General Trade Discussion 2022

[TOT70]

Let’s just hope Geelong use their shiny new first round pick on the second coming of Darcy Lang.

 

[mrposhman]

So I’m trying to remember, despite no F2, can they trade their F1 for a range of other F picks ?

Trying to work how/if they can move up in the draft to secure Clark. Right now 7 is very precarious.

Actually I've just taken another look at this.

They could trade with the Hawks.

Something like:

Geelong In - Pick 6, F2 (tied to Bulldogs), F3 (tied to Hawks) and F4 (tied to Brisbane - I think)
Hawks In - Pick 7, Geelong F1

Based on finishing positions in 2022 thats a bit of a points gain for Geelong on the points system, but the Hawks do need mor top end talent. Getting Geelongs 1st for a bunch of later picsks next year they may be happy with that.

 

[Redford]

Actually I've just taken another look at this.

They could trade with the Hawks.

Something like:

Geelong In - Pick 6, F2 (tied to Bulldogs), F3 (tied to Hawks) and F4 (tied to Brisbane - I think)
Hawks In - Pick 7, Geelong F1

Based on finishing positions in 2022 thats a bit of a points gain for Geelong on the points system, but the Hawks do need mor top end talent. Getting Geelongs 1st for a bunch of later picsks next year they may be happy with that.

You might see a bit of draft night pick swapping this year.

 

[TOT70]

There is one thing Geelong have achieved this year. They have sent a clear message to the other 17 clubs to leave their Geelong Falcons stars to them. They will take them away first chance they get.

if they want Clark, no-one will take him earlier.

 

[Sintiger]

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. Players don’t just wake up one morning in September and find themselves with a ridiculous contract to play football over the next two years.

Club executives signed off on the contract. Yes, they can be back ended and now we have reached the crunch point. But that is not back luck,not something unavoidable. Bowes was given this contract at least a year ago and the back ended component was known then. The club continued to sign other players on above market rate contracts despite these issues being known. Why was the Chol deal allowed last year, for example? Surely that deal took GC well over the salary cap for this year, given the contracts in place for Bowes and Fiorini, to name just two.

Brodie and Fiorini we’re also salary dumps during the same period. Was dumping Brodie enough to allow Chol to fit in over the next four years? Obviously not. Why was it allowed?

How does Collingwood sign up Treloar and Grundy on long term, very lucrative contracts and then find out after a year or so that they can’t afford them? Surely the alarm bells were going off when they registered these contracts with the AFL. Aren’t we led to believe that the AFL requires this? And how can they now afford to bring in McStay and Mitchell and hold on to De Goey? Whose contract will they have to dump out next year?

Why aren’t these situations being monitored? As long as the AFL employs one individual with a simple grasp of Accounting, these situations become apparent immediately. Yet they are ticked off anyway. Or not monitored at all. Or the clubs falsify the information they give to the AFL.

If GC, Collingwood and GWS have been rorting the salary cap, then they have broken the rules of the competition. forcing a salary dump or two is not commensurate sanction.

I think you are blaming the wrong people. It is not up to the AFL to tell clubs how to manage their salary caps, only to monitor if they are breaking the rules. Clubs get fined for breaking the cap and I am pretty sure each one is checked out before a season starts to ensure a club doesn’t start a year in breach.
I don’t think we should be asking the afl to tell the giants that they have a massive problem from 2024 onwards and won’t be able to recontract Hopper and Taranto, that’s up to the club. These salary dump situations are long term issues not one year, the AFL’s responsibility is only to ensure a club pays under its cap in the year, not to manage their long term cap problems for them.
That being said if a club shows consistent poor financial management they may be in breach of their licence but that is a long term thing.

 

[spook]

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.

The Lions had a bit of help getting out of it. The AFL installed and paid for Greg Swann to run the club, gave them extra funding on multiple occasions, sent Mark Evans up to help out at one point, and gave them a priority pick that they effectively traded for Charlie Cameron.

 

[HKTigerB]

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.

This along with the fact that they have to pay a minimum of 95% is imho the problem. The 95% number for a re-building club (Gold Coast, North, West Coast) means that in a list of 38 +/- you have to overpay some players. They then expect future deals to reflect that pay level. That happens everywhere in every industry. Set an expectation and people expect to be paid a certain level.

 

[Aegean Tiger]

Nothing Geelong did during trade week will improve them in 2023. Dunkley and Gunston improves Brisbane.

Hopper and Taranto greatly improves us.

We are a big show next yr pending some luck with injuries.

 

[mrposhman]

Nothing Geelong did during trade week will improve them in 2023. Dunkley and Gunston improves Brisbane.

Hopper and Taranto greatly improves us.

We are a big show next yr pending some luck with injuries.

They are my 2 too, both Brisbane and the Tiges smashed the trade period. Addressing weaknesses that stopped both of us finishing top 4.

Neither Melbourne or Collingwood IMO addressed their weaknesses in this trade period.

Melbournes weakness is forward, so they bring in another ruck (they've never had a problem winning clearances).
Collingwood, I don't know how their recruits will affect their style, will Mitchell / McStay slow them down a touch, possibly. Will McStay be able to provide the same in the ruck as Cameron / Cox, or does he play as well as them, does that then mean they play 1 less small forward?

Reckon the Dogs are an interesting one, they will lose a bit with Dunkley leaving but he wasn't in their starting mid (was a rotation) and Lobb adds to theri forward mix. I think a lot for them will depend on Jones and Darcy improving their defence.

 

[artball]

Ollie Henrys move to Geelong described as "going home" ... 73kms down the M1 ...

 

[Brodders17]

This along with the fact that they have to pay a minimum of 95% is imho the problem. The 95% number for a re-building club (Gold Coast, North, West Coast) means that in a list of 38 +/- you have to overpay some players. They then expect future deals to reflect that pay level. That happens everywhere in every industry. Set an expectation and people expect to be paid a certain level.

true, but the players association will never agree to clubs paying less than 95%.
what those clubs should be doing is "forward-ending" contracts. why the Suns had to back end Bowes is mind boggling- they must have been paying close to the cap- but also shows the ongoing issue the Suns and Giants will have. they have to pay more to retain players, or they will leave. and that is not going to change in the near future.

 

[turk-d-tiger]

What i love the most about this trade period apart from fixing up our weaknesses is

* Richmond have tight TPP cap - Dusty , Lynch , Prestia and having to re sign Bolton
so what does Richmond do ? Get 2 players for 7 years at $700k+

 

[Brodders17]

Nothing Geelong did during trade week will improve them in 2023. Dunkley and Gunston improves Brisbane.

Hopper and Taranto greatly improves us.

We are a big show next yr pending some luck with injuries.

True.
Interesting how the forward line of Gunston, Daniher and Hipwood goes. None are exactly big bodied, pack busting forwards, and each prefers the ball out in front on the lead.

 

[Tenacious]

This along with the fact that they have to pay a minimum of 95% is imho the problem. The 95% number for a re-building club (Gold Coast, North, West Coast) means that in a list of 38 +/- you have to overpay some players. They then expect future deals to reflect that pay level. That happens everywhere in every industry. Set an expectation and people expect to be paid a certain level.

But whats the alternative? It seems reasonable to have some flexibility - rather than expecting clubs to pay the exact full salary cap limit. So if there's to be a bit of tolerance - is 5% the correct number- -or are you suggesting a smaller or bigger number?

 

[HKTigerB]

true, but the players association will never agree to clubs paying less than 95%.
what those clubs should be doing is "forward-ending" contracts. why the Suns had to back end Bowes is mind boggling- they must have been paying close to the cap- but also shows the ongoing issue the Suns and Giants will have. they have to pay more to retain players, or they will leave. and that is not going to change in the near future.

Agree. Thought of that after I posted.

 

[caesar]

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...

Who's to say North didn't try, I think at some stage they said a lot of clubs were interested but as GC were jettisoning Bowes from their club like a piece of trash, it was totally Bowe's decision on who he narrowed his choices down to and who would choose North.
That said he has made a bold choice for himself picking the Cat's that he can break into their midfield, if he can he has chosen well if not he will have just shortened his career whereas as Geelong will have the consolation of the player they pick at pick 7.

 

[Tenacious]

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.

i'm no expert on the salary cap - but what's wrong with that?

Surely as long as a club manages it's cap - it's up to them how want to do it. And if the players want to agree with a contract like that (your 4 year example) - again I'm not sure why that's wrong.

In the Treloar situation I was 100% in support of him receiving full money whether from Collingwood/Bulldogs or jointly.

Same with Bowes - I think. In my limited understanding - presumably he could have stayed at Gold Coast and had guaranteed good money for 2 years - and then get the arse. Maybe it suited all 3 parties to do they did.

Just me rambling on a day too wet to go outside!

 

[HKTigerB]

But whats the alternative? It seems reasonable to have some flexibility - rather than expecting clubs to pay the exact full salary cap limit. So if there's to be a bit of tolerance - is 5% the correct number- -or are you suggesting a smaller or bigger number?

Didn't say I had an answer...

Probably got to build some form of matrix based on a playing list's:
- years of experience
- Games played
- Some other relevant stat's

That comes up to a cumulative #. You then set ranges of salary caps so a young and in-experienced list enables the club/list manager to steadily grow the salaries as experience increases.

That's an example model that could be used. You'd probably have to have some controls that clubs can only be below 95% for 4 consecutive years, forcing them to either trade in experienced players or retaining and building a list.

It's how IT guys like me do overall Risk ranking so the options on matrices exist.

And as above getting the AFLPA to sign off on this would be hard but I would see it as "doable". I am an optimist.

 

[St Kevin]

There is one thing Geelong have achieved this year. They have sent a clear message to the other 17 clubs to leave their Geelong Falcons stars to them. They will take them away first chance they get.

if they want Clark, no-one will take him earlier.

17 ex-Falcons currently on their list.

 

[turk-d-tiger]

Who's to say North didn't try, I think at some stage they said a lot of clubs were interested but as GC were jettisoning Bowes from their club like a piece of trash, it was totally Bowe's decision on who he narrowed his choices down to and who would choose North.
That said he has made a bold choice for himself picking the Cat's that he can break into their midfield, if he can he has chosen well if not he will have just shortened his career whereas as Geelong will have the consolation of the player they pick at pick 7.

I personally think he has made a good choice and dont believe te $400k x 4 year deal

I think it will be more like $550kx4 getting him $2.2 mil over 4 years which is $400k for his 2 year extension
Bowes would be looing at where he will be able to get an extension in 4 years time when he is 28 years old

With most of the pensioners at Geelong already gone (13/14)
He has a good chance to get another 3 years