2018 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Markwebbos]

Some talk that the Roos might not want to take Nic Newman, so the Clarke "swap" might not happen.

[Markwebbos]

Gary Buckenara's view of the Hanners trade to the Saints: Category: | Herald Sun

Is he the type of player the Saints really need? I don’t think so. The Saints need pace and Hannebery doesn’t have that. I believe his best footy is behind him and I don’t consider him an A-grader anymore.

Unfortunately injuries have taken a toll on his body and significantly limited his output. He only averaged 18.7 disposals per game this year. That is some fall from grace after averaging 24.7 per game in 2017 and 30.8 the year before. If talk of a five-year deal is true, I believe that will bite St Kilda down the track.

I would give up a third-round pick at best for him in a trade.

[KSAS]

This is an extremely speculative piece, but no harm in dreaming

Will the Sydney Swans make a late charge at Dylan Shiel?

Sydney could make a late charge to acquire Dylan Shiel’s services, as the 25-year-old inches closer to making a call on his future.

Few weeks back Shiel's manager Paul Connors made statement Shiel will either stay at GWS or go to a Melb club, stating specifically we were out of the picture. Would've thought with Shiel's partner being Mark Williams daughter with strong Sydney side links, that we would be an option as well. Just wondering if that no Swans directive was from Shiel himself or GWS? If GWS, would it construe as a form of restraint of trade (assuming Shiel is open coming to us)?

[Markwebbos]

Shiel supposedly doesn’t want to go to a rebuilding club, which would put a line through Carlton and the Saints. Although $1.4m a year would be enticing.

That only leaves Hawthorn who have a worse first round pick than us to offer.

So we’d potentially be a better deal for GW$ although it is going to take more than pick 13 you’d think.

[Swansongster]

From an econometric perspective, the rules around free agency are dodgy as hell. The system makes third parties (i.e .other clubs) pay a transaction cost to the benefit of BOTH the transactors despite having no direct involvement. The main winner from any free agency deal appears to be the recipient club, which is itself driving free agency particularly because free agents will accept less to play at a 'destination' club and their old club knows retaining a player that wants out is a poor option. In this system, there is a free lunch and the football state clubs are munching on some rather tasty fare from the development state clubs. This situation is entirely of the AFL's making.

Why does the system not require the recipient club to pay a transaction cost other than cap space?

Dare I say it? Do we need a soccer-style system of transfer fees? Maybe they could be included in free agency negotiations as a complement to (or replacement of) the compensation pick system?

Of course, the AFL doesn't have a good track record on equalisation reform (IMHO), so they would be sure to stuff it up.

[goswannies]

Dare I say it? Do we need a soccer-style system of transfer fees? Maybe they could be included in free agency negotiations as a complement to (or replacement of) the compensation pick system?

Of course, the AFL doesn't have a good track record on equalisation reform (IMHO), so they would be sure to stuff it up.

They had one in the 80s. Doc Edelsten made good use of it

[dimelb]

Few weeks back Shiel's manager Paul Connors made statement Shiel will either stay at GWS or go to a Melb club, stating specifically we were out of the picture. Would've thought with Shiel's partner being Mark Williams daughter with strong Sydney side links, that we would be an option as well. Just wondering if that no Swans directive was from Shiel himself or GWS? If GWS, would it construe as a form of restraint of trade (assuming Shiel is open coming to us)?

I'm keeping my fingers crossed. I'm no expert but I doubt we could find a better prospect than Shiel.

[KSAS]

Worrying that a possible raft of FA moves are starting to dilute the points for our picks.

Lynch pushes back all our picks one place, Gaff & Lycett who appear almost certain to go push them back another two places and maybe more to come :-(

Also means we'll get less points for trading out pick 13 for two second rounders if that's what we do.

+1

My thought is that the first round compensations should be completely off limits in the way it impacts other clubs who are innocent bystanders as example shown above.

My idea is that in Restricted FA the receiving club should pay approx 50% of the points the FA agent player is deemed worth. The remaining 50% of points the AFL compensates the relieving club with 2nd round pick(s).

Using Tom Lynch as an example where the AFL deems he is worth pick 3 (2234 points). Richmond gives up their 1st round pick 16 (1067 points) to GC. AFL then compensates GC with picks 19 (948 points) + 62 (123 points).

Summary: Richmond get Lynch for just above 50% discount with their pick 16.
GC receives Picks 16, 19 and 62.
1st round remains untouched, not affecting other teams 1st rounds.

How does that stand up in equalisation, compensation and fairness?

[Melbourne_Blood]

Shiel supposedly doesn’t want to go to a rebuilding club, which would put a line through Carlton and the Saints. Although $1.4m a year would be enticing.

That only leaves Hawthorn who have a worse first round pick than us to offer.

So we’d potentially be a better deal for GW$ although it is going to take more than pick 13 you’d think.

They are thin on ruck stocks , Cameron ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[liz]

+1

My thought is that the first round compensations should be completely off limits in the way it impacts other clubs who are innocent bystanders as an example shown above.

My idea is that in Restricted FA the receiving club should pay approx 50% of the points the FA agent player is deemed worth. The remaining 50% of points the AFL compensates the relieving club with 2nd round pick(s).

Using Tom Lynch as an example where the AFL deems he is worth pick 3 (2234 points). Richmond gives up their 1st round pick 16 (1067 points) to GC. AFL then compensates GC with picks 19 (948 points) + 62 (123 points).
Summary: Richmond get Lynch for just above 50% discount with their pick 16.
GC receives Picks 16, 19 and 62.
1st round remains untouched, not affecting other teams 1st rounds.

How does that stand up in equalisation, compensation and fairness?

The most straightforward way would be to abolish compensation picks altogether. Clubs get a certain number of years service out of a player they draft, plus the opportunity to persuade that player he wants to stay at their club longer term. If they can't persuade him, they lose him.

The main argument against that is that we do have an uneven competition, with some teams intrinsically less attractive to moving players, something the salary cap doesn't seem adequate to overcome as players rarely move for the largest financial offer. The four northern teams will remain at a disadvantage while NSW and Queensland produce such a tiny proportion of AFL players, given how many move to their "home state". Sydney's disadvantage in this regard has been masked somewhat by the fact they have remained so competitive onfield for an extended period of time, and they have a small offsetting benefit of offering relative anonymity to star players. But that really only appeals to a select few. Brisbane have had some success in turning themselves into a attractive club to join in the last few years but their large salary cap space surely has a little to do with that. And, at least in the cases of Cameron and Beams, there was a "go home" factor involved too.

Gold Coast are struggling enough as it is, and if they were to get no compensation for losing Lynch, it would be a bitter blow. On the other hand, he's a restricted free agent and they really should have enough salary cap room to match any offer and force a trade. They won't, because they're going to get a top three pick, but if they weren't going to get such a pick they would certainly match and force a trade.

Requiring the acquiring club to give up something approaching the value of the compensation pick hacks away at the concept of free agency - ie it will make it harder for players to move. The media and supporters might not mind this (as most of us probably wish FA hadn't been introduced) but it was a player driven change, and the AFLPA would resist any changes that weakened the concept.

One straightforward change I think they could make is to look at net movement over a longer period (say a rolling three year period) in applying compensation. At the moment, if a club attracts a top tier free agent one season and loses one the next, they pay nothing to acquire the player and then get a valuable compensation pick when they lose someone the next, even though they're pretty much no worse off. That would provide protection to clubs like Gold Coast who lose more than they are able to attract but would reduce the overall cost of compensation picks that the rest of the competition bears. I don't think such a change would significantly affect the movement of players.

[Faunac8]

I don't think it's a massive mystery. He doesn't chase hard or put on consistent pressure. He might play a decent game occassionally - clunk a mark, deliver well into F50 - but it doesn't happen often enough and can't be relied upon. Too often we're left carrying him playing an ineffective 8-10 possession game.

Yes you raise some valid points however when you look at these statistics you tell me who provided better value for money? Feel free to substitute some other bottom 22 players in the comparison https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...&fid1=C&fid2=C

[KSAS]

They are thin on ruck stocks , Cameron ?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Was thinking the same, but offering Naismith instead of Cameron as I reckon Sinclair/Cameron combo would be better than Naismith/Sinclair in the long run. However Naismith has just signed up for further 3 years, so you'd think it puts him out of the equation.

[CureTheSane]

Gary Buckenara's view of the Hanners trade to the Saints: Category: | Herald Sun

Is he the type of player the Saints really need? I don’t think so. The Saints need pace and Hannebery doesn’t have that. I believe his best footy is behind him and I don’t consider him an A-grader anymore.

Unfortunately injuries have taken a toll on his body and significantly limited his output. He only averaged 18.7 disposals per game this year. That is some fall from grace after averaging 24.7 per game in 2017 and 30.8 the year before. If talk of a five-year deal is true, I believe that will bite St Kilda down the track.

I would give up a third-round pick at best for him in a trade.

All pretty much true, which is why everyone here is happy to part ways with Hanners

We just don't like to see it all put out there for everyone to see, kind of hoping other clubs aren't doing their due diligence...

[KSAS]

Personally I would rather keep Hanners if we are only going to get a 2nd round pick for him. His drop in performance last 2 seasons does coincide with him having interrupted pre-seasons during this time. Saints must be thinking the same going by their contract offer. Buckenera is making an opinion from the outside as we all are (me included!)

[Markwebbos]

Personally I would rather keep Hanners if we are only going to get a 2nd round pick for him. His drop in performance last 2 seasons does coincide with him having interrupted pre-seasons during this time. Saints must be thinking the same going by their contract offer. Buckenera is making an opinion from the outside as we all are (me included!)

Issue with Hanners isn't so much what we get for him, it's the chunk of our salary cap we are currently spending on him. Of course we'd like to get as much for him as possible. Others have called trading him "salary cap dumping"

I am becoming slightly concerned we don't have an A grade replacement lined up.