5 hours ago, Demon Disciple said:

.

Throw in the possibility of Gaff next year with his coverage and footskills, 

Huh?? Whats the whisper there?

Lever might notionally be worth two first round picks, but the opportunity cost of not having a first round pick next year is enormous. 

We have more than a dozen fringe players out of contract next year (Kent, Garland, Pedersen, Vandenberg, Vince, Kennedy-Harris, Bugg, King, Johnstone, Smith, McKenna, Wagner, Keilty, Filpovic) , none of whom I could confidently say will be at the club in 2019.

How on earth do we replace a dozen players next year with no early draft picks? We certainly have no chance of landing another "big fish" without a first round pick to negotiate with.

Our list management has been really poor in recent years. Long term deals offered to fringe players, not turning the list over enough. The end result is a list that doesn't have enough depth, and contains too many list cloggers. Mahoney & co have plenty of work to do over the next 12 months to turn this around.

Yeah because the top draft picks we keep are always winners:

2007 pick 4 - Cale Morton

2008 pick 1 - Jack Watts

2009 pick 1 & 2 - Scully & Trengrove

It's almost smart to just trade them for established talent.

3 minutes ago, poita said:

How on earth do we replace a dozen players next year with no early draft picks? We certainly have no chance of landing another "big fish" without a first round pick to negotiate with.

 

You don't replace a dozen players with 2 picks.  We have the talented player already in Lever. That takes care of 1 of them. 

Picks are picks......excellent if you pick correctly, lousy if you don't,  Certainty is more valuable than gambling. And the team that finished last get 1 pick more than the team that finished first i.e the first pick in the draft.  Their next pick is 19, right behind the team that finished first with 18. You cannot build a team with picks alone, as we found out in years past.

You trade for needs, which is exactly what we are doing.  The same process as Sydney, Hawthorn and Geelong have been doing for the past 5 or 6 years, and they didn't have early picks.  But they do have Franklin, O'Meara, Mitchell, Dangerfield....

19 minutes ago, poita said:

How on earth do we replace a dozen players next year with no early draft picks? We certainly have no chance of landing another "big fish" without a first round pick to negotiate with.

Free Agency - I expect us to be very active.

This is a joke right @DeeSpencer?

38 minutes ago, george_on_the_outer said:

You don't replace a dozen players with 2 picks.  We have the talented player already in Lever. That takes care of 1 of them. 

Picks are picks......excellent if you pick correctly, lousy if you don't,  Certainty is more valuable than gambling. And the team that finished last get 1 pick more than the team that finished first i.e the first pick in the draft.  Their next pick is 19, right behind the team that finished first with 18. You cannot build a team with picks alone, as we found out in years past.

You trade for needs, which is exactly what we are doing.  The same process as Sydney, Hawthorn and Geelong have been doing for the past 5 or 6 years, and they didn't have early picks.  But they do have Franklin, O'Meara, Mitchell, Dangerfield....

Thats enough GOOT...my god think of the children....having to hear such unbridled  and vulgar clarity !! 

Side B of my earlier post:

 

The lunatic is on the thread
The lunatic is on the thread
Remembering trades and priority picks now dead  
Got to keep the loonies in the shed

The lunatic is on D-land
The lunatic is on D-land
The web sites tell of trades that didn't go as planned
And every day the future looks less grand

And if the cap flows over many years too soon
And if there is no room upon the list
And if your head explodes with dark forebodings too
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon

56 minutes ago, poita said:

Lever might notionally be worth two first round picks, but the opportunity cost of not having a first round pick next year is enormous. 

We have more than a dozen fringe players out of contract next year (Kent, Garland, Pedersen, Vandenberg, Vince, Kennedy-Harris, Bugg, King, Johnstone, Smith, McKenna, Wagner, Keilty, Filpovic) , none of whom I could confidently say will be at the club in 2019.

How on earth do we replace a dozen players next year with no early draft picks? We certainly have no chance of landing another "big fish" without a first round pick to negotiate with.

Our list management has been really poor in recent years. Long term deals offered to fringe players, not turning the list over enough. The end result is a list that doesn't have enough depth, and contains too many list cloggers. Mahoney & co have plenty of work to do over the next 12 months to turn this around.

worry about that when it comes. Who knows, big chance Hogan will go back to WA and we'll get 2 first rounders. It's too hard to predict with the current footy landscape. 

1 hour ago, poita said:

Lever might notionally be worth two first round picks, but the opportunity cost of not having a first round pick next year is enormous. 

We have more than a dozen fringe players out of contract next year (Kent, Garland, Pedersen, Vandenberg, Vince, Kennedy-Harris, Bugg, King, Johnstone, Smith, McKenna, Wagner, Keilty, Filpovic) , none of whom I could confidently say will be at the club in 2019.

How on earth do we replace a dozen players next year with no early draft picks? We certainly have no chance of landing another "big fish" without a first round pick to negotiate with.

Our list management has been really poor in recent years. Long term deals offered to fringe players, not turning the list over enough. The end result is a list that doesn't have enough depth, and contains too many list cloggers. Mahoney & co have plenty of work to do over the next 12 months to turn this around.

Hang on... you only have to 'replace' the real value you lose. Of those dozen players only Pedersen (15) and Vince (19) played more than half the season.

Of the rest of them, either they are facing being delisted because they aren't contributing at AFL level, or you've got no actual reason to say you expect they'll leave.

Our club has clearly decided on a recruiting strategy of trading for specific proven players we definitely need, and in the draft only really having an interest in the 'very top' picks, then churning through a high turnover of lower picks. That's why we haven't had a pick in the second round for a few years. It is also why we have an All-Australian defender and have just brought in another likely All-Australian defender.

A club that gains one 'best in their position' player each season, plus a decent scatter of competent players as well, can only be said to be dominating.

 

On what planet does every trade come out in your favour?

You win some, you lose some. Our list is in good shape, Josh has done his job.

5 hours ago, Dr.D said:

big chance Hogan will go back to WA

And you know this because ?

Oh right, you don't. 

The only two teams to have had more wins and improved their ladder position every year for the last 4 years are Melbourne and Adelaide. 

Imagine if we hadn't been paying overs all that time ?

Edited October 13, 20178 yr by ProDee

On 12/10/2017 at 3:07 PM, ProDee said:

I've only read page one, so it may be mentioned later on, but what about turning a pick in the 20s into Frost, ANB and Oscar ?

And (apologies if this has also been mentioned coz I am not reading any more of this thread) we recruited the bloke that GWS picked up with that pick in the 20s!

It was McKenna for Frost, ANB, and Oscar. And then we got McKenna for a couple of pick swaps in our favour!

Looking like a trade we can't lose from here, but one that might net us 3 best 22 players. Definitely ANB.

On 10/13/2017 at 11:02 AM, billyblanks29 said:

Yeah because the top draft picks we keep are always winners:

2007 pick 4 - Cale Morton

2008 pick 1 - Jack Watts

2009 pick 1 & 2 - Scully & Trengrove

It's almost smart to just trade them for established talent.

That argument has no merit whatsoever.

During those years we possibly had the worst CEO in the game's history (Shwab), a recruiting manager without a clue (Prendagast), a coach without a backbone whom the players ignored (Bailey) (followed by a worse coach in Neeld), and a playing group full of influential senior players more pre-occupied with hitting up Chapel St. than playing a game of footy (Maloney, Sylvia, Jamar). On top of that we had a board in conflict with leaks coming from every corner.

High draft picks are valuable, as is club culture and development.

People here have every right to question why the club gave up an additional first-round draft pick (in a very strong draft). Especially if we see Mahoney and Co. spending the rest of the trade period trying to improve our draft position (it's counter-intuitive) and just acquire Balic.

20 minutes ago, ignition. said:

High draft picks are valuable, as is club culture and development.

People here have every right to question why the club gave up an additional first-round draft pick (in a very strong draft). Especially if we see Mahoney and Co. spending the rest of the trade period trying to improve our draft position (it's counter-intuitive) and just acquire Balic.

High draft picks are massively overvalued vs return in football terms - you are thinking in a different era. However, they are a good boost for a club trying to sell hope and hence memberships.

Strong draft? Yeah right you wont know that for 5-7 years, its much more important to have a strong club than take pot luck in a strong draft.  

On 12/10/2017 at 6:23 PM, Roger Mellie said:

I like your thinking there Stone. It's perfect!

Demonstone and yourself showing your ages if you both know Francis the talking mule.  I don’t of course.  Mr Ed is my limit regarding talking equines.  

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

44 minutes ago, ProperDee said:

Demonstone and yourself showing your ages if you both know Francis the talking mule.  I don’t of course.  Mr Ed is my limit regarding talking equines.  

That is my story and I am sticking to it.

He he, not that old. Francis was well before my time - just slim pickings with the viewing when I grew up. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

In footballing terms, Francis was the dud brother to Mister Ed's all-time great. 

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 3:48 PM, hemingway said:

Please.  Show some respect and decency.

The trashing of OMac is as tiresome as it has been of Watts.

He has his moments but he has also shown that he can develop into a very good player.

He is still a kid and deserves support.

As does the Weed

I'm expecting Mahoney, Taylor & Viney to have a bit more up their sleeve - maybe getting involved in the Ablett deal? Suns said they want players, not picks. Something like this seems roughly equitable to me.

Geelong get: Ablett, Watts

Suns get: Wagner, pick 22

Dees get: pick 19, 35

No way this will happen. Because the Suns say the want player/s that are in best 22 regularly. 

3 hours ago, Mach5 said:

I'm expecting Mahoney, Taylor & Viney to have a bit more up their sleeve - maybe getting involved in the Ablett deal? Suns said they want players, not picks. Something like this seems roughly equitable to me.

Geelong get: Ablett, Watts

Suns get: Wagner, pick 22

Dees get: pick 19, 35

We are losing our best kick in Watts I wouldnt be sending Wagner off anywhere he can use it

and on this thread I think the FD has done a great job resurrecting our list with Josh at the helm and wouldnt be surprised if they futher our picks position as you have suggested. 

I totally  disagree with the watts trade though - see the watts thread for that one . 

4 hours ago, Mach5 said:

I'm expecting Mahoney, Taylor & Viney to have a bit more up their sleeve - maybe getting involved in the Ablett deal? Suns said they want players, not picks. Something like this seems roughly equitable to me.

Geelong get: Ablett, Watts

Suns get: Wagner, pick 22

Dees get: pick 19, 35

This looks pretty right 'Mach'.

If we have lose Watts then this type of deal works for me...

9 hours ago, DaveyDee said:

High draft picks are massively overvalued vs return in football terms - you are thinking in a different era. However, they are a good boost for a club trying to sell hope and hence memberships.

Strong draft? Yeah right you wont know that for 5-7 years, its much more important to have a strong club than take pot luck in a strong draft.  

What is more valuable to you. A $100, $50, or $20 AUD note?

Say if the club was to target an out of contract Macrae next year (or another high-valued target). What do you propose the club trades?

To my understanding draft picks are the only currency of trade week. I doubt we'd be wanting to offer one of our high calibre players in return.

If I'm thinking in different era, you're not thinking past the name "draft pick".