Why now is not the time for a major trade

[furious d 447]

Rather than repeat this ad nauesuem on the various suggested trade threads I thought it'd be better to have one place to argue the merits of not trying to trade for experienced players just yet.

With so many youngsters on our list it's nigh on impossible to know what we've got just yet. We need some time to sort through these kids and work out exactly what they can do. Players drafted for one position often forge long careers playing somewhere completely different. They develop at different rates and draft number is no guareenteed indicator of who will make a contribution and who wont.

It's no use talking about filling holes on our list just yet because we have no idea where those holes will be when our premiership window is opening. Take the second ruck problem for instance. It looks good on paper to go after a Mitch Clarke right now and I agree we struggle in this area, but what if Max Gawn and Jake Spencer both become serviceable or even good in the next year or 2. We will have wasted a big chunk of salary cap space and maybe traded away decent picks or young players. We would be loaded with rucks and be looking to trade one out before long.

On whiteboard wednesday a few weeks back Tim Harrington explained why we were paying nearly 100% of the salary cap this year. It's not that contracts are front loaded as many suggested here. As I pouinted out at the time that solves nothing in 3 years when you have to re-sign everyone. We are prepaying contracts which is very different and creates a bigger hole in our salary cap the lonnger we do it.

I'll try to explain it simply for those that didn't see it. For simplicity say the salary cap is $10milliom p.a and our contracts for that year add up to $9.2m and $9.5 million the year after. We can bring forward $800,000 from the second year and pay it this year. That reduces our salary cap burden the second year from 9.5 to 8.7 million. This means we can bring forward even more the year after. This will be offset a little by our young players demanding more money as they improve but we should still have a massive gap to be able to secure a quality player to adress our most pressing need when the time is right.

I'd be especially against trading away any of our first or even second round draft picks for the next 2 years. I think the club has set itself up to not have to go too deep in the next 2 compromised drafts. The thing that has made us so ordinary the last few years is the hole in our list of players of players aged 27-29. 2 years ago that hole was players aged 25-27. You can't do well with no players in the prime of there careers. I'm terrified of recreating this problem 8-10 years from now. We need to find some draftees theses next 2 years who'll add something to our list and I don't want to be relying on late picks for that.

I'm not completely against trading and we should consider any offer on its merits but I don't think it's time to be chasing any big fish hard just yet. We need to be patient imo. When we can legitimately push for the top 4 would be the right time.

[H_T 3,032]

That is fair enough. You're not against not trading at all, you're just saying now is not the time for a "major trade". That is reasonable enough given our list and the contracts status.

That being said, if the right circumstances present and someone comes knocking. I think we should open the door, listen and consider all options. ie. Mundy.

[praha 11,100]

Now is perfect time for a big trade. Teams like Brisbane, West Coast, Essendon will be willing to trade quality players for draft picks. I say we throw some picks and a ready-made player (Jones, Bruce?) at the Eagles for Cox.

I honestly believe one of the reasons Junior didn't continue on was because the club wanted to make extra room in the cap, not only to sign the younger players, but to have enough room for a big trade. Someone moves up to the veterans list (is it Bruce or Green?), you trade a young player, and get an experienced player in the process.

[sylvinator 96]

Rather than repeat this ad nauesuem on the various suggested trade threads I thought it'd be better to have one place to argue the merits of not trying to trade for experienced players just yet.

With so many youngsters on our list it's nigh on impossible to know what we've got just yet. We need some time to sort through these kids and work out exactly what they can do. Players drafted for one position often forge long careers playing somewhere completely different. They develop at different rates and draft number is no guareenteed indicator of who will make a contribution and who wont.

It's no use talking about filling holes on our list just yet because we have no idea where those holes will be when our premiership window is opening. Take the second ruck problem for instance. It looks good on paper to go after a Mitch Clarke right now and I agree we struggle in this area, but what if Max Gawn and Jake Spencer both become serviceable or even good in the next year or 2. We will have wasted a big chunk of salary cap space and maybe traded away decent picks or young players. We would be loaded with rucks and be looking to trade one out before long.

On whiteboard wednesday a few weeks back Tim Harrington explained why we were paying nearly 100% of the salary cap this year. It's not that contracts are front loaded as many suggested here. As I pouinted out at the time that solves nothing in 3 years when you have to re-sign everyone. We are prepaying contracts which is very different and creates a bigger hole in our salary cap the lonnger we do it.

I'll try to explain it simply for those that didn't see it. For simplicity say the salary cap is $10milliom p.a and our contracts for that year add up to $9.2m and $9.5 million the year after. We can bring forward $800,000 from the second year and pay it this year. That reduces our salary cap burden the second year from 9.5 to 8.7 million. This means we can bring forward even more the year after. This will be offset a little by our young players demanding more money as they improve but we should still have a massive gap to be able to secure a quality player to adress our most pressing need when the time is right.

I'd be especially against trading away any of our first or even second round draft picks for the next 2 years. I think the club has set itself up to not have to go too deep in the next 2 compromised drafts. The thing that has made us so ordinary the last few years is the hole in our list of players of players aged 27-29. 2 years ago that hole was players aged 25-27. You can't do well with no players in the prime of there careers. I'm terrified of recreating this problem 8-10 years from now. We need to find some draftees theses next 2 years who'll add something to our list and I don't want to be relying on late picks for that.

I'm not completely against trading and we should consider any offer on its merits but I don't think it's time to be chasing any big fish hard just yet. We need to be patient imo. When we can legitimately push for the top 4 would be the right time.

Agree 100%. In 2 years go all out for a big fish.

Regardless, if a trade opportunity does arise this year we must be willing to be flexible. If a Mundy type came into our laps, we probably couldn't refuse, simply because quality is quality, no matter what position they play.

[GRUN DEE 69]

Very logical! I tend to agree with what your saying Furious D...

I think our hand may be forced within the next 2 years with current listed players looking for new homes.

eg. Warnock and possibly Jones.

Even though they wont catch us a big fish. I think potential big fishes could be available. eg. Jacobs.

[jayceebee31 697]

The right time is when the right players and the club agree .What I mean by this is- if the club feels they have a weakness and want to fill it by experienced players, then, when we approach the player and they agree- that is the right time.Whether that is this year, the next or when.

[Al`s DEMONS 0]

Agree 100%. In 2 years go all out for a big fish.

Regardless, if a trade opportunity does arise this year we must be willing to be flexible. If a Mundy type came into our laps, we probably couldn't refuse, simply because quality is quality, no matter what position they play.

in two years cats and saints will be on the decline. the MFC will be the big fish. have faith in the kids

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

Great OP.

I reckon when we get to the point that we hold all the cards, we'll see trades, and we'll see them leaning more towards our advantage. It won't be like the Daniher days where we were trading for risky options (Pickett), trading for mediocrity (Heffernan) or just being downright desperate (Moorcroft).

That said, it will all depend on what ratio of success we see with our drafting.

If we have recruited a few each of mids, backs and forwards in each height range, and 1 or 2 from each category end up good players, then great, we'll sit back and do little in trade week. What I think is more likely is that we do amazingly well in one category (KP defenders) and not so well in another (small defenders). That adjustment will take us from the bottom half of the eight to the top half.

Phase one is nearly complete, phase two will likely be the most fascinating of this generation.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Agree 100%. In 2 years go all out for a big fish.

Regardless, if a trade opportunity does arise this year we must be willing to be flexible. If a Mundy type came into our laps, we probably couldn't refuse, simply because quality is quality, no matter what position they play.

This is exactly why I've been suggesting grabbing a quality Oldy as a gap filler, cheap, for the times when our youngsters aren't pulling their weight. Pressure on the kids to perform to their Max. And cost us nothing.

In 2 years time, then we can go for a disgruntled Star. & spend.

[Red and Blue Flame 150]

Who do we think might be that star? we would still want it to be someone under age of around 26 so they could spend the 2nd half of their career at the club. Longer the better!

[Guest hangon007]

IMHO your logic is sound and well put if it was a normal drafting cycle.

Plus, according too many good judges think this year is a very "tricky weakened draft with a slight bias towards slower developing talls". Plus you have to bring the Gold Coast factor into the equation this year then GWS next year.

Edited September 6, 2010 by hangon007

[e25 5]

Rather than repeat this ad nauesuem on the various suggested trade threads I thought it'd be better to have one place to argue the merits of not trying to trade for experienced players just yet.

With so many youngsters on our list it's nigh on impossible to know what we've got just yet. We need some time to sort through these kids and work out exactly what they can do. Players drafted for one position often forge long careers playing somewhere completely different. They develop at different rates and draft number is no guareenteed indicator of who will make a contribution and who wont.

It's no use talking about filling holes on our list just yet because we have no idea where those holes will be when our premiership window is opening. Take the second ruck problem for instance. It looks good on paper to go after a Mitch Clarke right now and I agree we struggle in this area, but what if Max Gawn and Jake Spencer both become serviceable or even good in the next year or 2. We will have wasted a big chunk of salary cap space and maybe traded away decent picks or young players. We would be loaded with rucks and be looking to trade one out before long.

On whiteboard wednesday a few weeks back Tim Harrington explained why we were paying nearly 100% of the salary cap this year. It's not that contracts are front loaded as many suggested here. As I pouinted out at the time that solves nothing in 3 years when you have to re-sign everyone. We are prepaying contracts which is very different and creates a bigger hole in our salary cap the lonnger we do it.

I'll try to explain it simply for those that didn't see it. For simplicity say the salary cap is $10milliom p.a and our contracts for that year add up to $9.2m and $9.5 million the year after. We can bring forward $800,000 from the second year and pay it this year. That reduces our salary cap burden the second year from 9.5 to 8.7 million. This means we can bring forward even more the year after. This will be offset a little by our young players demanding more money as they improve but we should still have a massive gap to be able to secure a quality player to adress our most pressing need when the time is right.

I'd be especially against trading away any of our first or even second round draft picks for the next 2 years. I think the club has set itself up to not have to go too deep in the next 2 compromised drafts. The thing that has made us so ordinary the last few years is the hole in our list of players of players aged 27-29. 2 years ago that hole was players aged 25-27. You can't do well with no players in the prime of there careers. I'm terrified of recreating this problem 8-10 years from now. We need to find some draftees theses next 2 years who'll add something to our list and I don't want to be relying on late picks for that.

I'm not completely against trading and we should consider any offer on its merits but I don't think it's time to be chasing any big fish hard just yet. We need to be patient imo. When we can legitimately push for the top 4 would be the right time.

to my understanding, what you described WAS front-loading contracts.

If not, please can you explain what the difference is..?

[furious d 447]

to my understanding, what you described WAS front-loading contracts.

If not, please can you explain what the difference is..?

I thought front loading was structuring the contract so that more is paid first year less later. These payments are actually supposed to be paid in later years acccording to the contract but are brought forward as there is still space to fill. It's more how I understood it.

If you're simply structuring contracts to pay mopre early it doesn't create the gap in the same way.

[e25 5]

I thought front loading was structuring the contract so that more is paid first year less later. These payments are actually supposed to be paid in later years acccording to the contract but are brought forward as there is still space to fill. It's more how I understood it.

If you're simply structuring contracts to pay mopre early it doesn't create the gap in the same way.

??

It would create a gap in EXACTLY the same way.

Except for the fact I'm pretty sure that not including the payment schedule in the terms of the contract, would not be allowed by the AFL.

You can't just sign players up and then pay them when you want to - if that were the case you could exceed the cap and then just decide to pay a lump of it spread over the following years, ad infinitum.

There would be no salary cap breaches because clubs could just say "no! We're including that in the cap for NEXT year."

no penalties would be able to be applied. Money can't be freely moved around from year to year unless it is planned ahead and written into the contracts.

[sylvinator 96]

??

It would create a gap in EXACTLY the same way.

Except for the fact I'm pretty sure that not including the payment schedule in the terms of the contract, would not be allowed by the AFL.

You can't just sign players up and then pay them when you want to - if that were the case you could exceed the cap and then just decide to pay a lump of it spread over the following years, ad infinitum.

There would be no salary cap breaches because clubs could just say "no! We're including that in the cap for NEXT year."

no penalties would be able to be applied. Money can't be freely moved around from year to year unless it is planned ahead and written into the contracts.

At the end of the day, in the 'actuals' of what is paid to players (TPP) each and every year must be under the salary cap.

What we are doing is that according to the contracts we have with players for 2010, we would only be paying, say, 90% of the cap. So we 'forward' some of the cash promised to players under contracts for future years and pay them this year. For example of Davey is contracted to receive $500,000 in 2011, we can pay him $250K of that amount in 2010 as a forward payment and this is included in the 2010 TPP. This is good for the players, who get their money earlier and can invest it if they wish, and good for the club, who now is paying 100% of the cap, but now has extra room to move in future years.

If you still don't understand the rules and how it works i recommend watching Tim Harrington's Whiteboard Wednesday in week 22 i think. He explains it all very clearly, it is all within the rules, and no salary cap rules are being breached.

PS- making 'front loaded' contracts would create exactly the same result, as far as i understand. The only difference I can think of is that this method provides more flexibility for the club. No salary cap rules are being breached as long as each and every year the TPP are under the cap.

[No16 1]

Good OP, however as said earlier when we are ready for a tilt it will be our players that will be the big fish in the competition. With other clubs looking at how to entice scully, trengove, watts, jurrah or newton (yeah right!)...

[Radar Detector 1,347]

PS- making 'front loaded' contracts would create exactly the same result, as far as i understand. The only difference I can think of is that this method provides more flexibility for the club. No salary cap rules are being breached as long as each and every year the TPP are under the cap.

Correct. The difference between pre-paying contracts and front-loading contracts is that front-loading contractually binds the club to pay a certain amount in a particular year (e.g. pay $400k in year one, $200k in year 2). This will be agreed at the time the contract is signed. Prepaying contracts may arise where someone has signed a contract for $300k in year 1 and 2 but because there is excess room in the salary cap in year 1, they agree with the player to pay a portion of the contract early (e.g pay $400k in year one, $200k in year 2). So the result is the same, but the contractual treatments are different. It is all about freeing up room in future. This does not encourage salary cap cheating as suggested by another poster as at no time can you pay more than 100% of the cap in TPP in a given year (unless you're Carlton). It only works for clubs like Melbourne who, despite front-loading a portion of our contracts, may still have residual room in the cap in a given year.

Hope that helps!

[e25 5]

Surely you can't just pre-pay a contract without it being written into the terms of the contract.

Doesn't the contract's terms determine which year's TPP the salary goes into?

I'm surprised it can be moved around this freely.

[sylvinator 96]

Surely you can't just pre-pay a contract without it being written into the terms of the contract.

Doesn't the contract's terms determine which year's TPP the salary goes into?

I'm surprised it can be moved around this freely.

Apparently so. All your questions are answered very clearly by Tim Harrington. Just take a look at the Whiteboard wednesday. He's the guy in charge of list management

[e25 5]

Apparently so. All your questions are answered very clearly by Tim Harrington. Just take a look at the Whiteboard wednesday. He's the guy in charge of list management

I've watched it weeks ago, but I don't recall him making the differentiation between Pre-paying and Front-loading.

I presumed he was using layman's terms.

[Bay Riffin 1,454]

For simplicity say the salary cap is $10milliom p.a and our contracts for that year add up to $9.2m and $9.5 million the year after. We can bring forward $800,000 from the second year and pay it this year. That reduces our salary cap burden the second year from 9.5 to 8.7 million.

So how is this not front ending contracts? It's the same thing. The $800,000 needs to be actual money brought forward.