List Mgmt. 2024 Trade Thread - No.1

[akaifu]

We have TWENTY players out of contract and the mythical war chest, why would you lose another 25 year old gun who can play at either end for the sake of some arbitrary "worth"?

I thought our plan was to be contending 2025 - 2026, but instead we are literally weakening our list year on year and hoping that draft talent will get us in contention in maybe 3-4 years.

We're just kicking the can down the road and no doubt Ross will need a few more years to nurture these draftees before we can make a call on the list quality.

Just Jones, Membrey, Ross & Webster would free up 2 million, why would we lose Battle for the sake of 100k/year or 200k/year? It's ****ing terrible business, hard enough for us to find talent in the draft, then we piss it away for some scratchies.

The question should be, why would you overpay for someone who plays in a position that is normally easier to replace when you will get handsomely compensated for them leaving? Also means we can front-load a lot of contracts so when we're actually in contention, we still have a ton of cap room to go as hard as possible

 

[Jade Buddha]

The problem is if we keep getting younger, at some point we are going to be consistently uncompetitive.The last 2 flags have been won by older super experienced sides.Probably pushes the time we contend out to the 2030s.We are bottoming out just as Tasmania comes in and unless we have found a much better bunch of kids than most clubs do we might never get there. The Pies are winning without a bunch of stars.

That’s what worries me if we focus too heavily on the draft and the young guys. They are important and the future but if we are to compete in finals in the next 3 years then we need physical maturity amongst the core group.

 

[kernelT]

The question should be, why would you overpay for someone who plays in a position that is normally easier to replace when you will get handsomely compensated for them leaving? Also means we can front-load a lot of contracts so when we're actually in contention, we still have a ton of cap room to go as hard as possible

"Easier to replace" we used a first rounder for Howard and now everyone wants to dump him, Logan Austin couldn't defend, Brown was like a dinosaur, Frawley was useless, Wilkes & Marsh were earnest spuds.

It doesn't matter how much room we have in the cap, no one is coming to a bottom 4 side that kicks 7 goals in front of 15,000.

 

[stavro#4]

That’s what worries me if we focus too heavily on the draft and the young guys. They are important and the future but if we are to compete in finals in the next 3 years then we need physical maturity amongst the core group.

They plan on targeting a few older heads to balance everything out.

A few names I know of.

Macrae is definitely one being looked at. If the right deal presents itself.

Butts at Adelaide. Relatively cheap. Solid enough which would then allow us to move Wilkie into that third tall role.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

The question should be, why would you overpay for someone who plays in a position that is normally easier to replace when you will get handsomely compensated for them leaving? Also means we can front-load a lot of contracts so when we're actually in contention, we still have a ton of cap room to go as hard as possible

Why do you think its a position that is easily replaced?
Why would other clubs offer big money if its an easy position to fill?

 

[stavro#4]

"Easier to replace" we used a first rounder for Howard and now everyone wants to dump him, Logan Austin couldn't defend, Brown was like a dinosaur, Frawley was useless, Wilkes & Marsh were earnest spuds.

It doesn't matter how much room we have in the cap, no one is coming to a bottom 4 side that kicks 7 goals in front of 15,000.

We got pick 10 Howard and Ryder

For

12 and 18

It was a much better trade then you made out.

 

[kernelT]

Because the AFL is ruled by the same core group of agents.

So overpaying Battle to stay we lose our bargaining position and potentially means overpaying the next OOC and so forth.

The war chest is there to make us better. Not maintain the status quo.

Same reason we didn’t give Gresham the same deal he got at Essendon.

The same reasons above allow us to offer 1.5m to bring in LDU Or a Weitering. To get better.

Battle won’t send us into a rebuild. He won’t be the key to a flag either.

Sum of all parts, we keep losing best 22 players in their prime and our performance will tank… other players will want out and then we're back to square one.

You said the plan was that 2025 was our year to contend, but we'll be bottom four again at this rate.

 

[stavro#4]

Why do you think its a position that is easily replaced?
Why would other clubs offer big money if its an easy position to fill?

I think Battles value is in his flexibility and adaptability across numerous roles. He would allow other Hawks like Waddle to do similar.

He is not an elite footballer by skill nor position.

In our current backline - he is undersized. He is not an elite kick. Good one on one - but can’t go with gun forwards most weeks.

If we can replace him with a genuine key back or if Arie can step up. We will probably improve.

 

[stavro#4]

Sum of all parts, we keep losing best 22 players in their prime and our performance will tank… other players will want out and then we're back to square one.

You said the plan was that 2025 was our year to contend, but we'll be bottom four again at this rate.

Let’s see.

The club don’t want to lose Battle. Can’t imagine this is going to plan.

Don’t think it’s aspiration ending for us either.

 

[Sarcoidevo]

If we look at what’s wrong with where we’re at….

Top 4 for scoring from D50 (tick)
Bottom 2 for scores from front half and centre clearance.

Majority of scores are from turn overs, we don’t do it where it counts. Middle and forward.

We are also bottom 2 for scores per inside 50 and last for marks on the lead (which I’ve linked with no evidence other then what I see)

So we need to fix

• mids winning it out of the centre
• front half turn over game
• forward structure

First one for the recruitment team and the other two for the coaches to fix….

I think having Higgins out for 3 games and Butler out for plenty more hasn't helped our forward structure / front half turnover game

That forward pressure has definitely been missing however with them both now back in the side together with a few games under their belts we may see an improvement

Henry is another who has been playing a bit more forward of center so he should be part of the pressure party as well

 

[akaifu]

Why do you think its a position that is easily replaced?
Why would other clubs offer big money if its an easy position to fill?

Because we literally have Cordy, Sharman, Keeler and Arie all able to play that position. Yes, they aren't as good as Battle, but I'd much rather a top 10 pick + 800k of cap space + experience into Keeler/Arie over overpaying Battle to stay

Thing is, if we do end up going for Butts for something like a third rounder, that frees up Doug to play the 2nd tall role that he excelled at when Carlisle was still here. Butts Doug Wilkie is good value

 

[kernelT]

We got pick 10 Howard and Ryder

For

12 and 18

It was a much better trade then you made out.

Spin it however you want, our track record of finding good defenders is appalling.

So we upgraded pick 12 back to 10 and handed over pick 18… that's a big investment. Ryder was in the free to good home department.

 

[kernelT]

Let’s see.

The club don’t want to lose Battle. Can’t imagine this is going to plan.

Don’t think it’s aspiration ending for us either.

We could easily front load the shit out of his deal and then he'd be on the 800 / year, I hope we don't get too cute thinking we're getting a band one and end up with pick 25.

 

[stavro#4]

Spin it however you want, our track record of finding good defenders is appalling.

So we upgraded pick 12 back to 10 and handed over pick 18… that's a big investment. Ryder was in the free to good home department.

So it’s effectively a late first. Band 2 compo if you will.

That’s hardly a bad deal

 

[SaintsSeptember]

"Easier to replace" we used a first rounder for Howard and now everyone wants to dump him, Logan Austin couldn't defend, Brown was like a dinosaur, Frawley was useless, Wilkes & Marsh were earnest spuds.

It doesn't matter how much room we have in the cap, no one is coming to a bottom 4 side that kicks 7 goals in front of 15,000.

Actually Brown improved his fitness and played very well for StKilda. Very rarely beaten, but he wasn't that intercepting marking type of player.
Wilkes ... earnest spud. Wow....lots of people, like anyone who watches , or comments , or writes about football would laugh at the comment.

But i agree , it can be a hard spot to fill.
While i think Brown was a good player, he was still a stop gap player simply due to his age when we got him.
I hate it when we fill the team with stop gap players and do little to develop a replacement while they are there.
We had Ryder as a stop gap ruckman. When he retired we had .........
We have Crouch as an in and under mid. When he retires we'll have......... ( Maybe Windy can tag all the good mids out of the game ).

 

[stavro#4]

We could easily front load the shit out of his deal and then he'd be on the 800 / year, I hope we don't get too cute thinking we're getting a band one and end up with pick 25.

Not sure you understand how this works.

The free agent deals are worked on the average guaranteed deal size across the term.

Front loading. Back loading. Means **** all.

The rumours are 1m average per season.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Because we literally have Cordy, Sharman, Keeler and Arie all able to play that position. Yes, they aren't as good as Battle, but I'd much rather a top 10 pick + 800k of cap space + experience into Keeler/Arie over overpaying Battle to stay

Thing is, if we do end up going for Butts for something like a third rounder, that frees up Doug to play the 2nd tall role that he excelled at when Carlisle was still here. Butts Doug Wilkie is good value

Keeler and Schoenmaker are both very early days.
Keeler has been playing in defense but is it his best position?
I'm not sure that Ari is a great one to line up on a key forward. I haven't seen much of him, but i gather he's a good interceptor rebounder.
I like the idea of getting someone like Butts better.

Why do we think he's gettable?

 

[stavro#4]

Their talent identification also looks alright.

De Koning was widely ridiculed on here. Looks the goods right now.

Henry. Landed him looks fantastic.

Dow. Getting better.

Shiel probably the most interesting target.

But based on their 12 months in the job, they have identified players who would have improved us.

Let’s see what they do this offseason.

 

[kernelT]

Not sure you understand how this works.

The free agent deals are worked on the average guaranteed deal size across the term.

Front loading. Back loading. Means **** all.

The rumours are 1m average per season.

Dude.

If we have 3 million cap space next season and we can put 2 million of Battles deal into the first year. Then we have room in years 2-6 for other players.

I don't want the deal, I want to keep the gun players we have.

 

[Saints4ever]

I would’ve killed for Jack Macrae 2 years ago.
Not so much now he’s seriously slow and that’s why he doesn’t play as much midfield now.
I’ve watched him closely gets killed on the spread.

 

[70s sainter]

We have one part of our game horrifically broken.

Our Inside 50 connection.

Outside of that, our game is standing up with lesser talent in the middle of the ground.

So clearly Lyon has and is being effective.

There was never a mandate about attractive football.

Ironically we’re probably the club that can least afford to be unattractive. Fans aren’t going to watch including me . We won’t get shown on free to air because we don’t rate and also they show hardly any ads because we don’t kick enough goals .
No air time , no sponsors, no crowds = no money .

 

[stavro#4]

Ironically we’re probably the club that can least afford to be unattractive. Fans aren’t going to watch including me . We won’t get shown on free to air because we don’t rate and also they show hardly any ads because we don’t kick enough goals .
No air time , no sponsors, no crowds = no money .

Thats not actually how it works.

The TV deal is equally distributed.

Prime time games = bigger crowds = more money.

However, our one game at the G will make more money then our entire season at Marvel.

Which says our marvel deal is ****ed. However that contract is ending - which should be a much improved deal for us.

 

[akaifu]

Keeler and Schoenmaker are both very early days.
Keeler has been playing in defense but is it his best position?
I'm not sure that Ari is a great one to line up on a key forward. I haven't seen much of him, but i gather he's a good interceptor rebounder.
I like the idea of getting someone like Butts better.

Why do we think he's gettable?

Yeah you make fair points, but my point is we have plenty of options to at least cover Battle, rather than replacing him completely

I think Butts is gettable due to the logjam of key defenders at Adelaide. I posted on here a few weeks ago when Daniel Curtin made his debut that Adelaide have Curtin, Butts, Murray, Worrell, Michalanney, Keane, Hinge, Borlase all vying for 3-4 key posts in defence. Butts is a VIC boy and with their defence at full fitness, he's not best 22 so can't see why we couldn't get him to come back home

Only problem with it is that he isn't a star to any extent and you can ask the question "is he going to make us better long-term", but for a 3rd rounder, I think it's definitely doable and value for money

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I would’ve killed for Jack Macrae 2 years ago.
Not so much now he’s seriously slow and that’s why he doesn’t play as much midfield now.
I’ve watched him closely gets killed on the spread.

He seems to obviously be in decline since 22.

I'd rather try for Will Brodie, who is under contract , but someone suggested that Freo may be happy to let him go.

 

[stavro#4]

Dude.

If we have 3 million cap space next season and we can put 2 million of Battles deal into the first year. Then we have room in years 2-6 for other players.

I don't want the deal, I want to keep the gun players we have.

Thats still not the point.

You can’t just re-sign players on whatever amounts to keep them - when there are a number of kids who project to be better and they will all want parity or bigger deals.

Hence why clubs like Geelong are very big on keeping tight control on their salary cap. It allows you to spend to bring in talent to make you better.

Not spending your cap maintaining the status quo.

Even if you hypothetically pay Battle 2m next year and 1m for each of the 5 seasons after that. It’s still 7/6 years. Thats the part that’s the issue.

You need to set the controls on the cap for your current list and the expectation is that you spend the savings to make you better.