Trade and Free Agency rumours

[Sir Why You Little 34,436]

53 minutes ago, McQueen said:

The AFL just now [censored] canning the idea of letting the Power use their pics - their future pics - is just them manipulating the competition again…. Jason Horne Francis is going to be made an example of.

Is this the beginning of the AFL trying to place more contract emphasis on high draft picks maintaining their obligations when they sign on the dotted line? 

You cannot change Rules Mid Trading Season. That is not on

[McQueen 17,863]

19 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

You cannot change Rules Mid Trading Season. That is not on

Contrary to your response… that’s exactly what they do. 😕

[Sir Why You Little 34,436]

9 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Contrary to your response… that’s exactly what they do. 😕

Doesn’t make it right and it shouldn’t happen. 
Amend the Rules at the end of Trading for next year. 
i would guess Salary Dumping would have the AFL rather concerned right now, that could get right out of control 

[McQueen 17,863]

20 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Doesn’t make it right and it shouldn’t happen. 
Amend the Rules at the end of Trading for next year. 
i would guess Salary Dumping would have the AFL rather concerned right now, that could get right out of control 

Nothing is hard and fast. 
 

But these DH’s are making this comp so contrived. 

[Sir Why You Little 34,436]

36 minutes ago, McQueen said:

Nothing is hard and fast. 
 

But these DH’s are making this comp so contrived. 

Agreed. And we must call them out 

Jeelong getting pick 7 is outrageous 

[rpfc 27,448]

6 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Agreed. And we must call them out 

Jeelong getting pick 7 is outrageous 

They are taking on $1.6m for a player GC is happy to let go.

I personally would not want that in our window. Yes, the pick is alluring but what other talent are they missing out on.

They are obviously managing their cap well but they have no stars in their prime so of course they can.

I hate Geelong but I don’t think there is nefarious play at work here; just tossers winning flags.

[Cheap Seats 3,300]

9 hours ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Doesn’t make it right and it shouldn’t happen. 
Amend the Rules at the end of Trading for next year. 
i would guess Salary Dumping would have the AFL rather concerned right now, that could get right out of control 

It was created by the AFL, and now it is being exploited by teams who can manipulate the salary cap.

The bit that stinks the most for me (and yes the MFC will do it as well), is how the cats can take on a contract and smooth out the terms. The contract should be honoured in full under the current terms.

If that is possible why is pick 7 required to be traded out? Its a joke. The AFL is a joke when it comes to integrity of the competition.

Edited October 8, 2022 by Cheap Seats

[binman 37,992]

9 hours ago, McQueen said:

Nothing is hard and fast. 
 

But these DH’s are making this comp so contrived. 

And then in a couple of months, will put the icing on the contrivance cake when they release their FIXture

[Redleg 37,566]

Looks like we are taking only 2 players in the draft and only trading in Grundy.

Unless someone else is traded out, we will need to delist one more, most likely Baker.

It seems we are looking to give our young players at Casey every chance and maybe preparing to target someone next year, by making salary cap space and having extra future picks. 

[old55 21,288]

22 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Looks like we are taking only 2 players in the draft and only trading in Grundy.

Unless someone else is traded out, we will need to delist one more, most likely Baker.

It seems we are looking to give our young players at Casey every chance and maybe preparing to target someone next year, by making salary cap space and having extra future picks. 

I think we're currently on track there Red. 4 out of the primary (Jackson, Bedford, Rosman, Hunt), 2 in (Grundy and Chandler upgrade) and 2 picks

[Redleg 37,566]

4 minutes ago, old55 said:

I think we're currently on track there Red. 4 out of the primary (Jackson, Bedford, Rosman, Hunt), 2 in (Grundy and Chandler upgrade) and 2 picks

Yes,  I made a mistake thinking Turner needed an upgrade.

I wonder if we would take Rosman as a rookie if available.

 

[old55 21,288]

9 minutes ago, Redleg said:

Yes,  I made a mistake thinking Turner needed an upgrade.

I wonder if we would take Rosman as a rookie if available.

 

Doesn't sound like we will. We thanked him for his contribution 

[Redleg 37,566]

8 minutes ago, old55 said:

Doesn't sound like we will. We thanked him for his contribution 

Pity, he was one I thought could kick on and his height and versatility would have been handy.

[Palace Dees 2,000]

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

 

I hate Geelong but I don’t think there is nefarious play at work here; just tossers winning flags.

It's not often you see nefarious and tossers in the same sentence.  An apt description nonetheless. 

[deejammin' 2,065]

1 hour ago, old55 said:

I think we're currently on track there Red. 4 out of the primary (Jackson, Bedford, Rosman, Hunt), 2 in (Grundy and Chandler upgrade) and 2 picks

I’m happy with this. There just isn’t the talent we need available this year. If a speedy skilful outside mid or a star key forward was available we would go for it. I’d clear Oskar Baker’s spot and draft a developing ruck, but otherwise, Grundy, 2 top picks and the Chandler upgrade and go to work on improving from within. 

[Binmans PA 26,033]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Looks like we are taking only 2 players in the draft and only trading in Grundy.

Unless someone else is traded out, we will need to delist one more, most likely Baker.

It seems we are looking to give our young players at Casey every chance and maybe preparing to target someone next year, by making salary cap space and having extra future picks. 

So if we don't get Hunter, we'll re-sign Baker.

[xman97 108]

2 hours ago, Cheap Seats said:

It was created by the AFL, and now it is being exploited by teams who can manipulate the salary cap.

The bit that stinks the most for me (and yes the MFC will do it as well), is how the cats can take on a contract and smooth out the terms. The contract should be honoured in full under the current terms.

If that is possible why is pick 7 required to be traded out? Its a joke. The AFL is a joke when it comes to integrity of the competition.

.

Edited October 8, 2022 by xman97
Sorry, wrong person reply

[xman97 108]

1 hour ago, Redleg said:

Looks like we are taking only 2 players in the draft and only trading in Grundy.

Unless someone else is traded out, we will need to delist one more, most likely Baker.

It seems we are looking to give our young players at Casey every chance and maybe preparing to target someone next year, by making salary cap space and having extra future picks. 

I've heard this a couple of times. Has anyone heard the club say we're only taking 2 picks?

I'm genuinely interested, as I've got them taking 3 or 4! If Chandler takes a primary list spot without us replacing his list spot, we've then got only 42 instead of 43 players like we had this year. Before the covid rules, you had to have 44 players all up excluding Cat B rookies. I've heard the covid rules are being scrapped, but I haven't heard if clubs are allowed to have less than 44 from 2023. If clubs do have to go back to 44 players, we'd need to add 4 in the draft, 2 rookie and Grundy. If Baker gets delisted, that's another we have to add.

That would make it 38 Primary List / 6 CAT A Rookies. 38 was the minimum primary list players you could have. You could also do 39 primary and 5 rookie, or 40 and 4 to make up that 44. 

[mo64 5,209]

I don't see under any circumstance why we should re-sign Baker.

Another ruckman on our list is more important than a wingman/half back, who wasn't considered for selection this year.

[Matt 424]

59 minutes ago, xman97 said:

I've heard this a couple of times. Has anyone heard the club say we're only taking 2 picks?

On Trade Radio, Cal said we would only be using two picks

[xman97 108]

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

On Trade Radio, Cal said we would only be using two picks

Ok cheers. He's normally credible. It's either clubs can have less than the normal 44 players, or Cal is wrong in his calculations. Another scenario is the AFL has changed it's stance on the minimum 38 primary list spots. Maybe we're doing a 36 primary and 8 rookie. In that case, we'd be taking 4 in the rookie draft!

[DeeSpencer 23,124]

5 hours ago, rpfc said:

They are taking on $1.6m for a player GC is happy to let go.

I personally would not want that in our window. Yes, the pick is alluring but what other talent are they missing out on.

They are obviously managing their cap well but they have no stars in their prime so of course they can.

I hate Geelong but I don’t think there is nefarious play at work here; just tossers winning flags.

Which they’re converting to a 4 x 600, a decent salary but maybe 250-300 per year extra. 
 

The dodgy part of the deal to me is Geelong having inside knowledge of every teams cap as their CEO was at the league office a year ago.

And of course the Suns continued incompetence. They could’ve split their pick 7 with us or another side and sent Bowes to market with pick 15 or so. Plenty of clubs would’ve still taken him. Yet they don’t seem to have any idea how to negotiate 

[Sir Why You Little 34,436]

6 hours ago, rpfc said:

They are taking on $1.6m for a player GC is happy to let go.

I personally would not want that in our window. Yes, the pick is alluring but what other talent are they missing out on.

They are obviously managing their cap well but they have no stars in their prime so of course they can.

I hate Geelong but I don’t think there is nefarious play at work here; just tossers winning flags.

Jeelong should not be in a position to be able to pay that money for a nobody player with their current list. 
It cannot be above board. 

[Clintosaurus 6,427]

17 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Jeelong should not be in a position to be able to pay that money for a nobody player with their current list. 
It cannot be above board. 

Getting the OK to pay it as $400k per year for 4 makes it easy. Totally wrong for HQ to allow though.

[Redleg 37,566]

40 minutes ago, Clintosaurus said:

Getting the OK to pay it as $400k per year for 4 makes it easy. Totally wrong for HQ to allow though.

Bowes is not going to accept that.

Maybe more like $600k per year for 3 years. He gets another year and another $200k.