Farewell Jesse Hogan

[Lucifers Hero 37,006]

People are forgetting how mfc does business these days.  The pick # per se, isn't as critical as whether it will satisfy another club for or draft a player we want. 

Sometimes we will go all out to get the picks we need eg Oliver/Weideman.  Sometimes we let the cards fall where they do eg Hibberd, Melksham, Watts ie 'that is the best we can offer/receive' type of deal.

It is only fans that get hung up on the actual pick # and impute a trade value to it.  mfc is much more pragmatic.

[DubDee 20,570]

Given our age profile I actually wouldn't mind not bringing in a star (unless we get a beauty like Kelly) and going to the draft.  It is meant to be a great one.

most of our golden generation are 21-24.  to draft a couple of gun 18 yo's (realistically only one might be a gun) would spread our age profile nicely and set us up for a longer spell at the top.  Although it would hurt our immediate term a bit.

it would also help our salary cap.  save the big money for the gun players, not guys like May

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

38 minutes ago, jumbo returns said:

Not happy about any impending departure, but the club has to fulfill its due diligence

Also, I heard that another club is heavily into Josh Mahoney?? Anyone else hear that? It was from that journo on OTC......

An article last week said Carlton were into him earlier this year to replace Andy McKay as the Head of Footy but they pinched Brad Lloyd (Matthew's brother) from Freo.

Not sure if someone else is into him now but I wouldn't be surprised he's proved a good operator since shifting to a FD role about 5 years ago.

[sisso 2,388]

3 minutes ago, DubDee said:

Given our age profile I actually wouldn't mind not bringing in a star (unless we get a beauty like Kelly) and going to the draft.  It is meant to be a great one.

most of our golden generation are 21-24.  to draft a couple of gun 18 yo's (realistically only one might be a gun) would spread our age profile nicely and set us up for a longer spell at the top.  Although it would hurt our immediate term a bit.

it would also help our salary cap.  save the big money for the gun players, not guys like May

I agree load up with 2 top 10 picks in the superdraft the way GWS do

[Supermercado 2,611]

Just need to wait until next week and start feeding stories that West Coast are interested in him next year as Kennedy's long term replacement. Would rather lose him for compo next year than not extort Freo now.

[drysdale demon 4,150]

1 minute ago, Supermercado said:

Just need to wait until next week and start feeding stories that West Coast are interested in him next year as Kennedy's long term replacement. Would rather lose him for compo next year than not extort Freo now.

Don't ever try to get into list management

[3183 Dee 2,602]

If this transpires, it will 100% be on our terms. Freo are desperate and will need to pay overs. Hogan is one of the hottest key forward prospects in the comp, yet to hit his peak. If Freo want in, they’ll need to make sure Melbourne can get exactly what/who they want.

[SFebes 4,692]

10 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

People are forgetting how mfc does business these days.  The pick # per se, isn't as critical as whether it will satisfy another club for or draft a player we want. 

Sometimes we will go all out to get the picks we need eg Oliver/Weideman.  Sometimes we let the cards fall where they do eg Hibberd, Melksham, Watts ie 'that is the best we can offer/receive' type of deal.

It is only fans that get hung up on the actual pick # and impute a trade value to it.  mfc is much more pragmatic.

Picks 4 and 5 would bring in Josh Kelly, picks 10 and 15 wouldn't. Picks are critical, if we want top end talent coming in.

[Moonshadow 16,165]

15 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

People are forgetting how mfc does business these days.  The pick # per se, isn't as critical as whether it will satisfy another club for or draft a player we want. 

Sometimes we will go all out to get the picks we need eg Oliver/Weideman.  Sometimes we let the cards fall where they do eg Hibberd, Melksham, Watts ie 'that is the best we can offer/receive' type of deal.

It is only fans that get hung up on the actual pick # and impute a trade value to it.  mfc is much more pragmatic.

Doesn't make sense. The pick number isn't critical but it is critical in a trade? If the pick number isn't critical, we should offer pick 78 for Shiel. That'll get it done, right?

Of course pick 5&6 are more valuable than 10&16, regardless of whether we trade them or use the in the draft.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Moonshadow

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

51 minutes ago, Macca said:

Hindsight comment as were not saying that at the time ... in fact,  you were probably all-in with the pucks then like most others here were

Wrong again .Gonzo .. for instance 3 of the first 4 picks in the 2012 draft are busts.

It would be easy for me to simply go along with the crowd but the crowd is often wrong

The draft is flawed and that is a fact so because it is flawed,  that factor has to be taken into account.

 

2013 - Freeman and Scharenberg have had injuries but other than that the top 10 have all cemented themselves as AFL players.

2014 - McCartin has had a lot of scrutiny due to being pick 1 but has played well enough to be considered an AFL level player. Ahern I don't know much about, Cockatoo plays seniors when not injured. The rest are all AFL quality players.

2015 - Schache looks like a bust but is still young. The rest are all AFL quality players.

2016 - Not sure about some of the GC boys (Scrimshaw, Brodie, Bowes) but they've all played senior footy. McGrath, Taranto, McCluggage, Ainsworth, SPS all AFL level talent and still very young.

2017 - Some of these kids are still too young to make a call on - but Rayner, Brayshaw, Dow, Cerra, Stephenson have all played. The Saints picks may have missed (again too early to say) but their whole club is a shambles at the moment it wouldn't surprise me if they're recruiters are as well.

Overall the draft (and in particular top 10/15 picks) are less of a lottery than they have been in the past. It's not a sure thing but the strike rate is vastly improved on top 10 picks, generally about 75-80% (as I said previously).

[beelzebub 22,225]

Whatever the value we get for Jesse we need it to be playing next year and becoming part of our premiership/s team as early as possible.

Any idea of delaying or seeking to buy into the draft for kids who may or may not be something...and some unknown time down the track is plain folly.

As LH alludes we'll trade for whatever gets the next deal/s done and someone/s on the park.

[Dr. Gonzo 22,412]

8 minutes ago, Supermercado said:

Just need to wait until next week and start feeding stories that West Coast are interested in him next year as Kennedy's long term replacement. Would rather lose him for compo next year than not extort Freo now.

He's not a FA next year but he will be out of contract.

[Lucifers Hero 37,006]

13 minutes ago, SFebes said:

Picks 4 and 5 would bring in Josh Kelly, picks 10 and 15 wouldn't. Picks are critical, if we want top end talent coming in.

 

12 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Doesn't make sense. The pick number isn't critical but it is critical in a trade? If the pick number isn't critical, we should offer pick 78 for Shiel. That should get it done.

Of course pick 5&6 are more valuable than 10&16, regardless of whether we trade them or use the in the draft.

Oops!  My meaning wasn't very clear.  I may have chosen the wrong thread to make the point.

I was trying to say that mfc (and reasonable clubs) don't focus on 'We must receive pick x' type of negotiations.  It is more like a 'mid-first round' discussion etc.

Hypothetically, if GCS said pick 5-10 was acceptable for May the specific pick isn't so critical just that it satisfy's GCS. 

Clubs often don't have the exact pick required and they negotiate around the fringes to get the deal done.  So the specific pick #, per se isn't so critical as getting a deal done.

So the hand wringing over pick # on fan forums is somewhat futile but amusing.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Lucifer's Hero

[rjay 23,895]

2 hours ago, DemonLad5 said:

Cerra just signed a new deal. He ain’t leaving so stop using him in scenarios 

 

2 hours ago, ProDee said:

Didn't McGovern just extend his Contract with Adelaide ?

 

2 hours ago, Jones said:

Irrelevant. There has been no indication from Cerra that he actually wants to leave

Yeah there was actually talk about Cerra wanting to return home before he signed his contract like there was talk before McGovern signed.

If we make him a good offer why would he not want to come home and play under a great coach in a premiership contender?

What would your thinking be? Play under Goodwin/play under Lyon? Play in Melbourne where I come from, be home with family and friends with a potential great side or stay with cellar dwellers on the other side of the country?

He is definitely in the discussion I would think.

To give up a player like Hogan then we must get back maximum value.

[rjay 23,895]

18 minutes ago, sisso said:

I agree load up with 2 top 10 picks in the superdraft the way GWS do

Why not, it's worked well for them????

[SFebes 4,692]

NAB contracts are 2 years from drafting but can be broken, Schache is the most recent example from memory who signed an extension then was traded shortly after, so Cerra can be in play if my research is correct.

[Macca 16,173]

27 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

People are forgetting how mfc does business these days.  The pick # per se, isn't as critical as whether it will satisfy another club for or draft a player we want. 

Sometimes we will go all out to get the picks we need eg Oliver/Weideman.  Sometimes we let the cards fall where they do eg Hibberd, Melksham, Watts ie 'that is the best we can offer/receive' type of deal.

It is only fans that get hung up on the actual pick # and impute a trade value to it.  mfc is much more pragmatic.

In effecr you are still arguing that a pick has value if we go all out to get certain picks for Oliver & Weideman.

And by the way,  Weideman is a top 10 pick so the expectations from most fans is top player ... and that may or may not happen.

And we had to move to pick 3 to get Oliver ... and Oliver might have been a bust if we look at the facts & data thst the draft spits out.

There is a lot of confirmation bias that suits but often only when that confirmation bias is a positive.

Edited September 27, 2018 by Macca

[sisso 2,388]

1 minute ago, rjay said:

Why not, it's worked well for them????

urgh

[Moonshadow 16,165]

2 minutes ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

 

Oops!  My meaning wasn't very clear.  I may have chosen the wrong thread to make the point.

I was trying to say that mfc (and reasonable clubs) don't focus on 'We must receive pick x' type of negotiations.  It is more like a 'mid-first round' discussion etc.

Hypothetically, if GCS said pick 5-10 was acceptable for May the specific pick isn't so critical just that it satisfy's GCS. 

Clubs often don't have the exact pick required and they negotiate around the fringes to get the deal done.  So the specific pick #, per se isn't so critical as getting a deal done.

Maybe, not convinced though. I think clubs look at points value of picks to balence up trades. This is where swaps of later picks comes into it. The gamble comes with future picks, because clubs are hoping they don't drop down the ladder significantly. This worked for us in our Lever future 1st rounder.

Personally I think the club would want May and a 2nd rounder for pick 5. But we shall see soon enough.

[M_9 1,640]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read on some footy forum that sometimes a player will re-contract on the understanding that they will be traded if a trade is offered that appeals to both the player and the club.

The reason a player may do that is because they believe their club will get better compensation than if they were out of contract. Dangerfield may have been a case in point.

[SFebes 4,692]

1 minute ago, M_9 said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read on some footy forum that sometimes a player will re-contract on the understanding that they will be traded if a trade is offered that appeals to both the player and the club.

The reason a player may do that is because they believe their club will get better compensation than if they were out of contract. Dangerfield may have been a case in point.

Dangerfield was a free agent, no contract to Crows?

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

3 minutes ago, Moonshadow said:

Personally I think the club would want May and a 2nd rounder for pick 5. But we shall see soon enough.

I've been wondering about that. the opinion on May is wildlly divided... At least with Lever you had most people rating him as 2 firsts, through to a 1st and 2nd... I've heard some say May is worth only a third. Others say he's worth pick 5...

I'm inclined to go with a straight up pick 5. Lever was 2 firsts because he's a class player, AA and has 10 years left. May is still quite young (26), is a proven KP back (they're rare). Also his market value is climbing with all these other clubs keen on him. If Dons offer a first rounder and change for him, then we may need to up our offer.

[Lucifers Hero 37,006]

1 minute ago, Macca said:

In effecr you are still arguing that a pick has value if we go all out to get certain picks for Oliver & Weideman.

And by the way,  Weideman is a top 10 pick so the expectations from most fans is top player ... and that may or may not happen.

Yes, of course it has value.  But I was suggesting the value of a given pick is assessed differently by clubs than by fans.  Clubs focus on the value of what it can buy.  Fans focus on some mythical value intrinsic to the number. 

I'll leave it at that - I was just amused about the pre-occupation fans have with a specific pick.

[Dappa Dan 2,188]

3 minutes ago, M_9 said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I read on some footy forum that sometimes a player will re-contract on the understanding that they will be traded if a trade is offered that appeals to both the player and the club.

The reason a player may do that is because they believe their club will get better compensation than if they were out of contract. Dangerfield may have been a case in point.

That's exactly what I reckon a Hogan trade now will be seen as in the future. When he signed last time, it was supposed to be years and years. 4+... Then when he finally did it was much shorter. From what I can understand, he also timed it for the new CBA to take advantage of that.

The longer I go the more I think this was engineered years ago. But it's only now it's being leaked to the public.

[Macca 16,173]

19 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

2013 - Freeman and Scharenberg have had injuries but other than that the top 10 have all cemented themselves as AFL players.

2014 - McCartin has had a lot of scrutiny due to being pick 1 but has played well enough to be considered an AFL level player. Ahern I don't know much about, Cockatoo plays seniors when not injured. The rest are all AFL quality players.

2015 - Schache looks like a bust but is still young. The rest are all AFL quality players.

2016 - Not sure about some of the GC boys (Scrimshaw, Brodie, Bowes) but they've all played senior footy. McGrath, Taranto, McCluggage, Ainsworth, SPS all AFL level talent and still very young.

2017 - Some of these kids are still too young to make a call on - but Rayner, Brayshaw, Dow, Cerra, Stephenson have all played. The Saints picks may have missed (again too early to say) but their whole club is a shambles at the moment it wouldn't surprise me if they're recruiters are as well.

Overall the draft (and in particular top 10/15 picks) are less of a lottery than they have been in the past. It's not a sure thing but the strike rate is vastly improved on top 10 picks, generally about 75-80% (as I said previously).

It is flawed and you've admitted that so you then have to factor in the flaws as I have done.

I stand by my comment tbat draft picks are overvalued. The only upside to that is that if every club overvalues a draft pick then I suppose it is fair all round

Doesn't make it right though.