2022 Draft Thread | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

2022 Draft Thread

No way that could be true.
According to footywire he'll be a restricted fee agent when he comes out of contract at the end of 2024. That means he'll be one of their top 10 earners that year.

$1.65m over two years. Tough to smooth that out. Even if you extended his deal to four years and he agreed to be on match payments for the final two years (why would he), you'd be paying an average of at least half a mil per year. (Someone else will offer him more.) And to get it done along with Taranto and Hopper would almost certainly mean trading out the much-loved Soldo and Graham. I don't think anyone's coming for George, so we'll be lucky to be relieved of his contract. Trading Short would do it, but again, much-loved.

I just don't see how we could do it without putting noses out of joint.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
According to footywire he'll be a restricted fee agent when he comes out of contract at the end of 2024. That means he'll be one of their top 10 earners that year.

$1.65m over two years. Tough to smooth that out. Even if you extended his deal to four years and he agreed to be on match payments for the final two years (why would he), you'd be paying an average of at least half a mil per year. (Someone else will offer him more.) And to get it done along with Taranto and Hopper would almost certainly mean trading out the much-loved Soldo and Graham. I don't think anyone's coming for George, so we'll be lucky to be relieved of his contract. Trading Short would do it, but again, much-loved.

I just don't see how we could do it without putting noses out of joint.
I think the money part could be done - especially if Fridge leaves. About $550k per year smoothed out over 4. Capacity would be there if you consider that we could make a run at Logue and then, if Fridge leaves have his salary free as well. Port will be throwing more than $550k at Fridge as well so Fridge and other players won’t get their noses out of joint I wouldn’t have thought.

The real issue for me is the the pick back that they supposedly want. Don’t want 7 being watered down to something like the equivalent of 15 or whatever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Looks allowing clubs to salary dump is all about helping the AFL's Suns get out of the mess that they've got themselves into. It will help the Pies, new president and ex AFL employee Jeff Browne if they can dump Grundy's salary too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
That's why clubs like sun's and roos shouldn't get draft concessions *smile* weake by the afl rewarding poor management and mediocre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I think the money part could be done - especially if Fridge leaves. About $550k per year smoothed out over 4. Capacity would be there if you consider that we could make a run at Logue and then, if Fridge leaves have his salary free as well. Port will be throwing more than $550k at Fridge as well so Fridge and other players won’t get their noses out of joint I wouldn’t have thought.

The real issue for me is the the pick back that they supposedly want. Don’t want 7 being watered down to something like the equivalent of 15 or whatever.
Yeah the money could be done, but you don't reckon players would be annoyed if we pretty much forced out their future captain?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think the money part could be done - especially if Fridge leaves. About $550k per year smoothed out over 4. Capacity would be there if you consider that we could make a run at Logue and then, if Fridge leaves have his salary free as well. Port will be throwing more than $550k at Fridge as well so Fridge and other players won’t get their noses out of joint I wouldn’t have thought.

The real issue for me is the the pick back that they supposedly want. Don’t want 7 being watered down to something like the equivalent of 15 or whatever.

Either way, on top risk around team harmony/culture, am of the not sure (well am) you want to hold a player on your books you don't want until end of 2026 on $550K a year.

Especially if contending and looking to add more talent (plus keep Shai and Sampilands) in coming years.

That $$ goes a long way towards a free agent.

And no guarantees who you take at 7 works out anyway. It's a big swing, risking quite a few things to get that player right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
According to footywire he'll be a restricted fee agent when he comes out of contract at the end of 2024. That means he'll be one of their top 10 earners that year.

$1.65m over two years. Tough to smooth that out. Even if you extended his deal to four years and he agreed to be on match payments for the final two years (why would he), you'd be paying an average of at least half a mil per year. (Someone else will offer him more.) And to get it done along with Taranto and Hopper would almost certainly mean trading out the much-loved Soldo and Graham. I don't think anyone's coming for George, so we'll be lucky to be relieved of his contract. Trading Short would do it, but again, much-loved.

I just don't see how we could do it without putting noses out of joint.
Would have to be a 4 year deal, would probably require 4 x 500k to beat off the competition & satisfy Bowes management. As far as a pick going back is concerned, pick 30 the absolute highest, however I'd even be somewhat resistant to that suggestion. Don't forget that over the duration of the Bowes contract we'll be seeing salary cap relief from the likes of Cotchin, Riewoldt, Grimes, Dusty, Pickett, Tarrant & Lynch.

I'm still onboard, the value of pick 7 even more pronounced if next year's first gets caught up in the Taranto/Hopper haggling. This could be our last shot at a top 10 pick for quite a few years, the inclusion of ready made mids already elevates us to that middling level of 6th-10th, it's critical that we allow the draft capital for a couple of key forwards.

The reality is the RFC is a rebuilding club, we're smack bang in the middle of a transition period & making such an audacious trade perfect for the present situation. If Graham goes then get the rubber stamp out, I'm a Fridge fan, I agree with General's outstanding summary about his contribution & sacrifices,he's part of the cultural fabric, however if the right deal is on the table then we should strongly consider.

Now assuming we have 7 & the Graham compo, that might be enough to cut a deal with West Coast who will likely want to split pick 2 for Luke Jackson, they are simply not willing to part with 2 in isolation, that much is clear. I don't believe they are prioritising Cadman, it would seem unlikely given the likely asking price for Jackson will still be a top 10 pick.

If this fails then revert back to the Jefferson/Keeler double take, just as viable a strategy & it gets us two talls into the system who will be ready to go when Bowes finishes his contract.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I think the money part could be done - especially if Fridge leaves. About $550k per year smoothed out over 4. Capacity would be there if you consider that we could make a run at Logue and then, if Fridge leaves have his salary free as well. Port will be throwing more than $550k at Fridge as well so Fridge and other players won’t get their noses out of joint I wouldn’t have thought.

The real issue for me is the the pick back that they supposedly want. Don’t want 7 being watered down to something like the equivalent of 15 or whatever.

Suns asking for the incoming club to take the whole salary so surely, @ $825per year, they couldn't be asking for a pick back??

If they want a pick back they can keep part of the salary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Yeah the money could be done, but you don't reckon players would be annoyed if we pretty much forced out their future captain?
Well, technically, havent they sort of already done that by throwing dollars at Logue ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Either way, on top risk around team harmony/culture, am of the not sure (well am) you want to hold a player on your books you don't want until end of 2026 on $550K a year.

Especially if contending and looking to add more talent (plus keep Shai and Sampilands) in coming years.

That $$ goes a long way towards a free agent.

And no guarantees who you take at 7 works out anyway. It's a big swing, risking quite a few things to get that player right.
Again, you’ve already thrown dollars at Logue. All you’re doing is throwing a few more per year over 4 to get pick 7 and the player (Bowes) instead of the player Logue.

The real issue from a pure trade and value perspective - which nobody has discussed - is if GC (supposedly) want a pick back.

That’s the bigger issue with the whole deal.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Again, you’ve already thrown dollars at Logue. All you’re doing is throwing a few more per year over 4 to get pick 7 and the player (Bowes) instead of the player Logue.

The real issue from a pure trade and value perspective - which nobody has discussed - is if GC (supposedly) want a pick back.

That’s the bigger issue with the whole deal.

Yep, I reckon they want a future second at worst. Would you chuck in 30 to get it done? Would mean we have one pick inside 50.

I'd do it. But not 19, not next years first or second.
 
Again, you’ve already thrown dollars at Logue. All you’re doing is throwing a few more per year over 4 to get pick 7 and the player (Bowes) instead of the player Logue.

The real issue from a pure trade and value perspective - which nobody has discussed - is if GC (supposedly) want a pick back.

That’s the bigger issue with the whole deal.

Depends how much we offered Logue. From reports the North offer was a decent lick higher.

Our's might have only been $350K. Dunno.

The other difference is Bowes plays roles we really don't have a need for i.e. slower midfielders (alongside Tarooper) and medium backs.

Saying that, Logue was a weird target (if true) unless we thought he can make it forward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't agree with the Griffin Logue argument. Fairly paid AFL KPP who we identified as a player we want v a grossly overpaid VFL HBF who don't want. Different money, different types of players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I don't agree with the Griffin Logue argument. Fairly paid AFL KPP who we identified as a player we want v a grossly overpaid VFL HBF who don't want. Different money, different types of players.
Based on what I heard this week, and adding the fact Chimp is in his last year and Graham a half decent chance to leave as well, our midfield is DEFINITELY in need of more bolstering beyond Taranto and Hopper.

And pick 7 is what addresses your kpp focus as well.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Based on what I heard this week, and adding the fact Chimp is in his last year and Graham a half decent chance to leave as well, our midfield is DEFINITELY in need of more bolstering beyond Taranto and Hopper.

And pick 7 is what addresses your kpp focus as well.

Agree re: midfield. Not with a Bowes type though.

To add to Tarooper, we will need pace and zip.
 
Agree re: midfield. Not with a Bowes type though.

To add to Tarooper, we will need pace and zip.
We also need decent finishers & Bowes is a good kick, he's the link man when the contested nuts dish the ball out. Sprint time is 3 seconds flat, that's not terrible, better than average which is 3.07 sec.