On 21/09/2017 at 04:36, Vogon Poetry said:

Steve I'm afraid I'm now more confused than ever.

Okay, apologies.

I believe that aside from Oliver, we have some players who have star potential. They're not there yet, just like Oliver isn't.

If we were offered three first round picks for Oliver, I would be confident that we could hit the draft and nail at least one player inside the top 10 who would have similar star potential plus two other chances of gaining high quality players.

The underlying point in all of this for me is that Oliver has shown potential at this stage imo. Yeh he had a great year. But I've seen this with young players before and I'm also aware of the type of person Oliver is, regardless of how he turned it around at the beginning of this pre-season. There's a lot of growing to do and a lot of water to go under the bridge before we can call him a 'star' of the comp. People use that term all the time. Whether it was Zaharakis in his first year, Gysberts after his first three games etc etc. 

So at this stage right here and now, I'd take the picks.

 

The talk on a  trade Petracca or Oliver for Lever is ridiculous & dumb! 

These young guns are part of our future & would be pointless after securing them from early picks.

 

  On 21/09/2017 at 04:59, stevethemanjordan said:

Okay, apologies.

I believe that aside from Oliver, we have some players who have star potential. They're not there yet, just like Oliver isn't.

The underlying point in all of this for me is that Oliver has shown potential at this stage imo.

You're a strange beast Steve. You started by saying you wanted three picks because you wanted a star (and you haven't seen one at MFC in your lifetime) and you'd trade Oliver for them.  You changed to say you wanted to balance the list and have diversity.  And now you're back to saying there is no guarantee that Oliver will be a star.  Of course you're right in that position unless you think he's a star now.

And you're basing "there's not guarantee he'll be a star" on a year, his second year, where he:

• was seventh in the overall AFLCA votes
• won the AFL coaches association best young player award.  That was almost a given given the above.
• Was 5th in clearances (for the whole comp)
• 4th in tackles for the whole comp
• 2nd in contested possessions for the whole comp
• 5th in disposals for the whole comp.

And probably much of which I can't be bothered looking for.  You've got to back yourself in Steve.  Is Oliver likely to be a star and how much do you believe in that position.  He's shown more than potential Steve, he's proven he can do it over a whole season against the best.  How many players have ever had those sort of results in their second year and NOT turned into stars?

I'll let you do the research on that one because that is what you are arguing.

If you're arguing diversity and three is better than one that's fine but if you're arguing "star" I reckon you are very very wrong.

I would take the three first round picks ahead of Clayton at this point in time full stop. For a multitude of reasons.

Hope that's clear enough.

  On 21/09/2017 at 03:55, stevethemanjordan said:

We're on a bit of a merry-go-round here but I'll try to be more clear.

I recognize that Clayton is a highly talented inside mid who has had a superb second year as a developing player.

Having said that, I also recognise that as a midfield, most of our talent is concentrated in a contested-heavy group comprised of Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca and to a lesser extent Tyson and Salem. All are top 10 picks, (Viney would have been) and all (bar Salem) were elite contested ball winning mids during their 18's year and imo share similar weaknesses as players.

Now obviously it's completely subjective as to where one rates Oliver within that group of talent at this early stage in their careers. Petracca has already done an ACL, Brayshaw has had concussion and knee troubles, Salem hamstring and Thyroid issues and Jack had an interrupted year this season after having an unbelievable year in 2016, arguably as good as Clayton's 2017.

Aside from Viney for his first two years, Oliver is really the only player of that group to have had true continuity in both his training and playing from the day he was drafted. The rest are still largely unknown but in my view the talent levels and potential are hard to separate with the exception of perhaps Tyson. (My whipping boy). 

Hypothetically speaking, if an opposition club were to come to me as head recruiter of the MFC with three first-round picks on offer for Clayton at this point in 2017, I would happily shake hands on the deal. Two picks inside the top 10 and one outside. Clarry's unique attributes imo are how clean he is around the ball, his vision in close and his hand-ball execution to the right target in close. Both Trac and Brayshaw are similarly strong over-overhead and as far as everything else goes, I think we possess enough inside talent to let Clarry go for three first round picks at this point in time. That's one reason. 

The second would be these factors: Given the recruiting team we have now, the type of characters we seem to target, the development coaches and leaders we have at the club presently, I would back the club in to successfully identify three players - (who once developed) - would provide a better and more even balance to our list given we can target positional players and greater attribute diversity. It would allow us to have a more even spread of high-end talent across the entire list. One only needs to look at GWS this year to see how important that is when injuries strike.

A risk? Of course. It's all a risk. Rejecting three first-round picks for Clarry would also be a risk.

But I would do the deal given the reasons I have provided.

I wouldn't. 

Salem and Weideman are our pick 9's. 

The jury is still well and truly out with Jason Taylor.

Despite the reputation of top 10 picks, picks between 6 - 10 in the last 4 or 5 drafts off the top of my head have netted very little and would be a disaster. Unless you are getting a top 3 pick it is a terrible idea.

Oliver is a freak and the idea of trading him for anything 'unknown' (as draft picks are) frightens me

Fortunately it ain't happening

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:29, stevethemanjordan said:

I would take the three first round picks ahead of Clayton at this point in time full stop. For a multitude of reasons.

Hope that's clear enough.

Sounds like the old two is better than one.

So glad we ended up with Tyson and Salem.....

 

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:34, Watts the matter said:

Sounds like the old two is better than one.

So glad we ended up with Tyson and Salem.....

 

Three first round picks.

 

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:44, stevethemanjordan said:

Three first round picks.

 

At the cost of perhaps the best player we've seen at MFC for a very long time.

Careful at the casino Steve, I don't think you understand odds very well and you don't seem sure of why you're making decisions.

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:46, Vogon Poetry said:

At the cost of perhaps the best player we've seen at MFC for a very long time.

Careful at the casino Steve, I don't think you understand odds very well and you don't seem sure of why you're making decisions.

Key word.

As said, at this early stage I would do the deal. 

Let us stop derailing however, back to Jake Lever.

Here's Ralph's idea. Carlton look like big winners in this hypothetical though.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/could-a-adelaide-carlton-and-melbourne-threeway-mega-trade-be-a-winwinwin/news-story/af3300af42e2e7557aedd4267f3a91d9

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:30, Watts the matter said:

I wouldn't. 

Salem and Weideman are our pick 9's. 

The jury is still well and truly out with Jason Taylor.

Despite the reputation of top 10 picks, picks between 6 - 10 in the last 4 or 5 drafts off the top of my head have netted very little and would be a disaster. Unless you are getting a top 3 pick it is a terrible idea.

Good lord.

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:49, stevethemanjordan said:

Key word.

As said, at this early stage I would do the deal. 

Let us stop derailing however, back to Jake Lever.

Here's Ralph's idea. Carlton look like big winners in this hypothetical though.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/could-a-adelaide-carlton-and-melbourne-threeway-mega-trade-be-a-winwinwin/news-story/af3300af42e2e7557aedd4267f3a91d9

Life is full of risks Steve.  Keeping Clarrie minimizes them.

Still waiting on the list of players who haven't been stars after producing results like Oliver in his second year.

You could dodge the question by saying "nobody has" but that wouldn't help your position would it.

I saw the Ralph solution.  Seems fair but I couldn't understand where Rockliff fitted in.  Can't Carlton just get him as a FA anyway?

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:53, Vogon Poetry said:

Life is full of risks Steve.  Keeping Clarrie minimizes them.

Still waiting on the list of players who haven't been stars after producing results like Oliver in his second year.

You could dodge the question by saying "nobody has" but that wouldn't help your position would it.

I saw the Ralph solution.  Seems fair but I couldn't understand where Rockliff fitted in.  Can't Carlton just get him as a FA anyway?

I'm not sure there's been a second year player who has produced the same results? Clearly he had an unheard of year. 

I don't mind being called crazy for taking three first round picks ahead of Oliver at this stage. But I'd do it! 

 

Yes Carlton can get him as a FA, but with Kennedy and Smith for pick 10 and only moving down one draft position for Brisbane's Rockliff compo is a pretty nice deal for them. Means they'll have a first rounder for this year, Rockliff, Smith and Kennedy.

With the rest of their talent including their young bookends, they'll be pretty scary in a few years.

I have to apologise to all in this thread as I was the clever man who, jokingly, said I wouldn't give up Oliver for 9 first round picks.  It's totally snowballed from there.

Come home soon, Jake.

  On 21/09/2017 at 06:08, Wiseblood said:

I have to apologise to all in this thread as I was the clever man who, jokingly, said I wouldn't give up Oliver for 9 first round picks.  It's totally snowballed from there.

Come home soon, Jake.

Deserving of 30 days in the slammer Wise 

  On 21/09/2017 at 06:08, Wiseblood said:

I have to apologise to all in this thread as I was the clever man who, jokingly, said I wouldn't give up Oliver for 9 first round picks.  It's totally snowballed from there.

Come home soon, Jake.

Depends what picks they were. I wouldnt trade him for 9 picks outside the top 10.  (Assuming in this insane hypothetical we have to use the picks and can't trade them).

Oliver is a special player.  A taller, bigger, red haired Greg Williams.

  On 21/09/2017 at 06:08, Wiseblood said:

I have to apologise to all in this thread as I was the clever man who, jokingly, said I wouldn't give up Oliver for 9 first round picks.  It's totally snowballed from there.

Come home soon, Jake.

I enjoy the contributions of both posters, but it's possibly the most inane conversation I've ever read on Demonland. Please make it stop.

Edited September 21, 20177 yr by A F

  On 21/09/2017 at 04:59, stevethemanjordan said:

Okay, apologies.

I believe that aside from Oliver, we have some players who have star potential. They're not there yet, just like Oliver isn't.

If we were offered three first round picks for Oliver, I would be confident that we could hit the draft and nail at least one player inside the top 10 who would have similar star potential plus two other chances of gaining high quality players.

The underlying point in all of this for me is that Oliver has shown potential at this stage imo. Yeh he had a great year. But I've seen this with young players before and I'm also aware of the type of person Oliver is, regardless of how he turned it around at the beginning of this pre-season. There's a lot of growing to do and a lot of water to go under the bridge before we can call him a 'star' of the comp. People use that term all the time. Whether it was Zaharakis in his first year, Gysberts after his first three games etc etc. 

So at this stage right here and now, I'd take the picks.

 

You haven't seen anyone like Oliver at Melbourne 

  On 21/09/2017 at 06:27, Moonshadow said:

Deserving of 30 days in the slammer Wise 

I think I'm getting off lightly!

  On 20/09/2017 at 13:04, daisycutter said:

funny choices there, moonie

Yep, i would have said Trump and Abbott....

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:46, Vogon Poetry said:

At the cost of perhaps the best player we've seen at MFC for a very long time.

Careful at the casino Steve, I don't think you understand odds very well and you don't seem sure of why you're making decisions.

Can I post a like for 'Rhino Richards' liking your post(s)...'Vogon'.

  On 21/09/2017 at 03:55, stevethemanjordan said:

We're on a bit of a merry-go-round here but I'll try to be more clear.

I recognize that Clayton is a highly talented inside mid who has had a superb second year as a developing player.

Having said that, I also recognise that as a midfield, most of our talent is concentrated in a contested-heavy group comprised of Viney, Brayshaw, Petracca and to a lesser extent Tyson and Salem. All are top 10 picks, (Viney would have been) and all (bar Salem) were elite contested ball winning mids during their 18's year and imo share similar weaknesses as players.

Now obviously it's completely subjective as to where one rates Oliver within that group of talent at this early stage in their careers. Petracca has already done an ACL, Brayshaw has had concussion and knee troubles, Salem hamstring and Thyroid issues and Jack had an interrupted year this season after having an unbelievable year in 2016, arguably as good as Clayton's 2017.

Aside from Viney for his first two years, Oliver is really the only player of that group to have had true continuity in both his training and playing from the day he was drafted. The rest are still largely unknown but in my view the talent levels and potential are hard to separate with the exception of perhaps Tyson. (My whipping boy). 

Hypothetically speaking, if an opposition club were to come to me as head recruiter of the MFC with three first-round picks on offer for Clayton at this point in 2017, I would happily shake hands on the deal. Two picks inside the top 10 and one outside. Clarry's unique attributes imo are how clean he is around the ball, his vision in close and his hand-ball execution to the right target in close. Both Trac and Brayshaw are similarly strong over-overhead and as far as everything else goes, I think we possess enough inside talent to let Clarry go for three first round picks at this point in time. That's one reason. 

The second would be these factors: Given the recruiting team we have now, the type of characters we seem to target, the development coaches and leaders we have at the club presently, I would back the club in to successfully identify three players - (who once developed) - would provide a better and more even balance to our list given we can target positional players and greater attribute diversity. It would allow us to have a more even spread of high-end talent across the entire list. One only needs to look at GWS this year to see how important that is when injuries strike.

A risk? Of course. It's all a risk. Rejecting three first-round picks for Clarry would also be a risk.

But I would do the deal given the reasons I have provided.

Steve, while I'm not sure I agree with your final conclusion, I like the way you're looking beyond the individual ("Clarry-as-a-player vs. three early-first-rounders-as-players") factors here and looking more broadly at the overall composition of our midfield and our list, and the influence of the improved infrastructure around the footy dept & the club.

There's not nearly enough of this. We tend to look too much at players as individuals, rather than the overall composition of the team and the list.

For what it's worth, I'd like us to take a good look at the slight but very significant changes Richmond has made to Dusty's role (with the addition of Prestia & Caddy) this season and look for us to do the same with Oliver next season. Make him less of an extractor and more of a break-away-from-stoppages player, while others do the extraction. The fact that Dusty is so much more effective this year isn't an accident, it has been brilliantly brought about by a combination of list management and midfield strategy. Even though Oliver is our best extractor (like Dusty is Richmond's best extractor), I think he'd be much more effective in the "Dusty-2017" role.

Then "Oliver-vs-3-high-first-rounders" would be easy to determine.

Provided we don't have any rule changers, perhaps, and a big perhaps at that......

I'm genuinely concerned that I might be sick of Jake Lever before he even arrives at the MFC...

  On 21/09/2017 at 05:53, Vogon Poetry said:

Still waiting on the list of players who haven't been stars after producing results like Oliver in his second year.

You could dodge the question by saying "nobody has" but that wouldn't help your position would it.

I saw the Ralph solution.  Seems fair but I couldn't understand where Rockliff fitted in.  Can't Carlton just get him as a FA anyway?

Mark Coughlan maybe?

10 and 27 for Lever for us - I like it

Carlton need to clear Gibbs to afford Rockliff presumably