All this talk about trading players so I've gone through and given each player on our senior list a theoretical open market trade value using draft picks as the measurement.

These values are based on output so far, potential and my subjective valuation.

 

Hogan - Early first round and mid to late second round

Jones - Late first round

Salem - Early second round

Watts - Mid to late second round

Petracca - Early first round and mid to late first round

Lewis - Late fourth round

Viney - Early first round and early second round

Brayshaw - Early second round

Gawn - Early first round and mid to late second round

Tyson -  Early third round

Oliver - Early first round and early first round

Hibberd - Early first round

Stretch - Late fourth round

Kent - Late fifth round

Frost  - Mid to late second round

Melksham  - Mid to late second round

Hannan  - Mid to late second round

Garland - Late fifth round

Pedersen - Early third round

vandenBerg - Early fourth round

Vince - Late fourth round

Kennedy-Harris - Early fourth round

T. McDonald - Mid first round and late second round

Weideman - Mid to late second round

O. McDonald - Mid to late second round

Hunt  - Early first round

Neal-Bullen - Mid to late second round

Bugg  - Late fourth round

King - Late fifth round

Kennedy - Late fifth round

Garlett - Early second round

Johnstone - Late fourth round

Jetta - Mid to late first round and mid to late second round

McKenna - Late fifth round

Wagner - Late fourth round

Harmes - Mid to late third round

 

Edited September 26, 20177 yr by Clint Bizkit

Jones late second round third round, he isn't worth a first round pick 30-40 range 

At least half of our list has zero trade value, ie you would accept pick 100 because you wanted to get them off the list. That is basically anyone who you can't get a pick in the first two rounds for.

The logic behind saying Tyson = third round pick bewilders me. There is no way the club would let a starting midfielder go for a speculative pick in the 40s, no matter how much you dislike him.

1 minute ago, poita said:

At least half of our list has zero trade value, ie you would accept pick 100 because you wanted to get them off the list. That is basically anyone who you can't get a pick in the first two rounds for.

Anything fourth round and later is effectively "zero".

With a few exceptions generally agree Clint. However it's worth noting that some of those players are worth more to us now than what we'd get on the open market, eg. Brayshaw, Lewis and (dare I say it) Omac. But I guess every player has their trade price.

in terms of those on / upgraded to senior list, i'd adjudge it more like this...

high value on open market: hogan, petracca, viney, gawn, oliver, hibberd, t mac, hunt, jetta

medium value on open market: salem, watts, brayshaw, hannan, weideman, o mac

more value to us than on open market: jones, lewis, tyson, frost, melksham, pedersen,  vince, anb, garlett, j smith

little value on open market: stretch, kent, garland, vandenberg, jkh, bugg, king, kennedy, t smith, johnstone, mckenna, wagner, harmes

Oliver - 9 early first round picks

I think Tyson is worth the same as hibberd or melksham easily so pick 20-25 seems very fair for him

46 minutes ago, Abe said:

I think Tyson is worth the same as hibberd or melksham easily so pick 20-25 seems very fair for him

If we got pick 20 for Tyson I'd throw in steak knives for the other team just out of pity.

1 hour ago, Clint Bizkit said:

All this talk about trading players so I've gone through and given each player on our senior list a theoretical open market trade value using draft picks as the measurement.

These values are based on output so far, potential and my subjective valuation.

 

Hogan - Early first round and mid to late second round

Jones - Late first round

Salem - Early second round

Watts - Mid to late second round

Petracca - Early first round and mid to late first round

Lewis - Late fourth round

Viney - Early first round and early second round

Brayshaw - Early second round

Gawn - Early first round and mid to late second round

Tyson -  Early third round

Oliver - Early first round and early first round

Hibberd - Early first round

Stretch - Late fourth round

Kent - Late fifth round

Frost  - Mid to late second round

Melksham  - Mid to late second round

Hannan  - Mid to late second round

Garland - Late fifth round

Pedersen - Early third round

vandenBerg - Early fourth round

Vince - Late fourth round

Kennedy-Harris - Early fourth round

T. McDonald - Mid first round and late second round

Weideman - Mid to late second round

O. McDonald - Mid to late second round

Hunt  - Early first round

Neal-Bullen - Mid to late second round

Bugg  - Late fourth round

King - Late fifth round

Kennedy - Late fifth round

Garlett - Early second round

Johnstone - Late fourth round

Jetta - Mid to late first round and mid to late second round

McKenna - Late fifth round

Wagner - Late fourth round

Harmes - Mid to late third round

 

Great work Mr Bizcuit. Apart from a few arguable exceptions it does give a great perspective of the subjective quality of our list. It would be interesting to do a similar comparison of all teams. But btw too much work.

I wonder if the FD view our boys similarly. Interesting & thought provoking thread.

Fantastic idea and effort by you Clint Bizzell.

Personally I think you haven't quite taken into account that older players have virtually no trade value - just ask Jordy and Sam Mitchell. That's why I'd disagree the most with Hibberd being an early first rounder and Jones late first round, but otherwise you are not that far off the mark for a hypothetical column.

To me there are five players everyone would want - all first rounders - and possibly each requiring two first rounders  - although thank christ this is hypothetical as they are the keys to our future.

The five are: Olly, Trac, Hoges, Viney and Gawn. They are our untouchables. I'd almost be willing to add Jayden and Salem to that list.

 

1 hour ago, praha said:

If we got pick 20 for Tyson I'd throw in steak knives for the other team just out of pity.

We are talking about a bloke who's had two top 5 B&F finishes in the last three years, consistently gets thirty disposals and is a regular in the best 22 of a team that "should" have played finals. 

If we got a third rounder.  Only for him We would have been robbed. He does a lot more right than he does wrong. Just needs to tidy his disposal a little bit 

2 hours ago, Abe said:

We are talking about a bloke who's had two top 5 B&F finishes in the last three years, consistently gets thirty disposals and is a regular in the best 22 of a team that "should" have played finals. 

If we got a third rounder.  Only for him We would have been robbed. He does a lot more right than he does wrong. Just needs to tidy his disposal a little bit 

If I was Melbourne's list manager Tyson is someone I'd look at as a possibility to trade - but only to facilitate getting someone else in. Agree that you wouldn't move him on for a 3rd rounder with the only scenario you'd do that being for salary cap relief.

He is a quality player with some very good skills, but he is slow of foot and his disposal can be very inconsistent.

So the question I'd ask is how much is lost by trading Tyson out and having Maynard in his place? Or ANB moving into Tyson's midfield slot? think that's a downgrade, but if that downgrade was the difference that enabled a Lever or Gaff/Isaac Smith type to come to the club I think the team would be stronger overall.

If Melbourne are serious, and I'm sure they are, there is a high probability there will be  casualties of popular players like Tyson and Watts making way.

Edited September 26, 20177 yr by Lampers

Value = Capability x potential x buyers need.

most are unproven, have moderate potential and variable need ( depending on suitor).  Those that are proven are almost out of potential!

we would be lucky to get steak knives for a lot of them, and we have no one worth more than a first rounder.  Hopefully several will emerge next year.

suggest we need to be a buyer of talent, not a seller.

Waste of time. Not relevant 

3 hours ago, Lampers said:

If I was Melbourne's list manager Tyson is someone I'd look at as a possibility to trade - but only to facilitate getting someone else in. Agree that you wouldn't move him on for a 3rd rounder with the only scenario you'd do that being for salary cap relief.

He is a quality player with some very good skills, but he is slow of foot and his disposal can be very inconsistent.

So the question I'd ask is how much is lost by trading Tyson out and having Maynard in his place? Or ANB moving into Tyson's midfield slot? think that's a downgrade, but if that downgrade was the difference that enabled a Lever or Gaff/Isaac Smith type to come to the club I think the team would be stronger overall.

If Melbourne are serious, and I'm sure they are, there is a high probability there will be  casualties of popular players like Tyson and Watts making way.

 

8 hours ago, drdrake said:

Jones late second round third round, he isn't worth a first round pick 30-40 range 

Hey Lampers,

What is it with Watts that you think could be one of the trades for Lever ?  If we get Lever and he is not over the line in any stretch of imagination, it will be for a first round and a pick maybe a third round. don't listen to all the other cats out there .

 

6 hours ago, nosoupforme said:

 

Hey Lampers,

What is it with Watts that you think could be one of the trades for Lever ?  If we get Lever and he is not over the line in any stretch of imagination, it will be for a first round and a pick maybe a third round. don't listen to all the other cats out there .

 

Let's stress I have no genuine inside knowledge, this is all from reading signs and likely misinterpreting!

I see a player like Watts, although the best kick and decision maker in the team, as having some flaws that Goodwin may consider fatal. Lack of physical presence or intensity being the main ones. Salem in a similar boat.

Tyson is more the case of having an over supply in what he brings to the table, or adequate substitutes waiting in the wings.

All of them have qualities attractive enough that other clubs will definitely be interested.

I see those as the type of players that if they could secure a pick between 15-25, and if Melbourne know that's the type of asset that gets a Lever trade completed, they will pull the trigger. You have to give something up of value to make the team better.

But I wouldn't see any of them being offloaded for a pick in the 20s or 30s as a stand alone event. That's because you'd be giving up a flawed but valuable commodity for a lottery pick. The only reason I could see something like that happening would be if Melbourne were in the position Adelaide were with Vince - desperately needing to get some more youth onto the list, so trade a talented but flawed late 20s aged player to do it. And Melbourne don't have an ageing list problem to solve.

11 hours ago, spirit of norm smith said:

Waste of time. Not relevant 

You do know this is a football discussion board, don't you?

Is it true J K H has been given another contract

The ultimate  list clogger

Please tellme its not true

The problem with the above, CB is that there is usually a gulf between what we would want for a player and what other teams would pay.

That gulf is only connected if a player wishes to leave or we are ambivalent on whether they stay or go. So our top ten talents or so have N/A as value because no club is going to give us what we would want for them. ie. All things being equal I would not accept ND4 and ND10 for Petracca. But no club is going to give us ND1, ND5 and a player for him, and that is the deal that begins to make me think about trading him.

At the other end of the scale you have players with value to us that have no value, or commensurate value, to other teams - Jones and Lewis come to mind. Jones would not get a team willing to part with a pick inside the top 25 but we would not move him on for that non existent pick. And there is another dozen without a value at all. Coz no one would give us anything for them.

3 hours ago, rpfc said:

The problem with the above, CB is that there is usually a gulf between what we would want for a player and what other teams would pay.

I think that's pretty bloody obvious.

20 hours ago, Abe said:

We are talking about a bloke who's had two top 5 B&F finishes in the last three years, consistently gets thirty disposals and is a regular in the best 22 of a team that "should" have played finals. 

If we got a third rounder.  Only for him We would have been robbed. He does a lot more right than he does wrong. Just needs to tidy his disposal a little bit 

All true but doesn't really argue the point that he's worth any more than an early second round pick. I just think he's a dime a dozen midfielder and I can't imagine in a million years a team giving up their first round pick for him. As it currently stands. 

Edited September 27, 20177 yr by praha

19 minutes ago, praha said:

All true but doesn't really argue the point that he's worth any more than an early second round pick. I just think he's a dime a dozen midfielder and I can't imagine in a million years a team giving up their first round pick for him. As it currently stands. 

Early second round is fine haha I was questioning the idea he was only worth an early third rounder. No player of his age, and with what he's achieved is going for less than a second rounder unless they have an extensive injury history 

5 hours ago, Clint Bizkit said:

I think that's pretty bloody obvious.

Ok, so that was me trying to politely say you shouldn't have bothered for half the list...

15 hours ago, Lampers said:

Let's stress I have no genuine inside knowledge, this is all from reading signs and likely misinterpreting!

I see a player like Watts, although the best kick and decision maker in the team, as having some flaws that Goodwin may consider fatal. Lack of physical presence or intensity being the main ones. Salem in a similar boat.

Tyson is more the case of having an over supply in what he brings to the table, or adequate substitutes waiting in the wings.

All of them have qualities attractive enough that other clubs will definitely be interested.

I see those as the type of players that if they could secure a pick between 15-25, and if Melbourne know that's the type of asset that gets a Lever trade completed, they will pull the trigger. You have to give something up of value to make the team better.

But I wouldn't see any of them being offloaded for a pick in the 20s or 30s as a stand alone event. That's because you'd be giving up a flawed but valuable commodity for a lottery pick. The only reason I could see something like that happening would be if Melbourne were in the position Adelaide were with Vince - desperately needing to get some more youth onto the list, so trade a talented but flawed late 20s aged player to do it. And Melbourne don't have an ageing list problem to solve.