2 hours ago, demoncat said:

Million dollar contracts aren’t an issue in of themselves but they are if they’re taking up cap space with players who aren’t performing / they limit the club bringing in additional players (and to be fair I’m only assuming that the latter might be the case)

We might have to agree to disagree but I think given the state of our list critically assessing player’s contracts and doing cost benefit analysis is reasonable, because at the moment we’ve got a lot of money tied up in players who aren’t currently justifying their price tags

I get what your saying DC, but Trac, Clarry and there contracts are not the reason we can attract talent. And trading out our guns (all be it they are underperforming) doesn't help us at all if we don't get any value back for them. Its not like we would get top 10 picks to replace them. Is a pick in the mid 20's (in a below average draft) going to replace even a diminished Clayton Oliver. Highly doubtful.

People keep banging on about "clearing space in the cap" but to them I ask......for Who?

Know one of high caliber wants to come to us. And to be fair I don't blame them. We are Cleary on the decline and the club is a mess (at least that's the outsiders perception). I would argue trading out our best players makes it even harder to attract talent.

If we are going to trade in players to get us out of this whole its going to be fringe role players like Hibberd and Langdon types that would should be chasing. And players like that don't break the bank.

I personally just feel the upside of Trac and Clarry getting back to even 80% of there best is worth way more to us then a few late picks.

27 minutes ago, Brenno said:

I get what your saying DC, but Trac, Clarry and there contracts are not the reason we can attract talent. And trading out our guns (all be it they are underperforming) doesn't help us at all if we don't get any value back for them. Its not like we would get top 10 picks to replace them. Is a pick in the mid 20's (in a below average draft) going to replace even a diminished Clayton Oliver. Highly doubtful.

People keep banging on about "clearing space in the cap" but to them I ask......for Who?

Know one of high caliber wants to come to us. And to be fair I don't blame them. We are Cleary on the decline and the club is a mess (at least that's the outsiders perception). I would argue trading out our best players makes it even harder to attract talent.

If we are going to trade in players to get us out of this whole its going to be fringe role players like Hibberd and Langdon types that would should be chasing. And players like that don't break the bank.

I personally just feel the upside of Trac and Clarry getting back to even 80% of there best is worth way more to us then a few late picks.

That’s a good perspective Brenno and one I largely agree with

I just think it’s part of the cost benefit analysis you do when assessing your list

Sure we won’t bring in two draft picks or players whose best is comparable to Trac and Clarry (when they’re fit and firing), but can we bring in multiple players who in the sum of their parts make us a better team?

The answer might be no and as much as we want change it’s better to retain our most of our senior players - I just hope the club is open to these conversations more than anything

It would also depend on what we are prepared to give up or pay for.

IE, if we traded Oliver to Geelong, how much of his salary are we still going to have to pay? The more we pay, maybe the higher the pick we get. But then the math of it makes it a little pointless.

If we are paying 500k of his reported 1 million a year, they we get another player in on 5-600k, then i dont see the why you would do that. Sure, we may have a high draft pick, but in this draft its going to be about 40 buy the time all the academy and father son picks are done.

Is that some one, either the drafted player or mature age traded in player going to be better the Oliver at his current output?????? Id highly doubt it.

Just now, Demons11 said:

I get your point but the difference being we are not over the cap like Collingwood were and million dollar players will be the norm. As long as they not increasing with the cba then the contracts won’t be an issue.

7 hours ago, demoncat said:

Million dollar contracts aren’t an issue in of themselves but they are if they’re taking up cap space with players who aren’t performing / they limit the club bringing in additional players (and to be fair I’m only assuming that the latter might be the case)

We might have to agree to disagree but I think given the state of our list critically assessing player’s contracts and doing cost benefit analysis is reasonable, because at the moment we’ve got a lot of money tied up in players who aren’t currently justifying their price tags

👍

our list manager needs to be sacked i reckon. he's botched it completely