Salary dump or ‘celery dump’.  One is taken by a club looking for relief, the other a vegetarian…

17 minutes ago, buck_nekkid said:

Salary dump or ‘celery dump’.  One is taken by a club looking for relief, the other a vegetarian…

Some might refer to the latter as Ben Brown's wasteful year...

4 hours ago, Little Goffy said:

I can see it now.

Trade out your first round pick for some salary space and some 'points' picks.

Recruit a top 5 quality player under father-son or some other priority, using the points picks.

Recruit a free agent with the spare salary cap space.

See also; club established in the top 8 or top 4 is able to continually trade out their first pick for salary cap space which lets them continually recruit free agents who don't cost draft picks, are willing to take less pay for the chance at finals, and place minimal demand on the football dept soft cap.

The 'feeder club' cycle would be complete.

Yes. The NSW and QLD clubs in particular would love it.

1 hour ago, Romey said:

Maybe we should offer to pay all of Grundy’s salary in exchange for a fourth round draft pick.
 

Then the Pies free up more salary and we head into the draft with two first round draft picks.

NHL teams do it all the time. They'll often unload a contract and 2nd Rd pick for 'future considerations'. Which is code for nothing.

But they also don't value draft picks like we do

Looks like we are getting close to 'salary dumping' this year:  salary-dumps-to-drive-key-deals

"...clubs are anticipating the League will be more open to approving deals that allow clubs to complete lopsided trades in which the team that receives a player (and takes on his contract) also gains a strong draft selection or selections.

The AFL is expected to be willing to allow more significant salary dumps so that clubs can clear their own tight caps whilst seeing other clubs use their spare cash and get rewarded for taking on a player's money and adding draft selections..."

If I read this correctly, if we take all of Grundy's $ we should ask for a draft pick from Coll...🤔?

37 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

If I read this correctly, if we take all of Grundy's $ we should ask for a draft pick from Coll...🤔?

You would hope so, and a 1st rounder at that

I don’t know about allowing salary dumping. Could open a can of worms with trying to ‘cheat’ the salary cap.

A club could sign 5/6 a-grade players to huge contracts, backend them all, then when the players are owed the majority of their contract, the club could just get some other club to pay their wage and rid them of the problem they created.

Bring in a heap of talent on big money, have a serious shot at a flag for 2 years, then trade out these players when the back ended money can’t be met.

Edited September 19, 20222 yr by Demon Disciple

So if, for example, we said we would pay the extra $300,000 a year, for 5 years, but received a 1st from the Pies for Grundy, would it be worth it? Would it depend on how high the 1st was? Or would we rather the $, to spend on other players, this year, or in the future?

27 minutes ago, Matt said:

You would hope so, and a 1st rounder at that

 

5 minutes ago, Matt said:

So if, for example, we said we would pay the extra $300,000 a year, for 5 years, but received a 1st from the Pies for Grundy, would it be worth it? Would it depend on how high the 1st was? Or would we rather the $, to spend on other players, this year, or in the future?

I think it would be extremely unlikely to get a pick from them.  They will expect and I think will get one from us.

My comment was rather hypothetical as I doubt we have the sal cap to take all of Grundy's $ but it does open the door to hard bargaining if we choose to.

 

I have no issue with aggressive salary dumping.

No clarification on whether teams can get picks purely for purchasing salary without getting the player. That sounds incredibly dangerous and hopefully hasn’t been allowed 

13 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I have no issue with aggressive salary dumping.

No clarification on whether teams can get picks purely for purchasing salary without getting the player. That sounds incredibly dangerous and hopefully hasn’t been allowed 

Sometimes it is a fine line.  Last year GCS traded Brodie, a player they didn't want, couldn't get a game in the seniors to Freo and gave them the very valuable pick 19 and two later picks in the process for just a some future picks

A very one-sided trade the AFL approved.  The article is saying the AFL will approve more lop-sided trades this year.  The AFL wants clubs to clear their tight sal caps.

It would be very easy for clubs to 'dress up' a 'salary for picks' trade by including 'steak knives' in the deal.

I just hope we are able to take advantage of this opening as our sal cap is said to be very tight.

Edited September 19, 20222 yr by Lucifers Hero

11 minutes ago, Lucifers Hero said:

Sometimes it is a fine line.  Last year GCS traded Brodie, a player they didn't want, couldn't get a game in the seniors to Freo and gave them the very valuable pick 19 and two later picks in the process for just a some future picks

A very one-sided trade the AFL approved.  The article is saying the AFL will approve more lop-sided trades this year.  The AFL wants clubs to clear their tight sal caps.

It would be very easy for clubs to 'dress up' a 'salary for picks' trade by including 'steak knives' in the deal.

I just hope we are able to take advantage of this opening as our sal cap is said to be very tight.

I’m fine with teams dumping players and paying for the right to do it. I’m not fine with the idea of teams could simply give a pick for the right to free salary cap space. 

In the first case a struggle side gets a player. Even if they don’t think the player will be much good at least they add some experience. In the second case the gap between contending teams and rebuilding teams would become rather silly. That could possibly help us now - although I don’t know who we’re salary dumping. But over time that would very much favour the clubs that consistently land trades and free agents (not us)

3 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I’m fine with teams dumping players and paying for the right to do it. I’m not fine with the idea of teams could simply give a pick for the right to free salary cap space. 

In the first case a struggle side gets a player. Even if they don’t think the player will be much good at least they add some experience. In the second case the gap between contending teams and rebuilding teams would become rather silly. That could possibly help us now - although I don’t know who we’re salary dumping. But over time that would very much favour the clubs that consistently land trades and free agents (not us)

I agree with all that. 

But 'dumping salary' can be made to look like 'dumping players' very easily.

There’s too much mental arithmetic involved in trades these days. 

I find it interesting that the AFL want to simplify the actual game, at the expense of its history, but let this kind of very technical stuff happen off field.

We get it. You wanna be the NFL. But you aren’t, you never will be - and that’s a good thing.

12 minutes ago, The heart beats true said:

There’s too much mental arithmetic involved in trades these days. 

I find it interesting that the AFL want to simplify the actual game, at the expense of its history, but let this kind of very technical stuff happen off field.

We get it. You wanna be the NFL. But you aren’t, you never will be - and that’s a good thing.

The NFL actually has a very simple draft and free agency system. Teams sign non guaranteed contacts and cut players if they get too expensive.

But the draft locks in players for 4 to 5 years and the free agency market is very open and allows teams to restock as they see fit. 

If you want a league where player movement becomes a bigger spectacle than the games and where the league divides in to haves and have nots, then it’s the NBA.

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

If you want a league where player movement becomes a bigger spectacle than the games and where the league divides in to haves and have nots, then it’s the NBA.

MLB goes pretty close DS.

9 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

MLB goes pretty close DS.

And that. If anyone cares about baseball any more 

4 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

I don’t know about allowing salary dumping. Could open a can of worms with trying to ‘cheat’ the salary cap.

A club could sign 5/6 a-grade players to huge contracts, backend them all, then when the players are owed the majority of their contract, the club could just get some other club to pay their wage and rid them of the problem they created.

Bring in a heap of talent on big money, have a serious shot at a flag for 2 years, then trade out these players when the back ended money can’t be met.

I just opened up a big can of worms. They just sit there….the worms. Hardly the chaos that’s advertised.

clubs-allowed-to-salary-dump-in-a-major-change-to-afl-trade-rules

An interesting twist:  "Gold Coast has midfielder Brayden Fiorini on a significant contract next year, but he has been squeezed out of the Suns’ young and talented midfield. He has had discussions with several clubs, including Collingwood, about a move and could be available in exchange for an insignificant draft pick, provided the recipient club takes over his contract".

GCS have picks: 7, 25, 31, 34, 43, 52, 67, 70, 79 and will probably get #5 from Adelaide for Rankine. So lots of 2nd and 3rd round picks GCS are unlikely to use.

Fiorini is said to be on $600k for 2023.  It is conceivable Coll take all of his contract and pick up a few good 2nd round picks and give back a late nothing pick which GCS won't use.

It would be a salary dump dressed up as a trade.

Coll could fit him into their sal cap with a 3 year contract @ average $350 a year and timing it to suit player retirements

18 hours ago, Lucifers Hero said:

 

I think it would be extremely unlikely to get a pick from them.  They will expect and I think will get one from us.

My comment was rather hypothetical as I doubt we have the sal cap to take all of Grundy's $ but it does open the door to hard bargaining if we choose to.

 

Who else seems to want GRUNDY

We are holding all the cards in my view

 

2 minutes ago, Kent said:

Who else seems to want GRUNDY

We are holding all the cards in my view

I believe Geelong and GWS were keen but Grundy will nominate only mfc.

And we are honest brokers.

Nonetheless, I think it could be a complex trade, especially now that the AFL is allowing defacto 'salary dump for pick trades'. 

This new ruling could have shifted the goal posts a little.

Too many permutations to speculate on.  But who knows, if Coll get some juicy picks from GCS (my speculation only) they might pass some on to us as part of the Grundy trade.

Wonder if we'll shop James Harmes around for this exact reason.

Signed a 5 year deal back in 2019.

4 hours ago, dazzledavey36 said:

Wonder if we'll shop James Harmes around for this exact reason.

Signed a 5 year deal back in 2019.

Unless the deal was horribly back ended and has big money left on it I can’t see us dumping Harmes. We gave him years over dollars surely? You don’t give 5 years for Harmes if you’re paying top of the market. 

He showed in the last 3 games of the year he’s clearly still a better wingman than JJ. And at the same time we missed his pace and tank through the middle. 

Brayshaw gets all the credit by moving to the wing for 2021 but Harmes selflessly played forward, 5th on baller and 3rd winger which is really tough going. No complaints. Never lacked effort.

If we signed Karl Amon or some other versatile quick midfield then sure, move off Harmes. (Who id imagine still have solid positive trade value btw). But can we really move off Harmes when the best Casey player to fill his role is Taj Woewodin?

On 9/20/2022 at 2:08 PM, DeeSpencer said:

If we signed Karl Amon or some other versatile quick midfield then sure, move off Harmes. (Who id imagine still have solid positive trade value btw). But can we really move off Harmes when the best Casey player to fill his role is Taj Woewodin?

Harmes should remain our first rotation mid - more effective playing that role than Brayshaw, Sparrow, Jordon et al for mine

4 hours ago, whatwhat say what said:

Harmes should remain our first rotation mid - more effective playing that role than Brayshaw, Sparrow, Jordon et al for mine

I agree, I’d love to see Harmes get as much midfield time as the big 3 as he balances them well with speed and defensive work. The problem with that is finding someone else who can play his wing and forward minutes. We’ll see what happens with the list over the next month or so but I’d like to see a complete blank canvas for the midfield rotations.