2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[wolftone57]

It will be counted in their cap for this year but not for next year.

Apparently the difference is that Buddy was a free agent whilst Boyd was a traded player.

What I would love to know is;
* Have any free agents retired prematurely previously and if so, how were their retirements treated?
* Does this rule apply to any other current players other than Buddy?
* Was this a rule that was only introduced when we recruited Buddy?

It was a ruling only for Buddy

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

[S.S. Bleeder]

I can see the difference, but the lucrative offer by the fairypups would have been a big influence in him seeking a trade to start with. And GWS may have had the option of matching it to keep him.

Good point Barry. In essence it is a very similar situation.

The AFL argued that our offer to Buddy put him out of the range of Hawthorn and other clubs. However, isn't that what the Bulldogs did by offering a second year player over a million $ a year?

It really is hard to argue that a different rule should apply to us.

[S.S. Bleeder]

Here is a list of the current draft order base on this week ladder.
I have vlookup all the trade from last year for each round so its accurate.
With Carlton on the bottom, our Four Round trade for Newman is looking quite good.
But we need to trade our some players; both for picks and salary cap relief.
There is some good young talent out there, we just have to aggressive in targeting them.
Would love to get Balta and Bolton from the Tigers; they look brilliant against the Hawks with plenty of upside still there.

Indicative draft order after round six Draft Pick #
ROUND ONE Round One
ADEL1 Adelaide
NMFC2 North Melbourne
GCFC3 Gold Coast
MELB4 Melbourne
SYD 5 Sydney Swans
STK 6 St Kilda
WB 7 Western Bulldogs
HAW 8 Hawthorn
GWS 9 GWS Giants
FRE 10 Fremantle
PORT11 Port Adelaide
CARL 12 Carlton
WCE 13 West Coast
RICH 14 Richmond
GCFC15 Gold Coast
GWS 16 GWS Giants
BL 17 Brisbane
GEEL 18 Geelong Cats
ROUND TWO Round Two
ADEL19 Adelaide
NMFC20 North Melbourne
BL 21 Brisbane
MELB22 Melbourne
WCE 23 West Coast
SYD 24 Sydney Swans
WB 25 Western Bulldogs
HAW 26 Hawthorn
ESS 27 Essendon
FRE 28 Fremantle
PORT29 Port Adelaide
ADEL30 Adelaide
WCE 31 West Coast
RICH 32 Richmond
BL 33 Brisbane
ESS 34 Essendon
COLL 35 Collingwood
GEEL 36 Geelong Cats
ROUND THREE Round Three
CARL 37 Carlton
NMFC38 North Melbourne
RICH 39 Richmond
MELB40 Melbourne
SYD 41 Sydney Swans
WB 42 Western Bulldogs
WB 43 Western Bulldogs
WB 44 Western Bulldogs
ESS 45 Essendon
BL 46 Brisbane
HAW 47 Hawthorn
CARL 48 Carlton
SYD 49 Sydney Swans
GCFC50 Gold Coast
BL 51 Brisbane
GWS 52 GWS Giants
COLL 53 Collingwood
GEEL 54 Geelong Cats
ROUND FOUR Round Four
SYD 55 Sydney Swans
PORT56 Port Adelaide
STK 57 St Kilda
MELB58 Melbourne
SYD 59 Sydney Swans
WCE 60 West Coast
WB 61 Western Bulldogs
COLL 62 Collingwood
ESS 63 Essendon
ESS 64 Essendon
PORT65 Port Adelaide
PORT66 Port Adelaide
STK 67 St Kilda
RICH 68 Richmond
NMFC69 North Melbourne
CARL 70 Carlton
COLL 71 Collingwood
GEEL 72 Geelong Cats
ROUND FIVE Round Five
GWS 73 GWS Giants
NMFC74 North Melbourne
GCFC75 Gold Coast
MELB76 Melbourne
SYD 77 Sydney Swans
STK 78 St Kilda
WB 79 Western Bulldogs
HAW 80 Hawthorn
ESS 81 Essendon
FRE 82 Fremantle
PORT83 Port Adelaide
CARL 84 Carlton
GCFC85 Gold Coast
RICH 86 Richmond
BL 87 Brisbane
GWS 88 GWS Giants
HAW 89 Hawthorn
GEEL 90 Geelong Cats

Surely, Adelaide don't get Carltons pick until the end of the year? I wouldn't have thought that pick swaps applied to the mid season draft.

[Markwebbos]

It was a ruling only for Buddy

Sent from my ANE-LX2J using Tapatalk

There were a whole load of very dubious deals done when the Hawks recruited Ty Vickery on a 3 year deal that ended up only being 2. Who then retired after one year.

[Bloods05]

It really is hard to argue that a different rule should apply to us.

Which is why they have never made that argument in any meaningful way in any public forum. They just did us over and never explained why. And the sports media never called them to account.

[bloodspirit]

Does anyone know why we don't seem to have an additional mid season draft selection on account of Maibaum's season ending injury? Or do we, and has it just been overlooked?

[caj23]

Does anyone know why we don't seem to have an additional mid season draft selection on account of Maibaum's season ending injury? Or do we, and has it just been overlooked?

We selected Hayden McClean to replace him in the preseason

[dejavoodoo44]

We selected Hayden McClean to replace him in the preseason

Who's now filling the traditional role of; not playing, not on the injury list (although he probably is injured). It seems that we have one each season: Pink, Ronke.

[bloodspirit]

Nice one. Thanks, deja.

[707]

Good point Barry. In essence it is a very similar situation.

The AFL argued that our offer to Buddy put him out of the range of Hawthorn and other clubs. However, isn't that what the Bulldogs did by offering a second year player over a million $ a year?

It really is hard to argue that a different rule should apply to us.

Buddy was a RFA, Boyd was traded for GWS getting pick 3 and Griffen (from memory).

I think you'll find that post Buddy, contracts of players you pick up as RFA can't be altered in any way.

[Meg]

2019 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

There were a whole load of very dubious deals done when the Hawks recruited Ty Vickery on a 3 year deal that ended up only being 2. Who then retired after one year.

When Vickery retired at the end of the first year of his two year contract Hawthorn did have to count the whole of his $500,000 in the next year. And that was because he was a RFA.

‘HAWTHORN will be forced to accommodate the final year of Tyrone Vickery’s contract, reportedly worth $500,000, despite the much-maligned forward’s retirement.

New Hawthorn chief executive Justin Reeves confirmed AFL free agency rules would force the Hawks to incorporate the deal in the club’s 2018 salary cap, even though Vickery will not be with the team.’

Category: | Herald Sun

[Markwebbos]

When Vickery retired at the end of the first year of his two year contract Hawthorn did have to count the whole of his $500,000 in the next year. And that was because he was a RFA.

‘HAWTHORN will be forced to accommodate the final year of Tyrone Vickery’s contract, reportedly worth $500,000, despite the much-maligned forward’s retirement.

New Hawthorn chief executive Justin Reeves confirmed AFL free agency rules would force the Hawks to incorporate the deal in the club’s 2018 salary cap, even though Vickery will not be with the team.’

Category: | Herald Sun

I was more thinking how they lured him away from the Tigers with a 3 year deal (and I think this was a factor in the Tigers compensation pick) then the paperwork was only for 2.

This article sums it up

AFL quizzes Hawthorn for a second time over Vickery deal - AFL.com.au

[liz]

I was more thinking how they lured him away from the Tigers with a 3 year deal (and I think this was a factor in the Tigers compensation pick) then the paperwork was only for 2.

This article sums it up

AFL quizzes Hawthorn for a second time over Vickery deal - AFL.com.au

My recollection (and this is reflected in the article you provided a link to) is that the angst amongst other clubs wasn't due to the initial three year term but the reduction from three to two years. The AFL doesn't publish a transparent formula for working out compensation picks, but it's generally perceived to be based (amongst other criteria) on the per annum payment, rather than the total contract value. The presumption was that the Hawks restructured their overall offer to Vickery to be a two year deal, rather than three year, but on essentially the same money over the contract, thus making the per annum amount higher and improving the compensation pick the Tigers received. I imagine there was then a verbal agreement with Vickery that if he was retained beyond the initial two years, it would be on a significantly lower amount.

This just highlights one of the issues in the way compensation pick are handed out. They should just abolish them all. Free agents are free agents. And where the player is a restricted free agent, their current club's decision on whether to match the deal or not won't be distorted by the lure of a compensation pick.

[Markwebbos]

My view of it was that it was crooked. As the article says the Hawks put an article on their own website saying he had a 3 year deal and then changed it to 2 after the fact.

Imagine if we’d varied the terms of Buddy’s deal AFTER the Hawks had elected not to match it? That’s what happened with a restricted free agent.

The whole Vickery arrangement stinks

[liz]

My view of it was that it was crooked. As the article says the Hawks put an article on their own website saying he had a 3 year deal and then changed it to 2 after the fact.

Imagine if we’d varied the terms of Buddy’s deal AFTER the Hawks had elected not to match it? That’s what happened with a restricted free agent.

The whole Vickery arrangement stinks

Depends what you mean by "after the fact". They didn't change it after it had been made official and Richmond had had a chance to match. They changed it beforehand - reducing it from the originally touted three years down to two - for the purpose of securing Richmond a better compensation pick (ie by paying essentially the same total dollars but over two years, not three, thereby increasing the per annum amount on which the AFL's formulae machinations are based).