Beats

1 hour ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

I am not at all offended by alternate opinions.  I will say that they require one of the interchange spots to go to a defender, hence Byrne-Jones getting a gig.  Hogan, as I said above, I left out because of his inability to hit the side of a barn with his kicking lately (possibly unfair given that Daniher is also having issues).  Petracca is too inconsistent right now and like Hogan has to sort out his goal-kicking.  As brilliant as he can be he is still only getting a dozen or so touches a game. 

Hogan might have to sort out his goal-kicking (although Daniher's is worse imo), but he's averaged more goals per game than both Daniher and Wright this season. 

Was surprised Kent got named, but then compared his stats this season to others named and he actually stacks up pretty well.

If the tigers go the rebuild mode and look to ship out older players would we have any interest in Deledio? Would grimes and our 2nd round pick ~27 get him across?

15 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Dawes out at the end of 2016 saves us $500,000-550,000 a year.  We can swap that for offer for Hurley (or sure up Hogan's long term contract).

The players new CBA is set to be finalised at the end of this year, which will likely include a large increase to team salary caps (based off the recent TV rights increase). The current salary cap is approx $10.6m with a salary floor of $10.07m. Although the AFLPA's demands of a fixed percentage of AFL & club revenue is likely to be met, there will be a significant pay rise.

At the end of the day the money freed up by Dawes etc. moving on or being on reduced contracts will be a drop in the water compared to the CBA TPP increase.

17 hours ago, M_9 said:

Your original post made no sense. Salem is not competing with the likes of Bugg, Lumumba, Wagner nor Melksham. It's akin to saying that Kent and Watts are competing with each other because they both play forward pocket (at times).

Besides, O'keefe had played 286 games, was 33 years old, and was told he would struggle to get a game if he stayed. He was not 'on the trade table'. He was a free agent.

Hall played 162 games over 8 years. Jolly played 118 games over 5 years at the Swans and only left because his wife said she was returning to Melbourne, with or without him.

Mumford had to go to for salary cap reasons, but equally for opportunity. The others you have listed were not even close to first round picks, and most were not getting games.

I can't recall the Swans gaining any 'big fish' as a result of trading out a young player, who has shown promising signs, but has been cruelled with medical issues.

It made plenty of sense. I asked for an estimate of Salem's trade value. I asked the question that if a club offered up a pick in the late teens, would you do it. I then asked a secondary question, would you let him go as part of a trade for a big fish? You seem to have combined the two questions in to one, ergo, your comprehension was poor. 

If Salem doesn't compete for a spot with Bugg, Lumumba, Wagner or Melksham who does he compete for a spot against? What role do you think he plays?

In 2008 O'keefe was 27, on the trade table and free agency hadn't been introduced. Only 6 trades were done for the year, but his name was frequently mentioned during trade week. Lewis Johnston and Patrick Veszpremi were first round picks, both traded after 2 years in the system. You're right, they didn't bring in any big fish from those trades though.

23 hours ago, KingDingAling said:

If we do manage to get Hibberd, it will take some pressure off of Salem. It would could also potentially free up Vince.

I have observed lately fans starting to entertain trading Salem. But this isn't like trading Toumpas. Christian Salem has far too many strengths, and not enough weaknesses for us to trade him away for a speculative youngster. Toumpas had some glaring weaknesses till the end. Salem doesn't have many. We haven't seen what Salem is capable of yet. In the juniors he was relentless in his ferocity. Give the kid a bit of time, he is still only 20.

Trading Salem is not like trading Toumpas, you are correct. The reason I asked what people thought of his trade value was because he is one of the only players on our list who has value and is playing in a position with lots of depth. 

So, what is his trade value? Anyone want to throw up a response that isn't 'don't trade, best player ever etc.'

23 hours ago, M_9 said:

Never. A pick in the late teens is not going to get you a 'big fish'. We need to build a 'Sydney-like' culture. You don't do that by trading out the likes of Salem or Trengove.

Firstly, read my post again, your comprehension of it was poor. Secondly, you might want to have a look back through Sydney's trades:

2008- Ryan O'keefe was on the trade table (only 6 trades done for the year)
2009- Traded out Barry Hall and Darren Jolly
2010- Traded out Patrick Veszpremi
2011- Traded out Lewis Johnston
2012- Traded out Campbell Heath, Matt Spangher, Trent Dennis Lane
2013- Traded out Mumford, Jesse White and Andrejs Everett.

Patrick Veszpremi and Lewis Johnston were literally in the same place that Salem is in now. Talented first round picks with a handful of games under their belts and checkered injury histories.

If anything the Sydney culture was to trade out players with value to bring in better players or players who better suited their needs.

What's Salem's trade value? He's out of contract next year, so a trade now might be our best chance at getting value for him.

He is competing with the likes of Hunt, Melksham, Bugg, Lumumba, Wagner (and Hibberd if we pick him up) for that rotating hbf/ mid spot. You can also add the likes of Vandenburg, Stretch, Harmes, Trengove, M.jones as others who are competing for rotating hbf/ hff/ part time mid roles. While his kicking is an asset, I don't see him as a class above many of those I've listed above and I don't think he's guaranteed a game when he's fit.

If a club offered up a pick in the late teens for him, would you do it? Would you be happy to see him go as part of a trade if it nets us a big fish?

I did a bit of analysis on the list the other night looking at who has value that we could trade out - my current opinion of the lists as it stands:

Must keep: 2016-Tyson, Mcdonald, Jetta 2017- Hogan, Vince, Weideman, 2018-Petracca, Brayshaw, Gawn, Bugg, 2019-N.Jones, Oliver, Garlett 2020- Viney

Trade for the right offer: 2016-Watts, Kent, Frost, O.Mcdonald 2017-Salem, Stretch, Kennedy, Hulett, Vandenberg 2018-Hunt, ANB, Harmes 2019-Melksham

Tradeable/ Delisted/ 1-2 year deals: 2016-Dawes, Trengove, Newton, Pedersen, Grimes, M.Jones, Terlich 2017-Dunn, JKH, Spencer, Mitch King, Lumumba* 2018-Garland

Obviously this list as subjective and the lines between categories are somewhat muddied. Rules require that we use 3 draft picks in the ND, meaning at least 3 spaces have to be cleared. I don't think there'll be a large turnover. Dunn, Pedersen, Lumumba, M.Jones and Vince are the only players who will be 30 or older next year.

Terlich has had his papers stamped and unfortunately it looks that way for Grimes too (=[ hope he's picked up as a delisted FA by someone else), Dawes, Trengove and Pedersen to get 1 year contracts(possibly 2 for Dawes) unless we get offers for them, Newton and M.Jones left to sweat on the number of people we bring in and the depth of the draft.

All other arguments aside ..mids v talls v whatevers etc If Curnow is being looked upon as a selection I dont quite get it.. Ive read he may move into the middle as a direction but hes not exhibited much of an inkling to abilities in that regard. He seems capable as a smaller target up front but not the KPP type many are clammering after. Hes only really tall enough as a 3rd tall so why bother. Or am I missing something entirely ? I might be lol

Which brings me back to what we sort of know as ambitions of the club re this trade... a play mate for Hogan and more mids. He doesnt seem to fit... Must be some element Im over looking.

The reason he's being touted as a mid is he has very good to elite endurance for his size. As Quigley highlights though, his speed, agility and disposal is on par with his brothers and without decent improvement he will just be a taller version of his brother in the midfield.

Harry Mckay at 3, Parish-OIiver-Francis in that order for 7.

Ok, seriously, how are you still not getting this?

The AFL supports the teams that are struggling financially.

For them to best do this, they need to make money too.

The amount they will save by waiting to buy Etihad will be FAR MORE than what they will need to pay the clubs to keep them afloat.

That's called good business.

You clearly aren't looking at this from a factual or numbers point of view and are more concerned with still sooking over it not being called the VFL anymore. Grow up.

1 - how many teams struggling financially are tenants of Etihad? All of the struggling Melbourne teams bar the MFC? Taking ownership of the stadium and re-working their deals to become more profitable would reduce the need to hand them cash.

2 - If he was to do that he would need to know how much revenue/ profit Etihad Stadium makes per year and how much potential there is for that to improve over the next 10 years under AFL ownership (while the price tag may be $200m, they could easily make that back in profit over the period). A detailed understanding of all cash flows and intangible items such as good will would need to be had before you could truly assess the value of the deal.

Ok, so with the 'live' moving up of picks - this is going to be a draft that will just confuse the [censored] out of you...

If Mills is nominated at 3, Hopper at 5, Kennedy at 11, Hipwood at 15 and Keays at 18 (please let me know if they are off in your opinion).

Sydney will pay 33, 36, 37, 44 for Mills and 63.

GWS will pay 10 and 34 for Hopper and 43.

GWS will pay 40, 43, and 50 for Kennedy and 73.

BL will pay 35 and 36 for Hipwood and 62.

BL will pay 36 and 37 for Keays and 56.

No, the above is not a typo, because the picks disappear and pick below move 'up' the draft - the Lions will most likely pay with the same picks for their Academy players...

You are forgiven if I have lost you here but if this occurs or something similar - we will have the 35th and 39th 'live' picks in the draft.

What are the picks we take the 35th and 39th 'live' players at? eg will the 35th and 39th best 'live' players go at picks 42 and 46 (as in they are the 42nd and 46th best kids in the draft)?

still i'd rather have p35, p39 than p46, p50. that's a big improvement

It won't be p35 and p39, it will be more like 42/43 and 46/47. It will be the 35th and 39th best players not in academies/ father-son.

Imo the trade period is a b. Disappointed to lose Toumpas before he got a proper crack at it and will miss watching Howe. I expect that melksham and bugg will be best 22. Expecting less from Kennedy than I was from Toumpas - gws/ gc priority access means that the 2013 draft will go down as one of the worst of all time.

I like that the club ponied up and backed ourselves with the swapping of picks, but haven't done enough research in to the drafts (15&16) to comment on whether I think the deal was good or not.

That's like taking some of your pay from next month and spending and acting like it doesn't count even though your next pay cheque will obviously be lighter. VERY SIMPLE. We haven't gained any new picks.

That's an apt analogy, it's with noting though, that if you can gain a higher return by investing next months paycheck now you would do it. Essentially we have taken out a margin loan against next years draft pick.

Emma Quayle did the calculations (so if I'm wrong, blame her .... and me for being too lazy to check them!) and she said that the tipping point for the Gold Coast trade was 11th next year. In other words, if we finish 11th or better next year then we win the trade, but if we finish worse then we lose.

But we clearly knew that we could quickly turn pick 10 into pick 7.

So the tipping point for a win in this trade for us is now 14th (but still 11th for Gold Coast).

I don't follow that logic... The difference in this years points in th gc deal was 1,603 - that's the equivalent of pick 8(between picks 7&8), eg 11th is a win, 12th is. Loss. Not sure how you got from there to 14th?

Just said on SEN that we may be looking at Curnow or Weid for pic 3 and a middy for pic10.

May also bid on a Sydney mid from their academy but cant remember the name.

Mentioned bidding for callum mills(syd), hopper and possibly kennedy(both gws), in that order. I would like this, unless Sydney bring in a ton more picks it pretty much removes them from the draft and possibly mortgages them for next year as well, will pretty much remove gws from the draft as well.

That's my question? Plus don't we already own pick 43?

Our 43 turned into 46 after fa compensation. 43 was originally 40, gc's 3rd round pick.

Seriously, that's just plain dumb. 2016 is supposedly a much stronger draft, we are currently 15th or 16th in premiership betting, and we're prepared to risk giving up a top four pick. Is Parish really that good?

Potentially, IN picks 3, 10 and 43 in a weak draft; OUT pick 4 in a strong draft, 6 and 29 in a weak draft. How is that possibly a win for us?

We only give up a top 4 pick if we finish in the bottom 4. Plus, strength of a draft typically refers to how deep it runs - I haven't paid attention to the draft for a few years but typically the top 10 players are similar in talent year to year and it's the depth of talent that varies dramatically.

Also, as it's a picks for picks deal the points system can be applied for analysis:

3(2,234 points), 10(1,395) and 43(378) = 4,007 points

6(1,751), 29(653) = 2,404 points

The points difference is 1,603 points, equivalent to pick 8 (between 7&8). So if we finish 11th or higher we 'win', 12th or lower and we 'lose'.

Righto, I find this more underwhelming than the melksham deal. Using the picks-points values and logic gives the following:

Seedsman to collingwood p32(584 points)

Howe and p68(59 points) for kennedy and seedsman (584 points) - adjusting points values gives Howe for Kennedy and 525 points(approx p35)

Port traded p29(653 points) + p50(273 points) + p68(59 points) = 985 points

For Toumpas and 32(584)

Therefore Toumpas is worth 401 points(p42)

Based on points values we traded Howe for Kennedy and p35 and Toumpas for 42.

Reminds me of the story of a worried Scully returning to Oz from the China trip early because of his sick sister.

I took it at face value, was sometime between 10-11am on Tuesday, KB mentioned that Freo was reportedly interested and his manager trotted that out - just highlighted that the longer flights and airport stopovers are inconvenient if he wants to make a day trip.

The moment a thread mentions "Prestia is a certainty" I decide silly season is open and anyone can have a go.

So...

Pick 6 and Howe for Sidebottom? (Just because it would be hilarious)

In other madness, I wonder if the possible Carlisle-Hawthorn trade would squeeze a decent player out due to salary cap? We'd be doing well if we grabbed one of the Hawks speedy sabres.

Sidebottom would be a good target - surely Collingwood couldn't offer him anything near what we could $$wise.

Cloke, Pendlebury, Swan, Greenwood on 500k+, the likes of Varcoe, Adams, Elliot, Reid and Toovey would also be on decent wages add in Treloar and Howe and they have to be paying close to the full cap.

I don't think it was mentioned, but Mahoney said on SEN that the reason Howe had nominated the Pies as his preferred club was because he did not want to move interstate.

Means his unlikely to take his chance with the PSD, especially if both Lions and Suns are interested.

Funny from a bloke from Tassie hey?

It was mentioned by his manager on SEN a few days back that his mother in Hobart has some health issues and that he wanted to stay close - staying in Melbourne was preferred because there are direct flights at most hours, GC was acceptable but not ideal as most flights to Tassie are via Melbourne, Freo was ruled out because the flight is too far.

Well I'm underwhelmed. Would have liked their third or fourth on top, but cest la vie.

Melksham will replace Howe off hb, bugg will replace cross as a negating mid, Kennedy will replace Toumpas as a vfl player who plays 5-10 times a year.

Replacing average role players with more average role players. Will be disappointed if we walk out with worse draft picks than when we entered if those 3 are our only trades. We will have to rely on no key players going down with injury and every young player on our list making significant improvement to contemplate finals at this stage.

Yep, like we did with Frost last year? Last minute trade, had to give up 23 as we didn't "collect" any other more "market value" picks for him.

Sometimes you just have to pull the trigger. With Melksham, we will likely have the deal done tomorrow morning, meaning we can now focus on our next target.

We're not flucking around anymore. We know what we want to do, and we go out and do it.

We traded for Frost last year because at the very last minute we baulked at reports that St Kilda (with pick #1) would take him in the PSD over Tim Membrey. There was no stalling over picks, the FD simply didn't hold it's nerve to take him in the PSD.

You're right, sometimes you just have to pull the trigger, Melksham is not someone you pull the trigger on though, he's a c-grade player (B- at best). If he's out of contract and our 4 year, 400k a year offer is higher than anyone else we should just say fk it, go through the PSD or draft. Also, let's use some logic - if it's a straight swap of 25 for Melksham it's not holding any other deals up, he's on holidays O/S according to his twitter & afl.com.au so it's not like there's an advantage in getting the player to the club early. It would make sense to wait to see if we could get a more appropriate pick if it's a straight swap.

As for your 'not flucking around comment' - I'll believe that when we land an A-grade mid, as Roos publically stated we wanted one mid year.

Also for the record, Port got a contracted Ryder for pick 19 last year, this year in a weaker draft we are reportedly trading pick 25 for an uncontracted Melksham. Someone explain that to me please (for the 'pick 25 is the only pick we have, if it's slight overs meh' crowd, read the above paragraph).

http://m.3aw.com.au/news/jake-melksham-set-to-join-melbourne-20150917-gjpbyy.html. - link to audio.

4 year deal? Are the people who signed terlich up for 3 still working at the club?.... They shouldn't be.

Edit - autocorrect on phone

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/justin-leppitsch-says-brisbane-building-long-term-for-premiership-and-no-one-will-remember-2015/story-fni5f4q3-1227481845296

Apparently the hun have realised that no one will be getting priority picks after we were continuously rejected, now saying that Leuenberger will net them a pick after their 1st rounder.

That was a long read. Good work for putting the effort in to that post.

My thoughts -

- I'd swap Brayshaw and Vandenburg, VB has had a much better year imo. If it was on potential Brayshaw would be ahead, but on performances this year VB is ahead. Both have had good highlights this year, but VB has had more impact on games.

Also stats - http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_compare?tid1=12&pid1=4037&tid2=12&pid2=4103&type=A&fid1=S&fid2=S

- Not sure Salem has earnt B grade status yet...

- would have Tyson as a B grader, not as flashy as last year, but his stats are only slightly down on what he did then. As per VB, if Brayshaw is the mark for B grader then Tyson's in. Also not sure about your assessment of him, he might be 4th in line, but he's still a (young) clearance mid. I'd think there'd be more chance that Bernie would finish his career on a forward/ back flank than Tyson being moved there.

- would have pedo as a C grader.