Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

125 Excellent

About Lampers

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,523 profile views
  1. Andrew Gaff

    In US sports is basically the club own the players and can do what they want to better the club's prospects - until the player qualifies and the tables turn. We are seeing quasi free agency if you are good enough (see Lever who got his cash and club of choice) as well as true free agency. Clubs are getting their list building strategies compromised by this. Because it is accepted in the US, the players expect to potentially move at the drop of a hat until they qualify for free agency. Do we support the club, or the (well compensated) players who can always quit and get a regular job if they really hate the prospect of being traded. I would prefer genuine power to the clubs so they can execute their strategies with confidence.
  2. Mahoney, get away

    Have we considered the club have made the strategic move to back player development and club culture over the "pick them with early picks and success will follow" approach of previous regimes? If you take the view you only need (and can afford to keep) X number of high end talents, then you trade speculative picks for known high end talent. And you back yourself in to develop the role players to surround them with late picks. Butler and Castagna are very "meh" players, but they played their role with discipline and have a premiership. In addition the lure of success and good culture may snag another couple of top talents via free agency to top up. i have no idea if that's what their strategy is, or if it would pay off.
  3. Farewell Jack Watts

    I'd be confident it's not just a "Will whatever the club gets for Watts make the team better?" in isolation decision. It's safe to assume Watts must be in ball park 500-600k. The salary cap relief his exit would bring, and subsequent opportunity to recruit or secure existing players, would be a massive factor. I keep drawing parallels to the corporate world, but if you get a big pay rise, the scrutiny and expectation rise with it. You can't be happy to take the cash, then be surprised when people more harshly asses the value for money you represent and wonder if they can get more benefit for the same outlay through other means. Footy clubs are different to a corporate environment in many ways of course, but there are cold business decisions to be made on salary cap and list management to balance with the culture and unity impacts. There's never a formula to get to the the right answer with the balance, it's a lot of gut feel.
  4. Farewell Jack Watts

    Different arena, but my most troublesome handful of direct reports over the last ten years were the ones who, despite clearly getting direct messages, claim they never got said messages or feedback. I have no insight into what has gone down with Watts, but it's not impossible for someone to genuinely believe they haven't had feedback, and someone else genuinely feel they've given feedback multiple times. In an environment where Jetta, who had a wife suffering mental illness, was told to pull his finger out in pre-season by his own admission. And where Oliver was told home truths about his preparation and needing to lose weight, that they would've tip toed around Watts? I don't buy it.
  5. 2017 Keith ‘Bluey’ Truscott Memorial Trophy

    I'm staggered Maynard scored 0 of a possible 40 votes in his one game. I guess it shows all the voting coaches were aligned in what they wanted from him, and despite what looked to be a solid debut game from the outside, he really failed to deliver in what was expected of him.
  6. End of year delistings

    I think there's an element of "do the right thing" by giving players certainty over their future (or lack of future) so they have more time to lobby hard to get another chance elsewhere, or start on the next phase of their life ASAP. From a selfish club perspective only, sure you'd wait until the last possible moment to delist a player but that means they're in limbo and potentially stressing out longer. I also think the delist candidates are only likely to attract throw away draft picks, so there's not a loss of genuine trade value.

    It's the same situatuion for Collingwood as per prior posts with North and Saints. Collingwood would need to reserve the cap space for Lever, and that would prevent them getting involved in other potential player trades. Plus they risk Melbourne and Adelaide agreeing to a trade late and Lever not even being in the draft. So yes it's possible, but unlikely as it's a really risky play. If Collingwood conspire with Adelaide to get Lever across with anything other than a fair isolated trade in the AFL's eyes, which Lever needs to agree to, that's draft tampering.

    Lever must agree to any trade so unless Collingwood can convince him to change his mind and accept playing for them, it can't happen. Collingwood could trump Melbourne in the draft, but Adelaide would still get nothing out of that. It think it's also considered draft tampering to do separate but connected trades, or lopsided trade in exchange for other commitments. That's what Hawthorn and the Bulldogs did with Jade Rawlings many many years ago - a lopsided trade in the Hawks' favour in exchange for them forcing Rawlings into the draft so the Bulldogs could pick him up against his will.

    Absolutely, they will have that space today. As do St. kilda by the sounds of it. But both clubs will be trying to secure targets that WANT to play for them with that space during trade period. If they can't secure those players and still have the space at the end of the trade period, you're right that they are a threat to get Lever. Plus we have no idea their attitude to bringing in a player on massive dollars who doesn't want to be there. That could cause big ripples in the existing North and St.Kilda playing group, especially if Lever gets there and mopes about the place. Culture and team harmony must be considerations too.

    The other factor in Melbourne's favour is the longer the Lever situation drags out, the less likely any other clubs will keep $750k-$1m space in their cap "just in case". If other clubs keep the space and wait, there is a massive chance they will miss other trade opportunities and still end up not getting Lever if Melbourne and Adelaide agree to an 11th hour trade. It won't hurt Melbourne though because they know exactly the space they need to reserve in the cap, plus they "ring fence" 10 and 27 as unavailable for other trades and can keep working on those other trades with that in mind. It could get to a point where Melbourne are the ONLY club who literally can accomodate his contract demands, and could select him with the last pick in the draft. Melbourne could be really brutal if they wanted to and engineer things so Adelaide get nothing. There is a small risk of another club hastily renegotiating existing contracts to open up cap space but that would require agreement of multiple players and therefore very unlikely to happen. If Melbourne are smart, and I hope they are, they will have a figure they could pay Lever if he goes into the draft. Say $1m each year for two years, but if a trade can be brokered Lever signs at $750k * 4 years instead This makes it even less likely other clubs would draft him should it come to it.

    The document covers PSD too. My understanding is in the past a player like Lever where their contract expired but they weren't delisted would only be able to nominate for PSD. Think Nick Stevens, Jamie Shanahan. But the rules changed quite some time ago to allow the player to choose which draft they want to be in. Luke Ball did this almost a decade ago. It would be to Lever's advantage to be in the National Draft as competing clubs are trading off possibility of the best u/18 prospects vs. Lever when selecting. If he nominates for PSD, the clubs are only tossing up between players already overlooked with around 100 selections and Lever. Lever is far less likely to last to Melbourne's pick 10 in PSD than he is to last to Melbourne's pick 10 in the ND. I still reckon a trade for 10 and 27 will happen, maybe with some face saving "meh" pick swaps too.

    Look at this link. If a player nominates terms it is for two seasons, not one. The player is tied to the club who drafts him for two years unless there are other circumstances that Lever doesn't qualify for (e.g. Drafted for the first time at 24+ years of age).

    I'd doubt there's anyone of significance involved with either club from those times. Ancient history which won't be righted in this deal. They also screwed us on Nathan Bassett. It's all just brinksmanship to appease the supporters. The last thing shattered Crows supporters want to see is their team not fighting in trade week after they didn't fight on Grand Final day. The Crows sending Lever into the draft not only means they get no compensation, it also sends a message to their players "We don't give a stuff about what you want as a person, we own you and will do as we please". Scaring your remaining players into staying is not a sensible thing to do. Giving up value for nothing is not a sensible thing to do. The Crows appear to be a sensible club by and large.
  14. Trade rumours

    I agree he is exactly the type of player we need. Fast, experienced, confident. Reasonable finisher despite some infamous hiccups. He is 29, so I think he's in the odd spot where he's not like S. Mitchell, Lewis or Hodge because he genuinely has 3+ years to give the Hawks before he's stifling someone else's development. But would Melbourne give up 27 (if they still have it) for him? And I can't see Hawthorn turfing him for a nothingish pick in the 40s. I suspect the biggish fish will be an Isaac Smith type player coming towards the end but with a few seasons left, and it would effectively be Watts out, biggish fish in making the draft pick/s exchanged almost irrelevant. I can't see what currency Melbourne would have to get this done with the Lever deal needing to be sorted unless Watts or someone of a similar calibre goes.
  15. End of year delistings

    I was surprised too. Why the gap in announcements particularly when the writing appeared to be on the wall with zero senior games despite no serious injuries? Delisting makes the player a free agent, so that facilitates a player to get where they want. I seem to recall due to the delisted free agent signing window timings, trading a player for a nothing pick can mean the player can get training with their new club more quickly. So it can be seen as doing your former player and receiving club a favour by trading instead of delisting. I suspect there had been some luke warm interest in him during the year from another club, but that interest turned cold between the initial delisting announcement and Kennedy's announcement. Or maybe Kennedy was not contactable at the time of the original delistings so they decided to wait to deliver the message in person out of respect prior to making it public?