2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Legs Akimbo]

Don't agree. Bad trades are worse than no trades at all. What is the point of clearing out Rohan and Hanneberry then trading back in players who are less valuable list cloggers? We couldn't trade our best pick because we are already assured of a gun in return. Vandenberg and Langdon both WANTED to stay at their present clubs and were only looking for alternatives IF family issues or contract issues couldn't be resolved. Duryea is less valuable that Newman, so what's the use of going hard after him. I don't think we have overtly chased a player from another club and then been beaten by anyone but the incumbent, who is always 90% sure to retain those players they WANT.

I would be disappointed if we had made trades and finished up with St Kilda or Geelong marginal or seconds players. May, McRae, Lynch, Shiel, McCartin etc were never on our radar so they can't be deemed failures.

Fair enough. Depends on how you judge it. Wasn't suggesting we go on a list clogger drafting frenzy.

I was judging it against Harleys stated goals and the extent we improved our list. I am sure Harley will learn to be more circumspect in future.

They removed a cost of living allowance and now we find it hard to attract high performance players. Surprise surprise.

Another comment is that the decision to offer hanners a long contract on top dollars and then offload him deserves some scrutiny.

Fwiw I'm actually happy some.of our developing players will have a real opportunity, although a bad run with injuries in 2019 would be dire indeed. We are going to have a very young list with a few oldies. Time for some new leaders to.step.up.

[barry]

We'll be offering AJ a 5 year contract before the years out. mark my words.

[Thunder Shaker]

Official. Tom Scully to Hawthorn for a future 4th round pick... the pick they got given by GC for taking Scrimshaw off their hands for a future 3rd round pick... what a joke...

If it was the Sydney Swans doing this Eddy Everywhere would be up in arms and we would be prohibited from trading in any players at all in the following year. The AFL should be taking a close look at the Hawks' salary cap, it must be under some pressure.

I agree, it's a joke!

[Thunder Shaker]

From my understanding as soon as Blakey is bid on - say it is pick 8 so we would just have to use picks 26 and 33 to match it, then if it gets to a stage in the draft where a player we rate really highly is still available we could package up a combination of 38/39/40 to the club on the clock and depending on their needs they may be willing to trade down for more points.

Pick 8 is an interesting hypothetical. It almost exactly matches the draft values of picks 26 and 33 with the 20% discount (1551 vs 1550.4). We would give up those two picks, but then be left with a slab of three picks in a row at the end of the second round of the draft. It would be interesting drafting three players in a row.

[Thunder Shaker]

A club that may be interested in live trading of picks on draft night is North. They don't have a lot of points banked but they have three players they may be interested in recruiting: a Tasmanian academy player and two father-son prospects. If we have secured Blakey - say by his still being available at pick 10 - and a rival club bids on one of North's prospects, then North may want to do a live deal for pick 40 by swapping it for next year's second-round pick. North's 2019 second-round pick would be worthless to them because they would be losing it due to a points deficit, so such a trade would be of obvious benefit to both clubs. They may as well trade it for a pick we may have difficulty using anyway.

[liz]

I like the idea of tearing up contracts and making "go home" players like free agents, except their new clubs have to pay whatever is deemed to be fair for them in the same way a club would match an academy or f/s bid, but without a discount.

The problem there is how to determine what fair value is.

One of my other draft/trade reform ideas is to give clubs who lose an out-of-contract but non-free agent player the option of sending them to the draft if they can't negotiate what they think is fair value. But the releasing club then gets to use whatever pick they are taken at in the draft.

For example, say in two years time, 2019 RS winner Lukosis say he wants to leave Gold Coast and nominates Adelaide as the club he wants to join. Adelaide finishes runner-up that year so their first draft pick is around 17, and they're unwilling to give up any players to get a better pick. They say to Gold Coast, "take it or leave it, it's the best offer we're can make". Under the present system Gold Coast can refuse to trade and Lukosis can walk out and nominate for the draft (knowing he probably won't get to Adelaide). Gold Coast can do that but they probably won't because they get zilch back. So they're between a rock and a hard place.

Under my idea they can let him walk to the draft. Suppose St Kilda choose him at pick 3. Then that pick reverts to Gold Coast and they have the next choice in the draft. It may seem as if draft picks are being created from nowhere, like the FA compensation system, but it really doesn't disadvantage the other clubs in the same way. After all, had Gold Coast traded him to St Kilda for pick 3 during trade week, they would have had that pick anyway. It's just that Lukosis would never have been in the draft pool.

What this system would do is let the draft market decide what a fair value is for the player and also protected clubs against effectively being coerced into trading their brightest young players for well under value. It might also make players think twice about leaving their club before they are a free agent as it takes away some of their power to nominate a single club. And it would persuade clubs who want to trade for non-free agents to actually come up with the trade currency to make a proper offer, knowing that if they don't, they likely won't get that player.

To further facilitate the draft process, I'd put a cap on the contract size a player can put on their head in the National Draft. At the moment, any player who has completed two years on a list (and maybe some older players who've yet to be on a list - I'm not entirely sure) are allowed to nominate their contract terms. Clearly this would affect which other clubs might take them in the draft and could push their draft position down. The club losing the player would still get some compensation but maybe not as much as they ought. So the contract could be capped based on a range of factors, including years served, games played, possibly with adjustments for high B&F finishes, AA selections, RS winners etc. For the young stars, this would limit their contract earning potential with their new club and might further persuade them to rethink their desire to leave. Of course, once they're at their new club, if they do go through the draft, they can always negotiate a higher amount if the club is willing. But there will be no obligation on the club who drafted them to do so.

I'd also get rid of the PSD. It served its purpose before free agency but is almost never used now, and removing it would take away a potential loop hole to my proposed scheme. Indeed, I wish the AFL would just get rid of it anyway (as I know they'll never actually adopt anything along the lines of what I've suggested).

The main weakness with the proposal is that it doesn't work particularly well for the very best players where multiple high draft picks are often traded. The highest compensation a club could receive is draft pick 1. But those trades are relatively few and far between, and my proposal doesn't preclude the two clubs negotiating a trade that does involve multiple picks. It just gives the club on the losing end a better BATNA.

[stevoswan]

Kade Kolodjashnij is one we haven’t talked about and meets our needs ?

190cm silky left footer HBF on transition and still available for a pick 26 or 33 easily if not later I would think

Like a Malceski and faster outside run

He is finally clear of all his physical issues and played brilliantly vs the swans

Melbourne demons wants him ......and why would they not? ........he is a best 22 improver at full health

Demons are juggling massively their recruits etc .......but we have cap space and picks that would be enticing vs demons

Kade Kolodjashnij - goldcoastfc.com.au

Kade Kolodjashnij produces season-best game - YouTube

Already gone? This was from the 'trade blog' about 2 pm this afternoon:

"Kolodjashnij set to become a Demon: Cameron

The Suns are set to broker a deal that will send Kade Kolodjashnij to the Demons.

The deal, according to Suns list manager Craig Cameron, could potentially involve the movement of co-captain Steven May and could land as early as this afternoon."

I suppose it only says "set to" and the trade didn't eventually get done.....I'm a bit slow..

[Bloody Hell]

The problem there is how to determine what fair value is.

One of my other draft/trade reform ideas is to give clubs who lose an out-of-contract but non-free agent player the option of sending them to the draft if they can't negotiate what they think is fair value. But the releasing club then gets to use whatever pick they are taken at in the draft.

For example, say in two years time, 2019 RS winner Lukosis say he wants to leave Gold Coast and nominates Adelaide as the club he wants to join. Adelaide finishes runner-up that year so their first draft pick is around 17, and they're unwilling to give up any players to get a better pick. They say to Gold Coast, "take it or leave it, it's the best offer we're can make". Under the present system Gold Coast can refuse to trade and Lukosis can walk out and nominate for the draft (knowing he probably won't get to Adelaide). Gold Coast can do that but they probably won't because they get zilch back. So they're between a rock and a hard place.

Under my idea they can let him walk to the draft. Suppose St Kilda choose him at pick 3. Then that pick reverts to Gold Coast and they have the next choice in the draft. It may seem as if draft picks are being created from nowhere, like the FA compensation system, but it really doesn't disadvantage the other clubs in the same way. After all, had Gold Coast traded him to St Kilda for pick 3 during trade week, they would have had that pick anyway. It's just that Lukosis would never have been in the draft pool.

What this system would do is let the draft market decide what a fair value is for the player and also protected clubs against effectively being coerced into trading their brightest young players for well under value. It might also make players think twice about leaving their club before they are a free agent as it takes away some of their power to nominate a single club. And it would persuade clubs who want to trade for non-free agents to actually come up with the trade currency to make a proper offer, knowing that if they don't, they likely won't get that player.

To further facilitate the draft process, I'd put a cap on the contract size a player can put on their head in the National Draft. At the moment, any player who has completed two years on a list (and maybe some older players who've yet to be on a list - I'm not entirely sure) are allowed to nominate their contract terms. Clearly this would affect which other clubs might take them in the draft and could push their draft position down. The club losing the player would still get some compensation but maybe not as much as they ought. So the contract could be capped based on a range of factors, including years served, games played, possibly with adjustments for high B&F finishes, AA selections, RS winners etc. For the young stars, this would limit their contract earning potential with their new club and might further persuade them to rethink their desire to leave. Of course, once they're at their new club, if they do go through the draft, they can always negotiate a higher amount if the club is willing. But there will be no obligation on the club who drafted them to do so.

I'd also get rid of the PSD. It served its purpose before free agency but is almost never used now, and removing it would take away a potential loop hole to my proposed scheme. Indeed, I wish the AFL would just get rid of it anyway (as I know they'll never actually adopt anything along the lines of what I've suggested).

The main weakness with the proposal is that it doesn't work particularly well for the very best players where multiple high draft picks are often traded. The highest compensation a club could receive is draft pick 1. But those trades are relatively few and far between, and my proposal doesn't preclude the two clubs negotiating a trade that does involve multiple picks. It just gives the club on the losing end a better BATNA.

Good idea!

And don't give up on the AFL... I remember discussing the draft points system with you years ago, and the AFL (eventually) adopted that!

[tlock]

Players shouldn't have a say of what team they get traded to unless they're an un-restricted free agent. Right now players have too much power. Players want to win premierships and they'd prefer to go to clubs with a stronger chance of winning the GF. Lower ranked clubs are disadvantaged every trade period. The AFL needs to fix this issue.

[707]

Anyone feeling envious of Hawthorn's recruitment of Scrimshaw at a bargain basement price should have a read of this.

Bargain or bust? Question marks over new Hawk - AFL.com.au

Not the fairly strange comparisons to Pendlebury (for someone who's played so little senior football) but more for observations like this:



I've watched a good handful of NEAFL games against the Suns over the last two years and I'd struggle to think of one occasion when I noticed Scrimshaw (and I know he played in at least some of those games).

Good luck to the guy. Hope a change of scene helps things click for him, but I won't be holding my breath.

Come on Liz, like the rest of us you hope Scrimshaw, Scully and if he gets there Wingard are busts for the Hawks! We all hate them :-)

[Ludwig]

The Hawks have caught many big fishes,



and now they will have to sleep with them.

[S.S. Bleeder]

The problem there is how to determine what fair value is.

One of my other draft/trade reform ideas is to give clubs who lose an out-of-contract but non-free agent player the option of sending them to the draft if they can't negotiate what they think is fair value. But the releasing club then gets to use whatever pick they are taken at in the draft.

For example, say in two years time, 2019 RS winner Lukosis say he wants to leave Gold Coast and nominates Adelaide as the club he wants to join. Adelaide finishes runner-up that year so their first draft pick is around 17, and they're unwilling to give up any players to get a better pick. They say to Gold Coast, "take it or leave it, it's the best offer we're can make". Under the present system Gold Coast can refuse to trade and Lukosis can walk out and nominate for the draft (knowing he probably won't get to Adelaide). Gold Coast can do that but they probably won't because they get zilch back. So they're between a rock and a hard place.

Under my idea they can let him walk to the draft. Suppose St Kilda choose him at pick 3. Then that pick reverts to Gold Coast and they have the next choice in the draft. It may seem as if draft picks are being created from nowhere, like the FA compensation system, but it really doesn't disadvantage the other clubs in the same way. After all, had Gold Coast traded him to St Kilda for pick 3 during trade week, they would have had that pick anyway. It's just that Lukosis would never have been in the draft pool.

What this system would do is let the draft market decide what a fair value is for the player and also protected clubs against effectively being coerced into trading their brightest young players for well under value. It might also make players think twice about leaving their club before they are a free agent as it takes away some of their power to nominate a single club. And it would persuade clubs who want to trade for non-free agents to actually come up with the trade currency to make a proper offer, knowing that if they don't, they likely won't get that player.

To further facilitate the draft process, I'd put a cap on the contract size a player can put on their head in the National Draft. At the moment, any player who has completed two years on a list (and maybe some older players who've yet to be on a list - I'm not entirely sure) are allowed to nominate their contract terms. Clearly this would affect which other clubs might take them in the draft and could push their draft position down. The club losing the player would still get some compensation but maybe not as much as they ought. So the contract could be capped based on a range of factors, including years served, games played, possibly with adjustments for high B&F finishes, AA selections, RS winners etc. For the young stars, this would limit their contract earning potential with their new club and might further persuade them to rethink their desire to leave. Of course, once they're at their new club, if they do go through the draft, they can always negotiate a higher amount if the club is willing. But there will be no obligation on the club who drafted them to do so.

I'd also get rid of the PSD. It served its purpose before free agency but is almost never used now, and removing it would take away a potential loop hole to my proposed scheme. Indeed, I wish the AFL would just get rid of it anyway (as I know they'll never actually adopt anything along the lines of what I've suggested).

The main weakness with the proposal is that it doesn't work particularly well for the very best players where multiple high draft picks are often traded. The highest compensation a club could receive is draft pick 1. But those trades are relatively few and far between, and my proposal doesn't preclude the two clubs negotiating a trade that does involve multiple picks. It just gives the club on the losing end a better BATNA.

I like it. As you say, it's not perfect but it's better than the current system which is completely juicy fruited and massively benefits the footy states, especially Victoria.

[dejavoodoo44]

Come on Liz, like the rest of us you hope Scrimshaw, Scully and if he gets there Wingard are busts for the Hawks! We all hate them :-)

Yes, a freak training accident involving O'Meara and Scully; where O'Meara steps on Scully's foot. The ensuing tangle sees another serious knee injury to O'Meara and an ankle break to Scully. Mitchell and Clarkson get involved in a fist fight, arguing over whose fault it was.

[Molly dooker]

Well at least Tom Harley’s performance might take a bit of the heat off Horse ! Where’s the Harley must go thread !

+1 Might stop the exodus since his arrival.

Think about it, what has happened since his arrival..... Dr Gibbs, Dew, Shaw, other coaches and staff, players leaving and not bringing in others as there is not the same culture.

On the positive, we have secured a new training facility ....aaaaannnnddddd.

It can't come down to one person, surely, but a huge amount has changed. Not a lot for the good.

One day of trade to go but there is a lot for him yo prove as it has been a failure apart from Clarke and some trading points. Whoopdedoo.

[Markwebbos]

Read this re: the Scully trade this morning. This bit made me think WTF

How Hawthorn Hawks got Tom Scully in “greatest giveaway of all-time”

“It is a risk, but at the same time, if he does have an injury that allows him to never play again, the payments they make for Tom Scully will fall outside the salary cap.”