On 13/10/2017 at 10:54 AM, poita said:

 

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.

Leaving rookies aside, McKenna, Johnstone, Garland, Wagner and King are endangered species. Kent, Pederson, Bugg, Vince and Vanders would be on the next line of betting. Pretty sure Kennedy Harris was extended through to end of 2019. 

We need to hit free agency hard for once. We have really only ever been on the other end of it. Be nice to benefit for once. Means we need to not lose anyone to freeagency also (Gawn, Jetta, Tommy mac). Gaff would be my number 1 target. Lynch I hope stays with the suns. Be sad for football to see him play for anyone other than them  ( or us if Hogan leaves). 

Clearly our our list needs are another small goal kicking pressure forward, outside class and hard running ball use, and another a class mid. We also got ministered by big tall marking forwards this year. Think we have put a lot of faith in oscar and got him the fist over the top in lever this year. 

Part of your point is why i have come to terms with watts going. We need a future second round for him, on top of upgrading picks this year. Eg pick 45 and 35 for port's pick 30 and 33. Would gove us 28,30 and 33 in this years based on Balic trade in for a later pick.

Gees port gave done done well this free agency period.

11 hours ago, ignition. said:

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".

$100, $50 & $20 ??? Nothing to do with the discussion.  You are wrongly assuming the higher the draft pick the more its worth - that is a failed way to think. Where you are correct is $100 is more valuable when it comes to player development. 

If I was targeting Macrae and he committed 100% to us - I would get the deal done over holding onto speculative picks - within reason. 

Anyway its all a moot point - your side of the argument in AFL clubland lost long, long ago. You trade to win premierships, you get the deals done  The only place your argument get a say is in AFL fansite forums.

The only real blunder was the Josh Kelly one, but the whole FD had input on that. 

1 hour ago, At the break of Gawn said:

The only real blunder was the Josh Kelly one, but the whole FD had input on that. 

Tyson, Salem and Hunt for Kelly and Gardiner?

That one is still up in the air...

And, no, trades don't get downgraded based on what a 'club was going to pick up at a later pick' because that is a hypothetical that rejects reality and rejecting reality is a bad thing.

 

1 hour ago, At the break of Gawn said:

The only real blunder was the Josh Kelly one, but the whole FD had input on that. 

I watched Kelly as a junior, and I never anticipated he would reach the level he looks like reaching. We are only just starting to see what Kelly is capable of, and he will get better, but I didn't think he would be this silky. He looks to of found another level of poise and calmness - not that he wasn't as a junior, but he has taken it to another level in the AFL. We haven't even seen his tank yet, he hasn't really had to use it that much. Once Kelly starts to get tagged we will see him run players into the ground, he is a savage like that, he gut busts like Scully, we just haven't saw that side of him yet. But as a massive Kelly fan I was all for that deal. We got Salem (who looked a star, and still does, but he needs to show more urgency), we got Tyson, who looked explosive, but now runs in quicksand (something not even the best scout would have predicted), and we got Hunt (who is what makes this trade still tolerable). But I think the football department did the right thing. 15 times out of 20 a top 3 pick won't be as good as Josh Kelly. We were just a bit stiff on the deal, but Hunt keeps the deal tolerable IMO.

3 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

I watched Kelly as a junior, and I never anticipated he would reach the level he looks like reaching. We are only just starting to see what Kelly is capable of, and he will get better, but I didn't think he would be this silky. He looks to of found another level of poise and calmness - not that he wasn't as a junior, but he has taken it to another level in the AFL. We haven't even seen his tank yet, he hasn't really had to use it that much. Once Kelly starts to get tagged we will see him run players into the ground, he is a savage like that, he gut busts like Scully, we just haven't saw that side of him yet. But as a massive Kelly fan I was all for that deal. We got Salem (who looked a star, and still does, but he needs to show more urgency), we got Tyson, who looked explosive, but now runs in quicksand (something not even the best scout would have predicted), and we got Hunt (who is what makes this trade still tolerable). But I think the football department did the right thing. 15 times out of 20 a top 3 pick won't be as good as Josh Kelly. We were just a bit stiff on the deal, but Hunt keeps the deal tolerable IMO.

I think Ward, Shiel and Coniglio do a lot of work getting first possession to give Kelly handballs in to space and he hasn't copped a tag yet. I'm not particularly annoyed that we didn't get him.

I just think if you give up pick 2 you should get pick 9 and Tyson - who's value at the time wasn't more than a top 10 pick. You shouldn't have add pick 20 and 72 to that for pick 53 back. According to the draft value chart we paid equivalent to about pick 7 for Tyson and that's even undervaluing what pick 2 is worth in my opinion. Look at what Carlton is about to get Matt Kennedy for whom I rate as similar to Tyson (good contested player, clean hands, bit slow and dodgy kicking) after 2 years at GWS and you'll see we overpaid.

We've targeted the right players and the right deals and then paid overs for them. It's like we think our draft currency is forged currency and we have to get it out the door.

 

 

2 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think Ward, Shiel and Coniglio do a lot of work getting first possession to give Kelly handballs in to space and he hasn't copped a tag yet. I'm not particularly annoyed that we didn't get him.

I just think if you give up pick 2 you should get pick 9 and Tyson - who's value at the time wasn't more than a top 10 pick. You shouldn't have add pick 20 and 72 to that for pick 53 back. According to the draft value chart we paid equivalent to about pick 7 for Tyson and that's even undervaluing what pick 2 is worth in my opinion. Look at what Carlton is about to get Matt Kennedy for whom I rate as similar to Tyson (good contested player, clean hands, bit slow and dodgy kicking) after 2 years at GWS and you'll see we overpaid.

We've targeted the right players and the right deals and then paid overs for them. It's like we think our draft currency is forged currency and we have to get it out the door.

 

 

I understand your point @DeeSpencer

In your opinion is the paying ""overs'" because we were in such a poor position and building from the draft had been so unsuccessful for so long?

Also would this situation be reversed if in the next couple of years we do really well and players actually want to come to us - ie a Hawks for Geelong?

I guess what I am saying, is overpaying now acceptable because if the risk pays off and you build a good team, in the future it makes it easier to get good deals?

 

50 minutes ago, Unleash Hell said:

I understand your point @DeeSpencer

In your opinion is the paying ""overs'" because we were in such a poor position and building from the draft had been so unsuccessful for so long?

Also would this situation be reversed if in the next couple of years we do really well and players actually want to come to us - ie a Hawks for Geelong?

I guess what I am saying, is overpaying now acceptable because if the risk pays off and you build a good team, in the future it makes it easier to get good deals?

 

We had to give players extra money to come to us but I didn't really see the need to give teams extra draft capital just because we had it. For uncontracted players it's a matter of getting them on board and then negotiating the trade.

But yes, I did expect it to change as better players nominated us and this thread was started on the back of what I deemed was us giving too much for Lever. Lever had agreed to a contract and was jetting off to Europe with his Demons hat and whilst I wouldn't want it to go down to the wire and give him a heap of stress there didn't seem to be any pressing need to submit to the Crows demands so early.

Getting Lever helps us attract players in the future that's for sure, and my big caveat on the criticism is if we sign Gaff as a free agent I'll take it back, but for any players we want to trade for next year we'll have less picks to use. 

3 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

I think Ward, Shiel and Coniglio do a lot of work getting first possession to give Kelly handballs in to space and he hasn't copped a tag yet. I'm not particularly annoyed that we didn't get him.

I just think if you give up pick 2 you should get pick 9 and Tyson - who's value at the time wasn't more than a top 10 pick. You shouldn't have add pick 20 and 72 to that for pick 53 back. According to the draft value chart we paid equivalent to about pick 7 for Tyson and that's even undervaluing what pick 2 is worth in my opinion. Look at what Carlton is about to get Matt Kennedy for whom I rate as similar to Tyson (good contested player, clean hands, bit slow and dodgy kicking) after 2 years at GWS and you'll see we overpaid.

We've targeted the right players and the right deals and then paid overs for them. It's like we think our draft currency is forged currency and we have to get it out the door.

 

 

Fair call. We seem to pay overs for everything to be honest. Very lucky we hit the jackpot with Oliver, and very lucky St Kilda didn't take Petracca ahead of McCartin.

1 hour ago, KingDingAling said:

Fair call. We seem to pay overs for everything to be honest. Very lucky we hit the jackpot with Oliver, and very lucky St Kilda didn't take Petracca ahead of McCartin.

Yeah, the Hibberd and Garlett deals were absolute shockers...

1 minute ago, Wiseblood said:

Yeah, the Hibberd and Garlett deals were absolute shockers...

Essendon had no say over Hibberd. He was coming off a WADA ban - they could NOT hold him (legally they would have been screwed). But speaking of the WADA ban - we overpaid for Melksham not factoring in the possibility of a WADA ban (which was farcical). Very amateur work. Glad Garlett turned out though, makes up for Lumumba.

4 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

Essendon had no say over Hibberd. He was coming off a WADA ban - they could NOT hold him (legally they would have been screwed). But speaking of the WADA ban - we overpaid for Melksham not factoring in the possibility of a WADA ban (which was farcical). Very amateur work. Glad Garlett turned out though, makes up for Lumumba.

I couldn't care less how we get good players to our club. 

 

6 minutes ago, KingDingAling said:

Essendon had no say over Hibberd. He was coming off a WADA ban - they could NOT hold him (legally they would have been screwed). But speaking of the WADA ban - we overpaid for Melksham not factoring in the possibility of a WADA ban (which was farcical). Very amateur work. Glad Garlett turned out though, makes up for Lumumba.

So what?  We didn't pay overs.  Simple.

Paying 'overs' for Melksham isn't nearly as clear cut as you make it.  His second half of the  year was very good.

The Kelly deal isn't in our favour at the moment, but to suggest we pay overs on every deal is plain silly.

On 16/10/2017 at 12:43 PM, rpfc said:

Tyson, Salem and Hunt for Kelly and Gardiner?

That one is still up in the air...

And, no, trades don't get downgraded based on what a 'club was going to pick up at a later pick' because that is a hypothetical that rejects reality and rejecting reality is a bad thing.

 

Up in the air? You're kidding?

Kelly went at 2 and Bontempelli at 4. They are 300 game elite bona fide A+ stars. Our Football Dept, recruiters, scouts all farked up enormously thinking that pick 2 was worth more bundled into a deal for Dom Tyson than seeing the potential in those kids. 

Tyson and Salem are just good ordinary footballers. And to say "we would have taken Billings" just further proves how wrong the FD got it. 

We would have got Hunt without the trade as we had pick 58 before the trade and took Hunt at 57, so take him out of your equation. 

12 hours ago, Watts Jurrah Dunn? said:

Up in the air? You're kidding?

Kelly went at 2 and Bontempelli at 4. They are 300 game elite bona fide A+ stars. Our Football Dept, recruiters, scouts all farked up enormously thinking that pick 2 was worth more bundled into a deal for Dom Tyson than seeing the potential in those kids. 

Tyson and Salem are just good ordinary footballers. And to say "we would have taken Billings" just further proves how wrong the FD got it. 

We would have got Hunt without the trade as we had pick 58 before the trade and took Hunt at 57, so take him out of your equation. 

Nope, you don't get to do that. Doesn't work like that.

Kelly is a star. Tyson is a very good player, so is Hunt, and Salem can be a very good player.

There are other surrounding circumstances that should be factored in to this trade; nothing happens in a vacuum.

I don't have as much 'butthurt' (I believe that's what the kids call it) about this trade as others do.

Some clubs like Adelaide seem paralysed by the need to "win Trade Week" rather than improve their list.

Keep up the great work, Josh.

Balic for 66 a steal, Lever was the big prize and we got him, and we shipped off a soft inconsistent forward for pick 31.

Now I wanna see us package 29, 31 and 35 for something good.

 

11 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Some clubs like Adelaide seem paralysed by the need to "win Trade Week" rather than improve their list.

And some clubs this year seem just outright paralysed.

33 minutes ago, Skuit said:

And some clubs this year seem just outright paralysed.

Yes, we seem to have slipped back into over valuing draft picks or whatever the clubs have blocking their trade digestive tract...

Adelaide are about to get Gibbs for a very fair price that they can pay thanks to our picks, which will make Carlton very happy.

Port are about to dump Lobbe in a salary cap dump to the Blues for another pick as well.

Doing deals early for generous returns has made life easier for 3 of our competitors. 

6 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Adelaide are about to get Gibbs for a very fair price that they can pay thanks to our picks, which will make Carlton very happy.

Port are about to dump Lobbe in a salary cap dump to the Blues for another pick as well.

Doing deals early for generous returns has made life easier for 3 of our competitors. 

Mooted Gibbs deal very similar to our Lever deal.

5 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

Mooted Gibbs deal very similar to our Lever deal.

The 1st to 2nd round pick downgrade is very different as is the value of the future first if it's included. If we finish top 6 next year the Lever deal looks better as does the Gibbs deal if the Crows are top 4. I have more faith in the Crows at this stage!

3 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

The 1st to 2nd round pick downgrade is very different as is the value of the future first if it's included. If we finish top 6 next year the Lever deal looks better as does the Gibbs deal if the Crows are top 4. I have more faith in the Crows at this stage!

Possible minor pick variations vs 7 years younger

At the very least, there's no way this club can be accused of tanking next year.

 

On 10/12/2017 at 6:34 PM, Roger Mellie said:

He is a good poster, just cheesed off that we look like marshmallows at the trade table. I thought we paid overs too.

I thought we paid overs for Melksham and Hibberd, but that hindsight thing - very happy now. I'm hoping it's the same with the Lever trade and that Adelaide pick up extremely homesick-prone players or mules.

How's North going with their aggressive trading strategy? Would you rather be in their shoes?