Just now, DeeSpencer said:

Our current wing options:

Fritsch 69% kicking efficiency (KE), turnovers 3.8  Metres Gained  330  Score Involvements 3.8 Contested Possesion rate 31.7
C Wagner 60.5% KE turnovers 3.2 MG 193  SI 4 CP 40.3
Stretch 65.8 % DE turnovers 2.6 MG 268 SI 3.6 CP 33.1
Baker 61.7 % DE turnovers 4.2 MG 333 SI 3.5 CP 26.8

Not metioned: KK and Vanders - both chronic injuries

Langdon 58.9% KE, turnovers 4.6 Metres gained 412  SI 4.1  Contested Possession rate 30.2
Brad Hill 60.3% turnover 5.2  MG 481  SI 5.8  Contested possessions 22.2

Is Langdon a good kick - no, is his kicking efficiency and turnover rate significantly worse than other guys in his position - no. 

Here's a list of wingmen who have a higher average metres gained than him this year: Whitfield, Hill, Henderson, Smith, Atkins, Robinson, Fiorini and just Polec. He's ahead of Tom Phillips, Sheed, McCluggage, Hunter, Billings, Seedsman, Duncan and so on.

He won't solve all our problems but having a wingman who can cover off defensively and then run and get the ball moving will make life so much easier for our half backs and inside midfielders. His hard running at speed more than makes up for his kicking limitations and I really think he'd make a nice compliment for Fritsch and Baker as a wing/forward rotation.

Good call, i agree, i think the run and carry and spread is just as important at this stage and his disposal while not elite, isn't disatarous.

1 hour ago, Demon3 said:

Yep, that all makes sense. But lets say we were interested.. how does our football department orchestrate a deal and trade for Brad Hill if for interest sake we offered a great contract and good terms that would be enticing for him? is is it Angus Brayshaw for Brad Hill (and sweetener) is it a Future first rounder.. just want spit ball it, because i see alot of posts saying Brad Hill is exactly what we need..

Well first and foremost we have to get him to nominate us as his preferred destination. If we are not it really doesn't matter what our trade currency is.  To do that there are at least three factors to consider that are extremely variable depending on the player you are dealing with - also discounting a fourth factor in opportunity as Hill's an established player.  

The first is remuneration - and this incorporates the length of the contract (see Judd and Shiel as examples it's not always about what is in the TPP).

The second factor is the prospect of success - most players don't switch to clubs destined for the bottom half.  

The third is personal connections - sometimes players are comfortable switching to clubs where they know no one, but for others the opposite is true.  This factor isn't a primary motivation, but it can influence the decision-making process if they are deciding on where to go based on who they know.  It's why Hawthorn remain firmly in the frame for Hill because of his previous relationship with Clarkson.  The side benefit of that maybe that Isaac Smith may look for a better contract elsewhere.

I assume the Saints are in the frame because they are prepared to offer money over and above what other competitors are.  

Edited July 24, 20196 yr by grazman

2 hours ago, grazman said:

The first thing to understand is that the players now have the whip hand when it comes to deals.  If Brad Hill would rather go to the Hawks or Saints (as speculated in the media) then it doesn't matter what we would give up because it just won't happen.  I've seen nothing to suggest we're even in the frame for him in terms of destination - other than we might be interested.

If Hill was out of contract then we'd have to beat the other teams to be his preferred destination then work a deal with Freo.

Given he's in contract he has far less leverage, he can't just blindly nominate anyone, has to agree to a club that will make Freo happy enough to give him up. That's how we got May last year. May was keen on the Pies, Hawks, Dogs and us but it became clear the only side that could make the Suns happy was us, so to get out of Gold Coast he went with us.

Players nominate clubs when a deal is likely. My guess is that teams interested in Hill know they'll have to offer up something juicy like a future first rounder and only if they are willing to do that then Hill gets a bit more choice. Freo held the Gold Coast over a barrel for Lachie Weller, so they know how to work it. I think our lack of interest stems not just from Hill looking elsewhere (Hawks, Saints) but the asking price being substantial. 

It seems Ed is likely, but i think Brad Hill is a must. As mentioned, AFL rules are hardly set in stone so trading for him won't be problem imo. I'm sure Freo would want a first rounder for Hill and i think that would be fair considering how many years he has left and how good he's been. Convincing Hill to come might be tough, but he doesn't really have the i'll go to my preferred club card when he is still under contract for many years. Pick 2 will be a better offer than whatever Saints and Hawks will offer and i'm sure money wise the difference won't be significant enough for him to refuse to come.

 

Stretch 2.0

4 hours ago, grazman said:

Langdon finished fourth in their B&F last year and will probably finish top five this year.  I would think our second round pick is about right... and given the report by Jon Ralph you would assume an in-principle deal with them may already have been reached... not that that sort of thing goes on in the AFL.

I bet you its more than that. when these 'done deals' happen to Melbourne we are offering up both massive coin and high picks. im tipping equivalent of a mid to late first rounder.

9 minutes ago, Bay Riffin said:

I bet you its more than that. when these 'done deals' happen to Melbourne we are offering up both massive coin and high picks. im tipping equivalent of a mid to late first rounder.

It’ll be Oliver brayshaw harmes and gawn for Langdon for sure

Look yous lot . . . you're very hard to please. Ed will be terrific for us. We can improve his disposal just like we did with . . . . um?

32 minutes ago, Superunknown said:

It’ll be Oliver brayshaw harmes and gawn for Langdon for sure

With Mahoney at the negotiating table, this would be around the mark you would think 

7 minutes ago, olisik said:

With Mahoney at the negotiating table, this would be around the mark you would think 

Don't forget the midget at Freo, he'll want 4 first round picks

Edited July 24, 20196 yr by jnrmac

Coaches' votes in the past two rounds

https://www.aflcoaches.com.au/awards/the-aflca-champion-player-of-the-year-award/leaderboard/2019/20190121

He’s been exceptional the last two weeks. Runs extremely hard both ways, disposal has been a lot cleaner and I’m warming to Langdon a lot more than Hill recently. Hill for an experienced player made some bad mistakes against the Saints, especially late on that brought the Saints within a kick.

Needs to slow his roll a bit, otherwise Freo will be asking for our # 2 (or 3) pick, lol.

22 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Needs to slow his roll a bit, otherwise Freo will be asking for our # 2 (or 3) pick, lol.

We would be stupid enough to give it too ?

How do we get Langdon to the Dees? 

MFC 2nd round pick and MFC/Freo swap of 1st round picks in 2020. 

Worth the gamble !?!???

This years second round pick. Done deal.

5 hours ago, Lord Travis said:

This years second round pick. Done deal.

I agree, similar trade value to Melksham and Hibberd. pick in the 20's and he improves our side with some much needed run and carry.

interesting that if you use the draft pick value calculator on the bare bones of the trade (i.e. not factoring in the compo picks that pushed the picks backwards) then we actually look to have paid more for melksham

melksham trade: pick 25

hibberd trade: hibberd and 59 for 29 and 68, valuing hibberd at pick 34

currently our second round pick is #20

is langdon 'worth' a pick 20? if you split the difference btw melksham and hibberd and say he's worth around a pick 30 or so

the biggest issue with this is freo have just TWO PICKS with draft value indication currently - pick 8 and 26, then nothing til about pick 80 or so - and we don't have much further down on our draft list to 'equal' it out either, just pick 38 and 57

be interesting to see how it plays out

1 hour ago, whatwhatsaywhat said:

interesting that if you use the draft pick value calculator on the bare bones of the trade (i.e. not factoring in the compo picks that pushed the picks backwards) then we actually look to have paid more for melksham

melksham trade: pick 25

hibberd trade: hibberd and 59 for 29 and 68, valuing hibberd at pick 34

currently our second round pick is #20

is langdon 'worth' a pick 20? if you split the difference btw melksham and hibberd and say he's worth around a pick 30 or so

the biggest issue with this is freo have just TWO PICKS with draft value indication currently - pick 8 and 26, then nothing til about pick 80 or so - and we don't have much further down on our draft list to 'equal' it out either, just pick 38 and 57

be interesting to see how it plays out

I think Hibberd, Melksham and Langdon offered similar levels of quality when they joined us. Or in Langdon's case when he joins us.

Hibberd was 27, Melksham was 25 and Langdon is 23.  Therefore that's the order of increasing cost because you get the quality for longer and that's what happened with Hibberd and Melksham.  Hibberd is starting to look near the end.

So paying more for Langdon makes sense - our current 2nd rounder.

I'm a fan of recruiting Langdon, he's the right age profile and he offers us pace, endurance and field position in metres gained.  There's some concern about his kicking but I think this may be overblown.  I think most here will rate Salem as one of our best field kicks and they stack up reasonably similarly in the data below:

Average Disposals:

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?year=2019&rt=LA&st=DI

Average metres gained:

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?year=2019&rt=LA&st=MG

Need to leaven this with average turnovers though:

https://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/ft_player_rankings?year=2019&rt=LA&st=TO

• Isaac Smith 74th for disposals, 17th for metres gained, but 10th for turnovers
• Brad Hill 51st for disposals, 11th for metres gained, 22nd for turnovers
• Ed Langdon 54th for disposals, 39th for metres gained, 78th for turnovers
• Salem 50th for disposals,  34th for metres gained, 76th for turnovers - very similar numbers to Langdon

I like Isaac Smith and Brad Hill too but Smith is a lot older (30yo) and based on these number turns it over a surprising amount.  Brad Hill (26yo) will be a lot more expensive in trade and salary than Langdon (23yo) and he too turns it over a surprising amount.  I'd be happy to add any of those three, but those numbers make Langdon look attractive.

Edited August 14, 20195 yr by Fifty-5

A WA commentator described Langdon as, a very nice player, so do not expect a dud or a star. Pick around 30 sounds right to me.

45 minutes ago, Sorry kids said:

A WA commentator described Langdon as, a very nice player, so do not expect a dud or a star. Pick around 30 sounds right to me.

But we wont have pick 30 we'll have around pick 20 and pick 40

11 minutes ago, Fifty-5 said:

But we wont have pick 30 we'll have around pick 20 and pick 40

Then we have a problem to solve. 

7 minutes ago, Sorry kids said:

Then we have a problem to solve. 

Got any proposals?  It's a problem invented by you.

I don't see the problem.  I've reasoned above that he's worth pick 20.

Langdon is one of the better wingman/outside runners in the game. He’s headed for his second consecutive top 5 in a BnF. He’ll be a big asset to us for the next 7-8 seasons.

He’s worth pick 20 and that should be the trade. It’s one of the simplest trades in recent memory. What we have available is pretty much his exact value.