2020 trading, drafting and list management: players and personnel

[Nico]

According to SEN, Saints are offloading 2 players to Crows in order to give them the cap space to pay Crouch enough to trigger pick 2 as RFA compo.

The two Saints who could be off to Adelaide as part of Crouch negotiations

I wonder if that will happen? Damien Barratt is adamant they won’t get pick 2

Which means St Kilda are paying overs and Adelaide are punting on pick 2. Unless of course they have got the heads up from head office.

[Nico]

List management does now appear to be a very testosterone fuelled, aggressive business.

Hinckley wouldn’t express an interest in Fantasia this week, until Fantasia has publicly expressed an interest in returning to SA. But I wonder if he’s the public face and behind the scenes clubs are trying to prise players out of their contracts all the time?

Allegedly the Bombers have made a ridiculous offer to Josh Dunkley to do just that. Having done something similar with Jye Caldwell.

Kane Cornes said on SEN this morning that the system is broken when a 2 year player who has played 11 games can ask for $500 grand a year over 5 years. He said this in the context of the draft rules. I agreed with what he said but I see it as a huge gamble by Essendon. Smith and Shiel haven't got them into the finals. What I have seen of Caldwell hasn't set me on fire.

- - - Updated - - -

The report is that Adelaide will take some salary off Kilda by getting two St Kilda players so that St Kilda can offer Crouch big pay deal so that Adelaide will get pick 2.
That is as shoddy as it gets.
But if it’s given a green light by AFL which it would given how hopeless they are then we will be effectively pick 5.

We will then have to choose from Will Phillips, Tanner Bruhn or Denver.
Tanner is from Geelong side and the risk of losing him is too high. Maybe we would choose Will Phillips then.

Yep, Geelong will into him before he gets on the plane to Sydney.

[Ludwig]

There's a lot of barely legal draft manipulation going on, and it's almost negligence if your list manager hasn't engaged in this practice. The Swans have specialized in stretching the rules with creative pick swapping on draft night. The Tippett recruitment was also a trade manipulation to some extent.

I find the Saints-Adelaide shenanigans inventive trading and fair enough, even if only barely allowable. I think the AFL will look at this and not be moved to grant Adelaide pick 2, regardless of the Crouch contract. If that turns out to be the case, then it's just an agreement to get the trade value right, without the AFL paying for it.

On the other hand, the GWS-Geelong deal looks more like draft manipulation in that it's a trick to get the AFL, effectively the other clubs, to fork up a high draft pick in lieu of a straight out trade that should occur when an RFA contract is matched.

[Nico]

So what happens if GWS offer $1 over the Geelong offer?

[Markwebbos]

Yep, Geelong will into him [Tanner Bruhn] before he gets on the plane to Sydney.

There's actually an article this week about how Geelong do precisely that with players from the Geelong Falcons

Why Geelong has the best 'go-home factor' in the AFL

THE BEST 'go-home' factor in football belongs to Geelong. It is not being Victorian, South Australian or West Australian, but in fact growing up in or near Geelong, with the Cats luring players back to the region year after year. Their latest – Greater Western Sydney restricted free agent Jeremy Cameron – might be the biggest coup yet...

The Falcons, as one of the strongest NAB League clubs in the competition and richest talent regions, will continue to develop star draftees, with Tanner Bruhn and Ollie Henry (brother of Jack) already on the radar as possible top-10 picks this season. Geelong will be keen on the pair, however that interest, as shown by their chase of Cameron and Higgins in recent weeks, won't diminish even if they do end up elsewhere around the country and competition.

[Markwebbos]

So what happens if GWS offer $1 over the Geelong offer?

I made a comment before about the end of restricted free agency. It used to be that the destination club had to make a Buddy style offer so lucrative that it wouldn't or couldn't be matched. And if that was not the case, in theory the player has to stay put. Or there has to be a trade. With Dangerfield a trade was arranged because Adelaide said they would match.

But now you have clubs making offers to players (Cameron, Daniher) that may be less than they'd get if they stayed put AND saying they will not trade.

I think its OK for clubs to say they don't want to tie themselves to a monster multi-year Buddy millstone type contract, but only if they are prepared to pay in a trade what that player is worth. With Daniher his worth is a very open question given his recent injury history.

But with Geelong wanting Cameron, they either have to make him an insane offer, or stump up 2 first round draft picks. Or let him take his chances in the PSD. Someone else noted what they got from West Coast for Tim Kelly is indicative of Cameron's worth.

¡Pay up or Trade, you can't have it both ways!

[i'm-uninformed2]

According to SEN, Saints are offloading 2 players to Crows in order to give them the cap space to pay Crouch enough to trigger pick 2 as RFA compo.

The two Saints who could be off to Adelaide as part of Crouch negotiations

I wonder if that will happen? Damien Barratt is adamant they won’t get pick 2

Neither of those players resemble anything like what Adelaide need. I'll be very surprised if it happens, and the AFL should call bulldust on it anyway.

[i'm-uninformed2]

Does anyone know what the rules are around tampering/Free Agency in the AFL? I know next to nothing about it and can't find a simple summary, to the relatively ignorant (me!) it seems like Free Agency has been adopted without a huge amount of governance over it (so we looked to other leagues for the easy bit, no the hard bit)?

Obviously a different universe (and players still recruit other players etc.), but this article has a good overview of the sort of things considered in the NBA- note the $500k fine to the Lakers for having someone reach out to the representatives of a contracted player (and that being viewed as a slap on the wrist).

NBA tampering: Breaking down new compliance rules - Sports Illustrated

Isn't the problem there are the documented rules, then there are the:

* Oh - isn't it funny to find you as Manager of Club A and me as Manager of Player B in the same coffee shop at once, rule
* Story appears in paper speculating on player or club's aspiration, completely unfounded of course but a giant smoke signal, rule
* The AFL arbitrarily make @@@@ up as they see fit, rule (ie: our trade ban).

I think the fundamental problem is the AFL, and other sports, ultimately know if they go too hard, and a player resists, the player would win a restraint of trade and blow up the draft, trading rules and other elements of player movement.

There is some legal precedent here that seeks to balance the legitimate interests of the league (ie: commercial viability, etc) versus unreasonableness on the rights of players - but it's a fine line the AFL doesn't want to see too heavily tested in the courts, so they tend to wave a lot through, and merely deal with excessive elements.

It's why I always thought the Swans should have pushed the line on the trade ban. The AFL would have pooed their pants at a legal challenge.

[Melbourne_Blood]

Neither of those players resemble anything like what Adelaide need. I'll be very surprised if it happens, and the AFL should call bulldust on it anyway.

Exactly. Roberton was a good player but could be just about finished. Webster is average at best. It reeks


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bloodspirit]

Isn't the problem there are the documented rules, then there are the:

* Oh - isn't it funny to find you as Manager of Club A and me as Manager of Player B in the same coffee shop at once, rule
* Story appears in paper speculating on player or club's aspiration, completely unfounded of course but a giant smoke signal, rule
* The AFL arbitrarily make @@@@ up as they see fit, rule (ie: our trade ban).

I think the fundamental problem is the AFL, and other sports, ultimately know if they go too hard, and a player resists, the player would win a restraint of trade and blow up the draft, trading rules and other elements of player movement.

There is some legal precedent here that seeks to balance the legitimate interests of the league (ie: commercial viability, etc) versus unreasonableness on the rights of players - but it's a fine line the AFL doesn't want to see too heavily tested in the courts, so they tend to wave a lot through, and merely deal with excessive elements.

It's why I always thought the Swans should have pushed the line on the trade ban. The AFL would have pooed their pants at a legal challenge.

The AFL wouldn't let us take them to court. They own us and can tell us what to do.

[barracuda]

The AFL wouldn't let us take them to court. They own us and can tell us what to do.

I think that’s right, the AFL owns the swans after it went belly up

[barry]

GWS should just say.. "listen you Victorians on our list, if you want to go home, you can, but we will only deal with bottom 4 clubs". We are not aiming to make our rivals stronger.
Jeremy, wanna go home? Off to norf for you. GWS can take brown plus a pick; n exchange..

- - - Updated - - -

And the swans should do this too.

[707]

AFL will have it's hands full this year with clubs trying to rort the compo picks. A couple of shockers suggested around the Crouch and Cameron moves.

The problem with compo picks is that they push out the legitimate picks of every other club not involved in a FA deal, this year innocent clubs, like us, could have picks pushed back by 5/6/7 spots and in a year when we need points that's a big chunk of points to get robbed because FA choose to move.

So much is wrong in this whole scenario.

[Thunder Shaker]

I have created a thread for free agency here: The problems with free agency

[Ludwig]

GWS should just say.. "listen you Victorians on our list, if you want to go home, you can, but we will only deal with bottom 4 clubs". We are not aiming to make our rivals stronger.
Jeremy, wanna go home? Off to norf for you. GWS can take brown plus a pick; n exchange..

"Hey, listen all you disgruntled cranky Giants, if you want to leave the club, you can, but we will only deal with bottom 4 clubs. Off to the Swans with you rabble."