Selection Dilemma Coming Soon

[east gippsland demon 7]

Guys, before Davey was injured, his form was very poor, to the point where most were clamouring for his to be dropped. While he may have recovered from his injury, I don't think his addition to the team after last week would help us. I am also gobsmacked as to him not being able to be played at Casey on his return.

ever think hes poor form over those weeks was because perhaps he was trying to carry the injury? having said that i think he will def come back through casey. dont worry about bull s..t clauses in contracts.

[whelan45 203]

This is where your whole argument falls over. One minute you want to moving him on for "nothing" ... next second you are talking about "upgrading a pick." Make your mind up.

If players are worth "nothing" you will get "nothing." To get good you must give up good.

Other clubs are not stupid. Nearly all clubs have grading orders ...if the draft pick is weaker than the player you are giving up ... you would be trading for trade sake. You would be giving up a player you have put 5-6 years into for a player that would be playing at Casey anyway.

Just because its new does not mean its better. Not in this draft at least.

IMHO if I was at an opposition club I would probably offer a player, for player swap on a needs basis & probably someone playing at my VFL affiliate side. However, I'm not sure that help us .... hence my comment I'm not sure its going to be that simple with Bate having a contract.

So its in fact its you that that has the strange, strange grasp of the matter. In fact a complete naivety but not unlike many who contribute to forums. Who just cant understand the basics of trading.

Hehehe ... No problems.

If Melbourne are looking to move a player like Bate or Dunn at the end of the year, I doubt they are going to be after a player in return. We are going to have a hard enough time as it is deciding on which players to cut from the list, so a trade for a draft pick makes a lot of sense.

It is a very realistic possibility another club will like the idea of downgrading a 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick, whatever it may be to aquire one of these players. Nobody is suggesting we trade a player like McNamara or Newton in a deal like this. But players of the Bate and Dunn ilk would be considered worthy by some clubs of downgrading a pick for.

It would be fantastic if we could keep players such as Bate and Dunn forever as depth, however we are required to turnover at least 3 players every year. So trading depth players, particularly those that have been on the list for quite a number of years, for a draft pick, even just an upgrade of a pick, is a smart move.

[Guest hangon007]

If Melbourne are looking to move a player like Bate or Dunn at the end of the year, I doubt they are going to be after a player in return. We are going to have a hard enough time as it is deciding on which players to cut from the list, so a trade for a draft pick makes a lot of sense.

It is a very realistic possibility another club will like the idea of downgrading a 2nd round pick, 3rd round pick, whatever it may be to aquire one of these players. Nobody is suggesting we trade a player like McNamara or Newton in a deal like this. But players of the Bate and Dunn ilk would be considered worthy by some clubs of downgrading a pick for.

It would be fantastic if we could keep players such as Bate and Dunn forever as depth, however we are required to turnover at least 3 players every year. So trading depth players, particularly those that have been on the list for quite a number of years, for a draft pick, even just an upgrade of a pick, is a smart move.

I can hear your point & you have made your point very well. Many of the comments you make I think we are in agreement ... so dont get me wrong I can see whats in it for us.

However, sadly not all trades go that way. Probably why ... more trades actually do not done compared to the trades that actually do get done. Its easy to quote the trades that do get done a draw the wrong conclusions ... not all drafts are the same not all player situations are the same.

You need different strategies for different drafts. You need different strategies for different players.

Then people get on forums like this and start screaming ... "Why didn't we do this or that. With player X & Y"

But ultimately, I want all trades to go our way. But I accept this is not always possible. You are dealing with players lives & futures.

However, all said a done point taken. Hopefully my point is clearer now.

[Adam The God 30,403]

Correct. The 2's have their place....That is why i want a Melbourne VFL side in the future.

Not gonna happen. I'd rather build up a membership base in Casey.

[old55 23,687]

I do agree with this. Many times a contracted player has gone for way less as the club tries to extricate itself from its own mess.

Woey and TJ are two examples of contracted players that to get rid of them we had to compensate pies/lions well to take away our own mess. Less demand for them. The question on both of these players is not whether someone would take them - it was how much we had to pay to get rid of them. We won on both me thinks ( especially TJ - paid some of his salary but got Grimes in the process)

That's [censored]. The fact that they were both contracted meant we got a better trade deal in terms of pick (pick 12 and pick 14) than if they were uncontracted and we couldn't agree to new terms with them - see Cameron Bruce this year! The fact that you can pay some of their salary is a lever to get a better trade deal and doesn't hurt you if it doesn't push you over the salary cap - which it wont because if you don't trade them you have to pay it anyway.

[Guest hangon007]

That's [censored]. The fact that they were both contracted meant we got a better trade deal in terms of pick (pick 12 and pick 14) than if they were uncontracted and we couldn't agree to new terms with them - see Cameron Bruce this year! The fact that you can pay some of their salary is a lever to get a better trade deal and doesn't hurt you if it doesn't push you over the salary cap - which it wont because if you don't trade them you have to pay it anyway.

With all due respect - and I mean that - think I've said it before you have a great understanding I respect your opinion - .... Your statement is a mass over generalisation.

You are basing this generalisation on the small amount of trades that do get done where a player has a contract. (Which are heavily opinionated & have the added bonus of hindsight which the traders dont have that added bonus)

However, .... How about the much larger amount of trades that dont get done because a player has a contract?

"fact that they were both contracted meant we got a better trade" (again an opinion) ... No there where other factors at play. But lets not discuss them ... they are in the past and where they should remain.

IMHO ... You need to be flexible in your thinking. Dont get this wrong ... 1 + 1 = 2 Doesn't matter how you try to complicate the equation. At the end of the day you need to consider the situation in front of you & todays circumstances and not quote past examples as precedents with different players in different drafts in different years.

But you are entitled to you opinion. No problems from me.

Edited June 29, 2011 by hangon007

[old55 23,687]

With all due respect - and I mean that - think I've said it before you have a great understanding I respect your opinion - .... Your statement is a mass over generalisation.

But you are entitled to you opinion. No problems from me.

Take a specific player in a specific draft that wants to be traded, that the club wants to trade and that one or more clubs want to trade for - if the player is contracted he will achieve a higher price than if he's uncontracted. Yes that price may vary from draft to draft and player to player. Sometimes contracted players don't get traded and that's because their trade price is higher than if they were uncontracted.

[Guest hangon007]

- if the player is contracted he will achieve a higher price than if he's uncontracted.

This is just an opinion ... if you do quote a precedent some will say we got higher some would argue we got lower ... some want to judge the trade way-way too early. Who won out of the Judd trade? Who won out of the Fevola trade? All opinions based on hindsight and doubt all would agree at the time of trade.

If he has a contract he has a contract. In he doesnt have a contract he dosen't.

Price is dictated by demand & supply.

But again ... Great discussion.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

If Judd was contracted and he said that he wanted to play for Carlton then either:

a) Carlton trade pick 1 to West Coast (instead of pick 3), or

b) Judd doesn't get traded.

Edited June 29, 2011 by Axis of Bob

[Guest hangon007]

If Judd was contracted and he said that he wanted to play for Carlton then either:

a) Carlton trade pick 1 to West Coast (instead of pick 3), or

B) Judd doesn't get traded.

hehehehe .... bad example, very bad example.

Lets start with a/ Judd didn't have a contract. So its a hypothetical.

Ok for the sake of the discussion I will go along with your hypothetical.

Paul Connors, Chris Judd managers is a very feisty man. Fair but feisty. He is a business man.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in the room the WC official would have to make the call. But since we are into hypotheticals. Lets go.

WC official ... "look Paul. Juddy has a contract for 1 more year. We are not excepting Carltons offer. We want pick 1"

PC Player Manager ... "are you f'kidding expletive expletive expletive. Look mate I dodn't give a damn who you are .... what goes around comes around. Its called trading expletive expletive expletive karma ... think of the big picture you expletive expletive.... Are you telling me you want to stand in the way of your last premiership captains wishes, mate you are taking about his future, ....expletive expletive expletive ... go away and think about it."

WC official ... "we are not interested".

PC Player Manager ... "mate walk away from this deal .... and you will never get it a expletive again. Carton have told you this is there best offer ... otherwise they will walk. Now I would hate to be in your expletive shoes if that happens. Now go away and think about it."

WC official ... long pause ... "yip thats a good idea Paul. I will go away and think about it."

I've said this elsewhere ... Seriously Axis they are in business not running a kindergarten. They are not in the business of insulting one another ... if you insult them they will insult you.

Edited June 29, 2011 by hangon007

[old55 23,687]

However, .... How about the much larger amount of trades that dont get done because a player has a contract?

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

If Judd has a contract and want to go to Carlton then Carlton would have to meet West Coast's demands (ie, pick 1) or he is contractually obliged to stay.

Without a contract West Coast had to take Carlton's offer.

Worst case scenario for West Coast is that Judd plays another year for them. Wow, that would be a bitter pill for Worsfold to swallow!!

Edited June 29, 2011 by Axis of Bob

[Guest hangon007]

If Judd has a contract and want to go to Carlton then Carlton would have to meet West Coast's demands (ie, pick 1) or he is contractually obliged to stay.

Without a contract West Coast had to take Carlton's offer.

Worst case scenario for West Coast is that Judd plays another year for them. Wow, that would be a bitter pill for Worsfold to swallow!!

As i said bad hypo ... but

Mate if you wanted to walk away from picks 3,20 & Kennedy ... then next year ... have a guess what you would of got?

Burn bridges in this business and they will burn you. Insult them & they will insult you. You are in business for a long time not a short time. Some understand how this game is played ... some should be running a kindergarten (or a pharmacy ... hehehehe.)

Without a contract West Coast had to take Carlton's offer. ... With a contract they would have done the same. But Juddy didn't put them in that position. He looked after them ... did the right thing ... so when it came to the crunch ie Carlton best offer ... West Coast came to their sanity.

No worst case scenerio is you have a one hell of an upset player that doesn't want to play for you ... you dont have picks 3,20 & Kennedy. Then welcome to your new chemist Mr Worsfold ... you only delayed it 1 year. B)

Edited June 29, 2011 by hangon007

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

If Judd was contracted Carlton would have to have handed over pick 1, or else Judd wouldn't be playing for them.

Judd, without a contract, was able to get to Carlton without pick 1.

As you tried so valiantly to argue in a separate argument, relationships go both ways. Paul Connors needs West Coast as much as, possibly more than, West Coast needs Connors. If the deal doesn't get done, and Judd stays at West Coast, then Connors' reputation takes a massive nosedive in such a public forum. Plus his name would be mud in Western Australia.

His reputation is his bargaining chip to lure new clients. There's no way he'd want to burn his bridges with West Coast, Carlton and Chris Judd.

Besides, if the deal didn't get done because Carlton didn't hand over pick 1, then it wouldn't be West Coast that Connors/Judd would have been angry with .... it would have been Carlton.

Bottom line is, no matter how you try to spin it, if Judd was contracted then Carlton would have had to trade more to get the deal done.

Imagine Trent Cotchin playing in the West Coast midfield.

[Guest hangon007]

I'm not sure of your point old55 ... but I will say this dont forget who has the "power" in this business.

Dont be fooled into thinking its the club. A contract is a two way street.

Clubs cant move players on with contracts unless they agree ... that does not drive the price up. It reduces the demand.

Players are not pieces of meat you can throw out when you think they are no longer to your liking.

Sadly, thats half the problem around here.

Edited June 29, 2011 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

If Judd was contracted Carlton would have to have handed over pick 1, or else Judd wouldn't be playing for them.

Judd, without a contract, was able to get to Carlton without pick 1.

As you tried so valiantly to argue in a separate argument, relationships go both ways. Paul Connors needs West Coast as much as, possibly more than, West Coast needs Connors. If the deal doesn't get done, and Judd stays at West Coast, then Connors' reputation takes a massive nosedive in such a public forum. Plus his name would be mud in Western Australia.

His reputation is his bargaining chip to lure new clients. There's no way he'd want to burn his bridges with West Coast, Carlton and Chris Judd.

Besides, if the deal didn't get done because Carlton didn't hand over pick 1, then it wouldn't be West Coast that Connors/Judd would have been angry with .... it would have been Carlton.

Bottom line is, no matter how you try to spin it, if Judd was contracted then Carlton would have had to trade more to get the deal done.

Imagine Trent Cotchin playing in the West Coast midfield.

hehehe ... good luck with you thought process. But sorry its not quite right.

... "then it wouldn't be West Coast that Connors/Judd would have been angry with .... it would have been Carlton."

Nope not if they felt Carlton had offered a reasonable price ... they would know where the problem lied.

One day it will come back and burn you bad. You are thinking short-term ... come on down Ross Lyon.

Edited June 29, 2011 by hangon007

[Guest hangon007]

Paul Connors needs West Coast as much as, possibly more than, West Coast needs Connors. If the deal doesn't get done, and Judd stays at West Coast, then Connors' reputation takes a massive nosedive in such a public forum. Plus his name would be mud in Western Australia.

Seriously if you think this I can see why you are saying what you are saying.

Paul does not work for West Coast ... he works for his vendor Chris Judd.

Tell me how many players change manager ever year? Tell me how many players want to change club every year?

The only reputation that goes down hill is West Coast ... other players & other clubs are not stupid.

You are thinking as a footballer supporter ... not a football manager & a football club.

[Guest hangon007]

Imagine Trent Cotchin playing in the West Coast midfield.

Imagine Kennedy still playing at Carlton?

Pick 1 ... no change

Cotchin stays where he is ...

Pick 3 stays at Carlton ... let me think who do they take? Definitely not Masten.

I year on WC loose Mr Judd .... good trading WC.

[Rogue 585]

This thread had potential.

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Your arguments make it appear that you are either a troll or .... well I hope for your sake that you're a troll. Either way, I'm bored so let's keep going.

Rumour at the time was that West Coast were ultra keen on replacing Judd with Cotchin. Just rumour, though.

So if Judd was contracted, then you say they would have to lose Judd the next year. Now let's analyse this. The following year where did Carlton finish? 11th. That meant that they had pick 6 in the pre-season draft. In the PSD the following players were taken before Carlton would have had a shot:

- Liam Jurrah (Melb)

- Josh Carr (Port)

- Hayden Skipworth (Ess).

How many of these teams would have overlooked Chris Judd?

West Coast's trading position would have been stronger than the year before, given that Judd couldn't get to Carlton expect by way of trade. They could have taken Kennedy then, their pick 6 (which could have netted them a far better player than Masten), plus what ever else they wanted from a desperate Carlton. Plus they would have had Chirs Judd for an extra year.

Instead, Carlton had the upper hand because they only had to get past one club (Richmond) in 2007 (and had more cap room than them). West Coast had to fold and take Masten (pick 3) instead of Cotchin (or Kruezer at pick 1).

Clubs cant move players on with contracts unless they agree ... that does not drive the price up. It reduces the demand.

Players without contracts cannot move on unless they agree too! If a player says that they will only be traded to one club (like Judd) then the demand = 1 club for both. Therefor the demand is irrelevant.

The demand for the players is the same. However the motivation to sell is much, much lower. A motivated seller (such as when an uncontracted player can get to the club in the draft) will accept far less than an unmotivated seller (such as when the player is contracted).

If the player is contracted then they cannot get to their club of choice without a deal being agreed to by 3 parties:

- the player

- the target club, and

- the original club.

If a player is uncontracted and can get to the club of his choice via the draft, then the price goes down. The three parties either agree to a trade or they go into the draft. In order to move to a club in the draft the decision must be agreed to by two parties:

- the player (by nominating the finincial and contractual terms that he wishes be drafted under), and

- the target club.

This is what happened to St Kilda with Luke Ball. Ball named his terms and Collingwood agreed to them by drafting him. In order to be traded by St Kilda, they needed to agree to Collinwood's deal. Since Collingwood and Ball thought they could get him in the draft, they gave a low offer.

You are thinking as a footballer supporter ... not a football manager & a football club.

I, it may not surprise you (although it may), think that it is you that are unable to see this from a different perspective. You can only see this from the player's perspective yet are incapable of seeing it from either club's perspective. There are three parties.

The target club must assure the player that they can get the deal done, or that they can get them in the draft. Since the draft is not 100% predictable, they will usually attempt to give the original club some compensation to encourage them to trade the player before the draft.

The original club wants to get some compensation for the player instead of losing that player for nothing through the draft. Sometimes they will get such a poor offer (ie, Ball and Nick Stevens) that they will refuse it and let the player and the target club carry the risk. Sometimes it works (Stevens) sometimes it doesn't (Ball) - but it's a risk.

Often the original club just accepts a poor deal in order to get some compensation (ie, Ben Hudson, Daniel Motlop, Nick Davis, Brent Prismall, Robbie Warnock).

However this is also backed up by logic.

The only reputation that goes down hill is West Coast ... other players & other clubs are not stupid.

How's Max Steven going in player management these days?

Edited June 29, 2011 by Axis of Bob

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Sorry about that Rogue but, in my defence, I am suffering from boredom.

At least there will be many more list management threads in the second half of the season.

[Rogue 585]

No great loss

there will be many more list management threads in the second half of the season.

For sure.

[Guest hangon007]

Your arguments make it appear that you are either a troll or .... well I hope for your sake that you're a troll. Either way, I'm bored so let's keep going.

Hahahaha ... sure I'm bored lets play. Lets play hypotheticals ...

Rumour at the time was that West Coast were ultra keen on replacing Judd with Cotchin. Just rumour, though.

Good rumour for me ... hehehe. You want him their is only one way you get him ... you will only ever have 1 chance in hell of getting him. Hope the Tigers overlook him. How much do you want him? Sorry I cant control Richmond.

Rumour is also strong you would look at a kid who already works for you as an alternative ... In your Eagles Shop I think (... no returning home theory) ... Just a rumour though.

So if Judd was contracted, then you say they would have to lose Judd the next year. Now let's analyse this. The following year where did Carlton finish? 11th. That meant that they had pick 6 in the pre-season draft. In the PSD the following players were taken before Carlton would have had a shot:

- Liam Jurrah (Melb)

- Josh Carr (Port)

- Hayden Skipworth (Ess).

How many of these teams would have overlooked Chris Judd?

Mate thats why we spoke to 4 clubs. B) Geez it was close. Mate there wasn't that much difference between any of them. All great clubs to deal with. We were impressed with quite a few of their presentations. In the end Carlton was our preference ... but we are flexible.

West Coast's trading position would have been stronger than the year before, given that Judd couldn't get to Carlton expect by way of trade. They could have taken Kennedy then, their pick 6 (which could have netted them a far better player than Masten), plus what ever else they wanted from a desperate Carlton. Plus they would have had Chirs Judd for an extra year.

Instead, Carlton had the upper hand because they only had to get past one club (Richmond) in 2007 (and had more cap room than them). West Coast had to fold and take Masten (pick 3) instead of Cotchin (or Kruezer at pick 1).

Mate ... my player is now out of contract. You screwed my player last year ... what goes around comes around.

Carlton are very happy, they have picks 1,3,20 & Kennedy. Did I metion their names Kruezer, Rioli & Tayte Pears!!!! They really liked that Rioli kid ... no interest in Masten ... oh and that Kennedy kid that you knocked back last year is really starting to kick on.

Here is now my new deal ... no negotiations ... other wise I walk.

PS side note with Judd would West Coast have finshed 15th ... I think not .... so no Nick Nat either. Just a hypothetical of course. Just a hypothetical of course.

ohhh I nearly forgot Carlton finished 11th with Judd ... without Judd ... marginally lower. Your worst nightmare is back. Just a hypothetical of course.

If I walk ... you get no Judd ... no picks 3,20 & Kennedy. Hypothetically you get no Nic Nat either .... welcome back to your pharmacy Mr Worsfold.

This is what happened to St Kilda with Luke Ball. Ball named his terms and Collingwood agreed to them by drafting him. In order to be traded by St Kilda, they needed to agree to Collinwood's deal. Since Collingwood and Ball thought they could get him in the draft, they gave a low offer.

Wrong the actually offered higher than they eventually paid via the draft. ooooops this blows a hole in your thought process.

Just remind me what St Kilda got again? ahhhhh Remember who holds the power.

I, it may not surprise you (although it may), think that it is you that are unable to see this from a different perspective. You can only see this from the player's perspective yet are incapable of seeing it from either club's perspective. There are three parties.

The original club wants to get some compensation for the player instead of losing that player for nothing through the draft. Sometimes they will get such a poor offer (ie, Ball and Nick Stevens) that they will refuse it and let the player and the target club carry the risk. Sometimes it works (Stevens) sometimes it doesn't (Ball) - but it's a risk.

Ask Nick how he enjoyed his years at Carlton. Sure wasnt his first choice but he never left!!!

However this is also backed up by logic.

No its backed up by precedents that dont hold true for all players & all drafts.

As I said different drafts require different strategies.

How's Max Steven going in player management these days?

hehehe ... Edited June 29, 2011 by hangon007

[Axis of Bob 11,840]

Mate ... my player is now out of contract. You screwed my player last year ... what goes around comes around.

Carlton are very happy, they have picks 1,3,17 & Kennedy.

Here is now my new deal ... no negotiations ... other wise I walk.

…….

If I walk ... you get no Judd ... no picks 1,3,17 & Kennedy.

And there's your mistake. It takes a lot of discipline to talk around corners so much and not eventually forget what you are supposed to be arguing for. You were always going to hang yourself.

Here is why:

You are now saying that Judd/Judd’s manager are able to screw over West Coast because he is out of contract and can now walk into the draft. If he was in contract then there is no way that he could make that sort of threat to ensure that West Coast accepts a lesser deal to move Judd on.

Thank you for articulating the exact point that is being made against your very argument. The words used against you are your own.

To summarise what has just happened:

- A deal on a contracted player must have an outcome that is favourable to the original club, otherwise they keep him.

- A deal on an uncontracted player takes the power away from the original club, under threat of “walking for nothing”, often resulting in an inferior deal for the original club.

As an aside, Andrew Walker wanted to walk last year. But he was contracted, Carlton wouldn’t accept and inferior deal and now Walker is playing good footy for Carlton. What are the odds on Walker signing a new contract with Carlton now? Pretty good I’d say.

It’s been fun, but you got caught up in the moment too much. Until next time.

[Guest hangon007]

And there's your mistake. It takes a lot of discipline to talk around corners so much and not eventually forget what you are supposed to be arguing for. You were always going to hang yourself.

Here is why:

You are now saying that Judd/Judd’s manager are able to screw over West Coast because he is out of contract and can now walk into the draft. If he was in contract then there is no way that he could make that sort of threat to ensure that West Coast accepts a lesser deal to move Judd on.

Thank you for articulating the exact point that is being made against your very argument. The words used against you are your own.

To summarise what has just happened:

- A deal on a contracted player must have an outcome that is favourable to the original club, otherwise they keep him.

- A deal on an uncontracted player takes the power away from the original club, under threat of “walking for nothing”, often resulting in an inferior deal for the original club.

As an aside, Andrew Walker wanted to walk last year. But he was contracted, Carlton wouldn’t accept and inferior deal and now Walker is playing good footy for Carlton. What are the odds on Walker signing a new contract with Carlton now? Pretty good I’d say.

It’s been fun, but you got caught up in the moment too much. Until next time.

Hahah ... yeah remember 1 think ... It was irrelevant that he had a contract ... it was irrelevant that he didn't. Hence why I said you picked a bad hypo ... why because he didn't have a contract and the price was the same.

You see I proved that via the hypo. He didn't have a contract and the deal was the same. Contract dont drive the price up. Contract only delay the inevitable. Clubs are not stupid.

Many many times its the contract that stops the deal. It does not increase the price. As my very first point taking Bate as an example. Where the conversation started.

But its been even more fun to expose you naivety. But as I said not unlike many others.

Until next time.

Edited June 29, 2011 by hangon007