General Trade Discussion 2022

[The Big Richo]

The bigger question is, why do teams get into these salary cap issues? For these salary dumps to be needed, the teams must already be over the salary cap.

Not the case, TOT. The creation of cap room is about the future.

Realistically, no team would ever spend 100% of the cap. Your cap might be at 100% on paper but for that to occur you need the perfect season. You would have to have your best 22 play every week, win the premiership, and trigger every other bonus for games, best and fairest awards, Brownlow, All-Australian etc......

There's a point in the season where you can adjust a bit but still highly unlikely to ever get to the maximum.

The reason for the cap wriggling is most teams would have about a third of their list as a minimum out of contract at the end of the season and they all want an increase to sign again. Each draftee you have that has finished the set two year deal jumps up by about 200k minimum and more if they are playing regular senior footy so if you don't have players on good money retiring it gets tight quick.

Then you have your rank and file guys coming to their third deal who have become good senior players between years 3 and 5, who need another 200-300k kick to sign them and then if you have a star on your hands you might have to find 4 to 500k to satisfy them.

If you get players who take off quicker than anticipated or get to a higher level than you thought they could then things can get really tight quickly.

If you didn't shift the salary in the trade period, what would happen is when next year comes and you had x amount of guys out of contract you just wouldn't be able to offer them what they wanted and many would leave.

 

[IanG]

And for a different perspective Julian de Scoop said:

This equalization debate around trade time is nauseating. No one wanted to go to Port, Melbourne or Brisbane less than 10 years ago. Back then Hawthorn was a destination club and North acquired Dal Santo, Higgins and Waite, It ebbs and flows

And then Treloar didn't want to come to the Tigers

Yep I was just talking about this with a Carlton supporting colleague. The simple fact is you become a destination club by improving the club internally to become a great club organisationally as we did.

Speaking of salary cap, I'm bemused by the big kudos Geelong are getting, A+es everywhere. No talk of the potential downside of a $2 million boat anchor on their cap. All the players they recruited are stars. Holding on to Ratagalea is great, the fact he isn't happy doesn't register. Its all beer and skittles down at KP.

Its just more evidenec of the media bias towards Geesook.

 

[AstuteTiger]

They rated Geeelong the biggest winners out of the trade.

There is no way they did better than us. We brought in two absolute stars, A-grade mids that will shape our season in 2023 and beyond.

They brought in 3 players who will be lucky to play games in 2023. The jury is still out on Bruhn, Henry I do rate but let's see how he goes.
Bowes average player, steak knives to the pick 7 deal.

They gave them 10 out of 10 purely cause of pick 7.

 

[Jason King]

Brisbane already had a good midfield and now it's even better. Then they add Ashcroft for free and likely get another (Fletcher). How they got Dunkley for so cheap is a crime.

Geelong and Port Radelaide got much better as well. Even the Dee's got that much better.

Not sure just Hopper and Tarantula are enough. In likelihood we could be without Cotchin and Prestia for large chunks of the year and Martin is an unknown.We do have a gun in Bolton and I am ultra keen on Sonsie.

Who knows, maybe those clubs cop the injury curse like we have had for the past three years.

Just shows how hard a job list management ment is.

 

[The Big Richo]

Yep I was just talking about this with a Carlton supporting colleague. The simple fact is you become a destination club by improving the club internally to become a great club organisationally as we did.

Not sure that is reflected in what we saw though, Ian.

Melbourne have been a mess off the field and good players still coming in, Brisbane's coach may well never work in footy again and they attract the best midfielder traded.

The only common denominator in terms of clubs doing well in trade week seems to be they are winning more games.

 

[daniel30]

I would have loved to get Sharp over from the sun's quality player.

 

[TOT70]

Not the case, TOT. The creation of cap room is about the future.

Realistically, no team would ever spend 100% of the cap. Your cap might be at 100% on paper but for that to occur you need the perfect season. You would have to have your best 22 play every week, win the premiership, and trigger every other bonus for games, best and fairest awards, Brownlow, All-Australian etc......

There's a point in the season where you can adjust a bit but still highly unlikely to ever get to the maximum.

The reason for the cap wriggling is most teams would have about a third of their list as a minimum out of contract at the end of the season and they all want an increase to sign again. Each draftee you have that has finished the set two year deal jumps up by about 200k minimum and more if they are playing regular senior footy so if you don't have players on good money retiring it gets tight quick.

Then you have your rank and file guys coming to their third deal who have become good senior players between years 3 and 5, who need another 200-300k kick to sign them and then if you have a star on your hands you might have to find 4 to 500k to satisfy them.

If you get players who take off quicker than anticipated or get to a higher level than you thought they could then things can get really tight quickly.

If you didn't shift the salary in the trade period, what would happen is when next year comes and you had x amount of guys out of contract you just wouldn't be able to offer them what they wanted and many would leave.

Which is the point of a salary cap.

My point is, multi year contracts are there and are in place for multiple years. That is a certainty. You can’t just keep bringing in more players and paying the ones you have even more again without factoring in the multiple year contracts that you already have in place.

The AFL scrutineers need to assess this. Should Chol have been allowed to go to GC with the Bowes contract already in place, if it meant that Bowes would have to be dumped out of a contract? This is poor practice at best and, most likely, not ethical and in breach of salary cap rules.

Should Richmond be allowed to bring in another player this year, given that Lynch, Martin and now Hopper and Taranto have multi year contracts in place which compromise future caps. Suppose, next week, they pick up a Free Agent and pay him above market rates and this forces another player to be squeezed out next year, a la Bowes. Surely, this problem is predictable and preventable now. All the AFL has to do is say, no, enough is enough!

That is why this is happening. The salary cap is in place to PREVENT one club from paying its players above market rates. It just needs to be enforced.

Just like rule changes on field. Just enforce the rules that are already in place.

 

[achillesjones]

Now that the trade season is done, I am amazed that a team like North didn't grab the Bowes/7 deal. Surely they have salary cap space and they need the new talent at pick 7 or even trade 7 for a classy mid. Perplexing...

 

[The Big Richo]

Which is the point of a salary cap.

My point is, multi year contracts are there and are in place for multiple years. That is a certainty. You can’t just keep bringing in more players and paying the ones you have even more again without factoring in the multiple year contracts that you already have in place.

The AFL scrutineers need to assess this. Should Chol have been allowed to go to GC with the Bowes contract already in place, if it meant that Bowes would have to be dumped out of a contract? This is poor practice at best and, most likely, not ethical and in breach of salary cap rules.

Should Richmond be allowed to bring in another player this year, given that Lynch, Martin and now Hopper and Taranto have multi year contracts in place which will take them over the cap next year, if, next week, they pick up a Free Agent and pay him above market rates? This would force another player to be squeezed out next year, a la Bowes.

That is why this is happening? The salary cap is in place to PREVENT one club from paying its players above market rates.

The salary cap only gives you a limit on your total spend, the club decides what each player is worth to them.

Bowes wasn't forced out, as a contracted player he could refuse to be traded and he would stay at the Suns on the current deal. That would just mean that the contract they offer someone else next year would have to be less, in the same way we will have less to offer with all those guys on good coin and will inevitably lose someone we want to keep.

 

[Brodders17]

Which is the point of a salary cap.

My point is, multi year contracts are there and are in place for multiple years. That is a certainty. You can’t just keep bringing in more players and paying the ones you have even more again without factoring in the multiple year contracts that you already have in place.

The AFL scrutineers need to assess this. Should Chol have been allowed to go to GC with the Bowes contract already in place, if it meant that Bowes would have to be dumped out of a contract? This is poor practice at best and, most likely, not ethical.

Should Richmond be allowed to bring in another player this year, given that Lynch, Martin and now Hopper and Taranto have multi year contracts in place which will take them over the cap next year, if, next week, they pick up a Free Agent and pay him above market rates? This would force another player to be squeezed out next year, a la Bowes.

That is why this is happening? The salary cap is in place to PREVENT one club from paying its players above market rates.

As long as clubs dont pay over the cap in any 1 year the AFL should stay out of it. The Suns chose to give Bowes a contract that had him receiving big $$$ in the next 2 years. They thought he would be a part of their midfield. they go it wrong, and now want out. Bowes is happy to get paid elsewhere, and the Suns pay someone to correct their mistake. it is a professional comp and teams need to wear their mistakes.
The Pies have now decided that the $$$ they owed Grundy werent the best use of their cap. it appears they could have kept paying him, but preferred to pay McStay and Mitchell instead. as a result they got pick 27 for a guy they could have traded for 2 1st rd picks 2 years ago. their own fault.

but clubs should not rely on the AFL to save them from themselves. I dont reckon clubs should be limited in what future picks they trade- again good clubs will make good choices, but we for example would not have been able to trade our future 2nd rd pick cos we traded out our 1st- the AFL should let clubs decide what is best. (same goes for priority picks- clubs make mistakes they should make the right choices to improve.)

 

[TOT70]

The salary cap only gives you a limit on your total spend, the club decides what each player is worth to them.

Bowes wasn't forced out, as a contracted player he could refuse to be traded and he would stay at the Suns on the current deal. That would just mean that the contract they offer someone else next year would have to be less, in the same way we will have less to offer with all those guys on good coin and will inevitably lose someone we want to keep.

What if they would be over the cap from day 1 next year with his contract in place?

 

[Brodders17]

Not sure that is reflected in what we saw though, Ian.

Melbourne have been a mess off the field and good players still coming in, Brisbane's coach may well never work in footy again and they attract the best midfielder traded.

The only common denominator in terms of clubs doing well in trade week seems to be they are winning more games.

it remains to be seen with Melb if they can maintain success, but the likes of us and the Lions deserve a lot of credit (I know we get it on here- reality is the Lions dont) as we were both basket cases who were poor on and off the field, but we both turned it around by making good choices.

 

[Brodders17]

What if they would be over the cap from day 1 next year with his contract in place?

Clubs can pay 105% of the cap in a single year, but then have to pay less the next- I am not sure how many years they get to average it out- either 2 or 3.

the Suns are saying they could have afforded Bowes, but wanted to free up the money so they can pay Rowell, Anderson and King in the next few years.

 

[TOT70]

As long as clubs dont pay over the cap in any 1 year the AFL should stay out of it. The Suns chose to give Bowes a contract that had him receiving big $$$ in the next 2 years. They thought he would be a part of their midfield. they go it wrong, and now want out. Bowes is happy to get paid elsewhere, and the Suns pay someone to correct their mistake. it is a professional comp and teams need to wear their mistakes.
The Pies have now decided that the $$$ they owed Grundy werent the best use of their cap. it appears they could have kept paying him, but preferred to pay McStay and Mitchell instead. as a result they got pick 27 for a guy they could have traded for 2 1st rd picks 2 years ago. their own fault.

but clubs should not rely on the AFL to save them from themselves. I dont reckon clubs should be limited in what future picks they trade- again good clubs will make good choices, but we for example would not have been able to trade our future 2nd rd pick cos we traded out our 1st- the AFL should let clubs decide what is best. (same goes for priority picks- clubs make mistakes they should make the right choices to improve.)

It is not about clubs making mistakes and having to fix them, which is a perfectly logical position.

It is about monitoring breaches. If the cap is $13m and a club has $14m in contracts in place for next year, they have breached the rules. If a club registers a four year contract for $300k, $300k, $800k and $900k, questions need to be asked.

 

[Ridley]

Speaking of salary cap, I'm bemused by the big kudos Geelong are getting, A+es everywhere. No talk of the potential downside of a $2 million boat anchor on their cap. All the players they recruited are stars. Holding on to Ratagalea is great, the fact he isn't happy doesn't register. Its all beer and skittles down at KP.

And in the rush to pile on to the Geelong love fest some of the reporting of their trading is blatantly inaccurate. Some peanut (think it was Jay Clark) said that all Henry cost them was pick 25. Ah no; it cost them pick 25 PLUS Cooper Stephens who was a local lad first round draft pick (16) a couple of years back. That is a high price to pay and they've also lost a highly rated local lad. Not much mention of that. The way the media report on Geelong and Richmond is at opposite ends of the spectrum; it is bizarre.

 

[Little Ziggyadee]

Heh heh heh….Sam Cheeseburger rated the Swans trade period an 8.5 because they got Aaron Francis.

Did Essendon get A+

 

[The Big Richo]

What if they would be over the cap from day 1 next year with his contract in place?

They can't be. The cap is in place and every time you sign a player for that year the maximum return for that player is taken into account. If you try and sign a player and go over the cap the contract won't be accepted.

So for us now we will have all bar three or four players left signed for next year and we will have enough cap room to take the draftees at their standard rate and then what's left, which has to be enough to cover the minimum. So we might have 300k left and decide to sign RCD and Aarts and give them 150k each total with incentives. If we tried to sign one of them for 300 the contract wouldn't be approved.

Then next year we will have x amount of players under contract worth x amount of money. As we add more players to deals the available money left declines until we have left the minimum to fill the number of list spots we need.

 

[Scoop]

Here's some late mail I've got.

Dunkley left the Dogs purely due to wages. And I know you hear that a lot at trade time. But the gap is astounding. It's basically a 50% increase the Lions are giving him and it's around 650-700 a year. They gave him the McStay money plus a bit. For three years Dunkley's management asked the Dogs to revise the contract, look at the terms and do something. They did nothing. And he walked. Gave them multiple chances to look after him. That's why he was willing to walk to the draft. He was rightly furious. What's ironic is that getting his best mate Treloar may have cost him.

 

[spook]

And for a different perspective Julian de Scoop said:

This equalization debate around trade time is nauseating. No one wanted to go to Port, Melbourne or Brisbane less than 10 years ago. Back then Hawthorn was a destination club and North acquired Dal Santo, Higgins and Waite, It ebbs and flows

And then Treloar didn't want to come to the Tigers

Smartest thing de Stoopid's ever said.

 

[Brodders17]

And in the rush to pile on to the Geelong love fest some of the reporting of their trading is blatantly inaccurate. Some peanut (think it was Jay Clark) said that all Henry cost them was pick 25. Ah no; it cost them pick 25 PLUS Cooper Stephens who was a local lad first round draft pick (16) a couple of years back. That is a high price to pay and they've also lost a highly rated local lad. Not much mention of that. The way the media report on Geelong and Richmond is at opposite ends of the spectrum; it is bizarre.

yep- pick up a failed 1st rd pick- Bowes= a great pick up. trade another 1st rd pick (who played better football this year than anyone they recruited) = no mention. and they traded out their 2nd rd pick this, and their 2nd, 3rd and 4th next year.
The Cats only have 1 player they used a 1st rd pick on prior to 2019 on their list- Cam Guthrie.

They better hope they are able to keep bringing in quality players, or the cliff will hit them hard soon.