2024 List Management

[UUaswan]

They did so on Fox Footy Trade Day last night, that we need to bank Parker's $800k to help retain Chad and that we should accept pick 62 as a goodwill gesture for everything Parker has done as a champion of our club.

Parker & Chad have a year remaining on their contracts, so i can't understand the logic of needing to desperately dump Parker now for Chad.

Plus North have offered Parker a 3 x$800k contract which pick 62 does not closely reflect.

I doubt North have offered 3x 800k
Probably closer to 3x 600k taking on his 800k

Somewhere in the 2nd round is as good as we will get via a swap or upgrade of Picks.

He has played 290+ games, statically that means he has 30-40 games left in him, half of which will be any good.
Parks might be an exception but reality isn't much brighter, even if he is in a leadership role.

[UUaswan]

Also if we are approaching anyone else about taking Parker, then Pick 62 will look good

[MattW]

They did so on Fox Footy Trade Day last night, that we need to bank Parker's $800k to help retain Chad and that we should accept pick 62 as a goodwill gesture for everything Parker has done as a champion of our club.

Parker & Chad have a year remaining on their contracts, so i can't understand the logic of needing to desperately dump Parker now for Chad.

Plus North have offered Parker a 3 x$800k contract which pick 62 does not closely reflect.

Well put.

[mcs]

They did so on Fox Footy Trade Day last night, that we need to bank Parker's $800k to help retain Chad and that we should accept pick 62 as a goodwill gesture for everything Parker has done as a champion of our club.

Parker & Chad have a year remaining on their contracts, so i can't understand the logic of needing to desperately dump Parker now for Chad.

Plus North have offered Parker a 3 x$800k contract which pick 62 does not closely reflect.

My guess is the plan would be to renegotiate or give someone a new contract that is relatively forward ended - thereby spending the parker 800k next year but opening up extra $ in future years for Warner's contract.

[Roadrunner]

My guess is the plan would be to renegotiate or give someone a new contract that is relatively forward ended - thereby spending the parker 800k next year but opening up extra $ in future years for Warner's contract.

Let’s play hardball with North- give us what we’re asking for or we keep Parks. One more year from him with us can only be good- after that he can go where he wants, as we can do without a 62 pick! After next year, we have his $800k anyway so that can be used towards Chad’s new contract. I wouldn’t give him away for peanuts just because North have made him a good offer- stuff them, and let’s be like Dodo for a change and grow a pair. Toughness is what our club needs, for crying out aloud!!!

[Nico]

Let’s play hardball with North- give us what we’re asking for or we keep Parks. One more year from him with us can only be good- after that he can go where he wants, as we can do without a 62 pick! After next year, we have his $800k anyway so that can be used towards Chad’s new contract. I wouldn’t give him away for peanuts just because North have made him a good offer- stuff them, and let’s be like Dodo for a change and grow a pair. Toughness is what our club needs, for crying out aloud!!!

I'd take 44.

[imuninformedtwo]

I'd take 44.

I'd take their future third given the high likelihood of a player or two being decent talents in the Academy, and the way the points system works under the new scale means points get scooped up earlier and such a pick will be valued higher.

[lwjoyner]

anything more than nths second rnd (currently 24) is a steal for nth. lets remeber it was nth that should have been sent to qld and now should be sent to tas and reduce victorian teams.

[mcs]

After next year, we have his $800k anyway so that can be used towards Chad’s new contract. I wouldn’t give him away for peanuts just because North have made him a good offer- stuff them, and let’s be like Dodo for a change and grow a pair. Toughness is what our club needs, for crying out aloud!!!

Not sure that contracting is done in that straightforward a manner any more.

I'm pretty sure we would not have built in to forward assumptions that Parker would be remaining on $800K per annum on any future contract. More likely half that. And that's before whatever we may have assumed when giving out a bunch of other longer term contracts.

I suspect there is very few $ unallocated from season 2026 onwards even taking into account Parker not being there (with a big envelope of course within that for Chad's contract), whereas the opportunity to free up $800K (or whatever the actual number is) in season 2025's cap is effectively 'free money' for the club, in that it provides a genuine $800K that can be reallocated/help reduce future year pressure, and/or open up a few more $ for Chad.

[UUaswan]

We should try to get Stringer to come, 2 yrs around 400k for a 30yr old that kicks goals and can play big games is exactly what we need

[Roadrunner]

Not sure that contracting is done in that straightforward a manner any more.

I'm pretty sure we would not have built in to forward assumptions that Parker would be remaining on $800K per annum on any future contract. More likely half that. And that's before whatever we may have assumed when giving out a bunch of other longer term contracts.

I suspect there is very few $ unallocated from season 2026 onwards even taking into account Parker not being there (with a big envelope of course within that for Chad's contract), whereas the opportunity to free up $800K (or whatever the actual number is) in season 2025's cap is effectively 'free money' for the club, in that it provides a genuine $800K that can be reallocated/help reduce future year pressure, and/or open up a few more $ for Chad.

I think I’m following you mcs but if I’ve understood you correctly, surely we would have allocated funds needed for a new contract for Chad. And apart fro having the money, don’t we have to fit all contracts into the cap? So how would a saving of Luke’s pay in 25 help with our cap for 26? Yes, we save the money on his pay, but I’m unclear how this will help in 2026?

[liz]

I think I’m following you mcs but if I’ve understood you correctly, surely we would have allocated funds needed for a new contract for Chad. And apart fro having the money, don’t we have to fit all contracts into the cap? So how would a saving of Luke’s pay in 25 help with our cap for 26? Yes, we save the money on his pay, but I’m unclear how this will help in 2026?

Because there's a lot of flexibility around moving money forwards and backwards. If you pay under the cap one year you can push at least part of that back to increase the cap the following year. Or you can renegotiate contracts to bring money to players forward to pay them in 2025 and then reduce what you pay them in subsequent years. Of course, the players need to agree, but I doubt many would object too strenuously to being paid sooner than expected.

[mcs]

As is often the case, Liz has described it well Roadrunner ! There is some flexibility under the cap these days to move money forwards and backwards - so having an extra $800K available in 2025 means we can reallocate funds (for instance by paying players sooner) and reduce forward payments, thus opening up extra $ in those future years to pay additional to Chad (should we desire to do so) - because yes I'm sure we've got a $ figure per year broadly 'allocated' for Chad's contract, but I suspect it is well below what the no hopers of the West might be offering him come 12 months time.

It also works the other way too - some big contracts (like Buddy's contract, and indeed I believe Parker's contract) have higher payments towards the end - which can in itself create real issues if not effectively managed, but can open up additional cap space.

No longer is a nominal contract of $500K per year for 5 years necessarily the case of getting the same amount every year, as maybe once it was ha!

[giant]

Not to mention 176 cm and 67 kg, as most of our first choices seem to be.

Stop it, you're breaking my heart...

[Roadrunner]

As is often the case, Liz has described it well Roadrunner ! There is some flexibility under the cap these days to move money forwards and backwards - so having an extra $800K available in 2025 means we can reallocate funds (for instance by paying players sooner) and reduce forward payments, thus opening up extra $ in those future years to pay additional to Chad (should we desire to do so) - because yes I'm sure we've got a $ figure per year broadly 'allocated' for Chad's contract, but I suspect it is well below what the no hopers of the West might be offering him come 12 months time.

It also works the other way too - some big contracts (like Buddy's contract, and indeed I believe Parker's contract) have higher payments towards the end - which can in itself create real issues if not effectively managed, but can open up additional cap space.

No longer is a nominal contract of $500K per year for 5 years necessarily the case of getting the same amount every year, as maybe once it was ha!

Thank you Liz and mcs- that’s cleared it up for me!
I still wouldn’t give Luke away for anything less than what we’re asking for- tell North it’s final!