deanox

It makes perfect sense. We could have signed him as a delisted free agent, and he could have trained with us immediately. Or we wait until the rookie draft and get him then. This is an inbetween scenario.

That's not unreasonable. When a handful of players get megabucks the others should baulk. The AFLPA is a terrible union that looks after its rich at the expense of its most vulnerable. On one hand conditions and pay for rookies are terrible. And the general "after footy life planning" got the first 4 years should be a way bigger part of their EBA. Keeping these low has enabled mega salaries for the big guys. On the other hand the "must pay 95% of the salary cap" is their way of arguing that the money at aside for players salaries gets paid to players instead of saved by poor clubs, and I can understand that. But it means free agency is less effective and because the club cycle from bottom to top takes a long time, players are disadvantaged in their career based on where they are drafted. Increasing the cap but keeping the current floor will actually encourage more FA player movement, make it easier for clubs to improve their list by giving them cap space, increasing the salaries of mid tier players and increasing the eveness of the competition.

Define lucrative. From all reports he is going to be on around $500k, vs an AFL average of ~$350k in 2020. According to this article https://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-02-22/player-payments-revealed-millionaires-on-the-up there were about 140 players earning more than 500k in 2017. The salary cap has increased by over $500k since then, so expect that to be closer to 200 players in 2020. With 18 clubs, that's 11 players per club at >$500k. So $500k is "top 11 player" money. He will be our 6th most senior player in terms of games played. Although he may not be our most attacking player, given his important structural role and versatility, he'll be one of the first picked every week, and certainly in our top 11. He has a track record of not missing games through injuries. All of these traits justify his salary. He's only 26, so we'll comfortably get 5 years from him. By the time the contract ends, he'll be on below average money given the salary cap increase. I doubt anyone who has any clue is concerned.

I'd assume that is at least in part due to the lack of finals, with the more successful clubs' players getting an extra 20 possible games in a career. But that doesn't explain it all does it? Edit: perhaps our stats are lowered by the longevity of the club: changes in season length, the effects of wars etc. while the averages are skewed by the younger clubs?

Given of the 1,350 players to pull on the red and blue only ~25 have made 200 games (1.8%), ~33 more between 150-199 games (i.e. 4.3% of all players above 150), and ~98 between 100-149 games (11.6% above 100 games). If we draft/rookie 5 new players per year on average, we only get one 100 game player every 2 years (1.15 to be more precise). All that being said, I like Lockharr. I he'll make it to 100+ games.

I'm taking that as after effectively 5 years out of the game, a first seemingly successful surgery in July and a second (other leg) a month or so later, her will be back running in November, taking 6-7 months to slowly ramp to fitness, get some kms in the legs and a block of VFL under his belt. I really don't think that is a surprise. Imagine the value and spark he could add in the back half of the season coming into finals.

This is rubbish. Goodwin has track record as a tactical innovator. The question is, are the idiots brave enough to back the data and innovations or will they continue to scream "kick it long" every chance they get?

It's clear the footy club think McDonald and Weid and take us forward. We were the highest scoring team in 2018, without Hogan for periods, so the playing group can't be that far off. I suspect they think the "connection" and "structure" is the reason for under performance rather than personel. Adding Tomlinson and Langdon to the wings, allowing Gawn, Oliver and Petracca to rest forward more, and have TMac, Melksham and Weid free of injury means a significantly differently functioning forward line than 2019. Fingers crossed.

Respectfully, it can't be a 2 way street. There is a game plan they all need to adhere too. If the forwards lead but Frost ignores them and runs an extra 10 m they are all out of position and he can't kick to them anymore. They are caught out. Next time they don't lead because they wait to see what he will do. His random play ruins the structures.

The KPP sized guy who played on a wing, and instead of going to the bench pinch hit in the ruck, during finals. Edit: here is an article describing him in GWSs top 3 endurance runners. https://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-01-17/running-men-whos-your-clubs-endurance-king

"Time on ground" might not equal "hard running" but for midfielders who run around with the ball as the key part of their game, it's fair to say it equals high endurance and on field recovery ability, vs being a "burst" player. Addong two elite endurance runners to the mix definitely frees up our other mid to rest up occasionally.

I think it's clear the footy department rate him higher than the general supporter base, and I wonder if they feel he hasn't really had a run to show what he can do the last two years? Like ANB he has a good engine, covers a lot of ground and goes all day: he has mainly played in the wing role at AFL level, but is unlikely he'll do that again for Melbourne. I've always felt that he doesn't do a lot wrong, but he just doesn't really damage with ball in hand. With 3 lost spots and picks 3, 8, 97 and 115, I'm not sure that I'd delist either JKH or Stretch just so I can use pick 115, but I think Stretch goes first.

I'd rather 6 and a player than 3, if we can get someone who is best 22.

Supporters 2017-2018: Goodwin's a terrible coach, he plays Oscar McDonald, who's terrible, and his game plan sucks! Goodwin: learns about key rule changes that will affect his team's game plan, due to a weakness in his playing roster and takes proactive steps to fill that hole by trading in an opposition captain and trading out a player with currency, but who is also a future flight risk and under an injury cloud. Supporters 2019: Why did you trade away drafting opportunities? You only care about short term results!

Could now trade 3 to St K for 12 and 18? Is 8, 12 and 18 is better than 3, 26, 50 and ~16-24 in 2020?

Yeah we'd need to get something else back: the value isn't there in what is written. But also, apparently next year's draft is super compromised. 17 of the 48 players selected for the under 17 all stars side (arguably the best players for best year's draft) are academy or father son players, plus GC priority picks. So perhaps our first pick might not be until the 20s?

On trading: I just realized that we have traded out all picks in the first 5 rounds except 3, 26 and 50. We also currently have 3 list spots. So instead of just focusing on the total points traded, the Frost and Lagdon trades might also need to be viewed in terms of "giving away picks we were going to use anyway". That being said, Stretch and JKH are still OOC. Maybe a pick comes back from GC for Stretch (58, 78 or 90). Maybe we split pick 3 to two top 20 picks and delist JKH.

Yeah that's fine. I'm not convinced he'll make it, but I would think it's unfair to say he wasn't showing something in his first year, and the disposal to score involvement ratio shows he did manage to find himself involved in scoring chains at a higher rate than a lot of players. That might be coincidental, given our high scoring, but it does seem to support my observations. I won't be unhappy if he makes it, that's for sure.

I strongly disagree with this. The reason he kept getting games was because the disposals he was getting were high value. In 2018, he averaged 12.2 disposals and 5.2 score involvements. That's 414th for average disposals but 134th for score involvements, which indicates reach of his disposals was much more likely to contribute to us scoring than your average player. My impression of Spargo was that he was regularly "creating value": a clever knock to advantage, changing lanes to get us clear, finding a man in space instead of taking the first option. I wanted to see him get 20 touches instead of 12, to be truly damaging. But I thought there was enough clever stuff there to give him time.

Some are going to struggle to fit this into their "Goodwin is the worst coach ever" narative...

I find this hard to believe. Surely the GPS and player highlights for most key players would be readily available through your own stats and opposition analysis team and champion data etc. When analyzing opposition teams they wouldn't prep this stuff weekly.

A lot to like. Goal sense. 50+ m kicks for goals. Stronng overhead, and under physical pressure, marking. Ability to get on the end of possession chains and also find himself in space (ie not squeezing a kick out while under pressure).

Assuming in 2020 we finish 6th, Hawthorn 8th and Freo 9th. In: 50, Hawthorns future 2nd (30) Out: 42, 61, our future 4th (72), Frost In: Langdon, 26, Freos future 4th (63) Out: 22, 79, our future 2nd (32), The sum of that in points is: In: Langdon Out: Frost and pick 53 (~253 points) Swap ladder positions and it changes, but it looks pretty good to me.

Today's wrap: Upgrading a NQR defender who is borderline best 22 when everyone is fit, and who constantly breaks team rules and structures but is exciting, for a top 5-10 player who is only 23 and fills a specific need, for the equivalent cost of ~pick 52. Today was a win.

I wouldn't say we won the trade. But given we clearly didn't rate Frost, it's a positive outcome because we recieved some value for a surplus player.