deanox

It all cones down to: Does Roos think there is much difference between pick 2 and 9 and Does Roos think that either or both of Buntine or Bugg could become regular, AFL standard, best 22 players for us, particularly dies he see them in the midfield? If yes to both its a great deal in Roos' eyes. If no to either then no deal. I think we'll try and extract a better player than these two, will be interesting to see if we bite if we can't get better.

plus Hogan. I think we currently have 6 or 7 spots. We'd need to delist one or two more. I don't see the problem with that, there are a few out of contact still aren't the?

I thought Bugg was a mid? But I agree with your point. I would want a better player thrown in for pick 2 that what I believe they are. I can see some benefit in this style of trade but not necessarily for those players.

only $450k? If Daisy is worth $700k expect Frawley to be on good coin on the open market.

Pick 2 for Bugg, Buntine and pick 9 is probably a very good deal if either -we thought we had a need and a role in mind for both Bugg and Buntine OR if we think one of Bugg/Buntine can impact in the midfield AND we are happy with the players we think will be available at pick 9. If they can both become best 22 players and pick 9 does as well, it is a steal; three players for one pick, in a draft when there is no stand out number 2. I don't know enough about either to comment on the value though.

Love this from dockerland.com:

to be honest, it's rather meaningless regardless. It doesn't matter who you draft, you need 484 games per year. Even if the players are crap someone had to get the games.

It may even hark back to the origins of the draft to force clubs to use it?

Just looking for clarification re drafting rules. I'm pretty sure all clubs need to draft three players at the national draft, but do you need to use the selections or make at least the changes to your list? Ie. In the event that we trade pick 2, 20 and 38 for players, is that sufficient, or do we need to physically draft 3 players? Do late round rookie upgrades count as drafting?

No need for Howe in that. A fairer deal would be: Pick 2 for Sheil and pick 20 but I'd be happy with sheil for pick 2.

My point isn't whether we would want to, it is what is he worth? If Sheil is worth pick 2 but Howe is only worth pick 15, why would GWS trade?

I love "elite quickness", fantastic description!

If we could land Vince, Lyons and Michie I'd be stoked. Ok so it's not Shuey or Rockliff but all three were either AFL standard or fringe AFL in highly competitive midfields last year. They may not be world beaters but they will improve our midfield either immediately through performance or at the least by pushing for selection with developed bodies not 17 year old bodies.

RE what the players are paid, how does it take it into account when UFAs leave? Sylvia left to chase success, not money. Same with Rivers. Moloney left because he wanted out due to personality clash not because of money, in years pay he would have probably been traded. None of those players would be getting the sane con wisher they would at Melbourne. But for a player like an Ablett or a Franklin, or a Daisy, who have had success they were moving for money. Is it fair that FA compo only compensates teams who's players leave for money and not teams whose players leave for success? Personally I think the formula should be a combo of what they are currently being paid, what they will be paid, and best and fairest takes for the past 2-4 years, weighted. I have no problem with age paying a small part, but it should only play a a part at the excrement ends ie a 26 year old leaving with 5 years left his more than a 31 year old leaving. 27 shouldn't get more than 28. Perhaps the cut off is 29 and over for age related impact. Personally I think compo needs to stay. The pillars of the draft and salary cap and trading mean that clubs get assets (picks and players) and if they can lose them for nothing once they got a certain age they will be at a disadvantage. Poor on field clubs will become feeders for top clubs and no more. But back to Viv!

If someone cane to us and said "we'll give you pick 5 for Howe in a straight swap" would you take it right now? I can't help but think that would be a backwards step for our current situation where we need onfield experience; Howe is about to hit that experience window where he can impact a game regularly, if he does it is more important to is than a kid who make it and surely will not impact next year, especially if there is no senior midfield support. You're right I suspect, 2-5 we'd take but not sure we'd take 10. But in that case in means swapping Howe for Sheil is a no brainer for us; we'd pay pick 2 for Sheil, and we'd happily trade Howe for pick 2 therefore the deal is acceptable to us. Would GWS be happy with the same?

who hasn't played in 2 years. It basically will prove that the "compensation" is based only on money paid and perception of quality, not actual value to clubs. Also they take into account "age", which I assume is so that they factor in how many years a player has left (ie in theory, a 26 year old FA has more years left than a 30 year old FA) however in not sure that it is fair that the AFL predicts how many years a player has left in their career as part of a formula. Some players are shot by 29, some last till 35. Is Daisy worth pick 11? To Collingwood us, but would anyone have paid that for him given his injuries?

The question to ask yourself is what would you accept for Howe (in terms of draft picks) or for any other player for that matter. Then an what picks you would trade for an opposition player. Then balance it out. I'd accept pick 1 for Howe. Maybe I'd accept pick 2-5, although I don't know enough about the draft. For us he is worth more than a pick in the teens, although to other clubs he may only be worth teens or early second round. Sheil is definitely worth top 10, and to us probably more. We have lots of forwards and Howe, despite his highlights, is probably the least important and most easily replaced. Watts can play his role as a tall flanker. Hell, he won't do it half as well but Dunn could play that role of needed. But Clark and Hogan are much harder to replace. Extrapolate: what you expect people to pay for Tapscott or Blease? No more than a 4th rounder for Tappy and maybe a 3rd rounder for Blease if someone sees potential.

We might get 2 good years and two end of contact years out of Vince. Regardless of what Dawes have us this year he still has 6 years left in his prime. Comparing outputs in the first years of contacts isn't a great comparison.

I agree with the bit about sloan and crouch, and about vince. RE Jamar, I don't think we need him. With Gawn and Spencer, and Clark and Fitz as back ups, he won't get a game. On the other hand Adelaide's ruck stocks are light on with a couple of talls leaving the last few years and they need support, especially if Jacobs cannot regain his form. So getting a player to fill their needs without paying is a bonus. I see the contradiction but I think it is probably correct.

Contested possession? Are you sure that stat is great as a measure of inside v outside?Every time a long bomb into an unmanned forward line bounces around loose until Nick Maxwell jogs past and picks it up counts as a contested possession. The ball is free and therefore is "contested". It is also a loose ball get. If I kick the ball 30m to a team mate who marks it without direct physical pressure that's an uncontested possession. The stat that would better define "win his own ball" and "inside mid" would surely be "hard ball gets" which are possessions under physical pressure. Perhaps a combination of the two stats ie players who get high CP but low loose ball gets, may be a better measure? Are there stats on first possession (and/or first disposal)? edit: not disputing your comments on aish, just trying to get a good handle on the stats.

Yeah that's true re doesn't want to come but there are two ways to entice a trade, one is to offer overs to the player (cash) and have him choose us, the other is to offer overs to the club and have the club push him along. If he is going home in two years regardless and they are going to get pick 12 from geelong, or they can trade him now for pick 2 and 20, which would they prefer? They may back themselves to keep him, but they may also try to push him out. Payment for players is a lot more when you are trying to buy them than when they are trying to leave. GWS may realise this and come to the party.

If Sloane wanted to come to Melbourne, pick 2 would get it done. If Sloane doesn't want to come we need to pay overs; why would Adelaide swap a young established gun midfielder for a potential gun midfielder? If Vince leaves next year they get nothing for him under FA. The sweetener in the Sloan for pick 2 deal then is that we take Vince for pick 20 now which is a win for them. Jamar is steak knives to throw the balance in their favour but he is no real loss to us. That gives them 2 picks before their first pick this year, makes it worthwhile. Also their ruck stocks are pretty low, so Jamar may be a good stop gap to support Jacobs and Graham and Jenkins. We get the young gun mid we need and a second older mid for 3 years. They are now 2 of our best 3 mids for our first two picks and a Rickman who doesn't get a game. We certainly aren't paying overs in my eyes.

Yeah that's fair, but would you be happy with paying overs as I suggested above? I think it would be a win for GWS, they'd have to be silly not to take that, but is it more than we can afford?

Sloane and Vince for 2, 20 and Jamar.

How high do people rate Sheil? Would he be worth: Pick 2 and 20 for Sheil and pick 35? It is paying overs but if each year one of our top 3 picks became a gun, one became a good decent player and one a bust I'd be happy with that strike rate. Will Sheil be a gun? If so that's a good deal if we think we can get a good serviceable player from our sylvia compensation pick at 21. Also we pay overs a bit because we get someone with a couple of years development not a skinny draftee.