of AFL footy. Taranto is a known quantity/quality. I don’t really care about the points value.

 

[Smoking Aces]

We were into Peter Wright years ago. Now he’s asked for a trade is it Soldo out, Wright in?

Interesting

2m Peter wants out?