buck_nekkid

I have been thinking on ‘what is he worth’ (and it extends to Watts, and everyone else). A draft pick takes effort and resources to develop into a player. The pick has ‘potential’ but no evidence of performance capability. So when we think of Lever, he was a first round pick that has had investment in his development, and we believe that he has long term potential and demonstrated performance capability. We can get in draft picks and pay them a lower salary. Or else we can bring in players and pay for their development elsewhere (and hopefully decrease the risk that we take in getting them ready to go). In terms of salary, bringing in a low risk, low cost to develop option is definitely worth more than a developing young player who has yet to deliver on their potential. Players that pass through development and show that they can play move into the category of lower risk assets, and are worth additional salary. (This is where it looks like Adelaide screwed up). From a ‘trade value’ scenario, it really depends where you are relative to your list development. If there is a scarcity for specific talent that we need to complete a part of our list, then paying ‘overs’ is acceptable. If the list is shoddy or full of holes, then going for young potential through the draft is higher risk - but if you are not a serious contender is a lower cost strategy that makes sense. This is where we have been for the last decade. If you know there are higher quality talent (risk, but lower risk) in the draft, and you dont have immediate need, then trading for the right picks seems wise. List management also requires a continuous back fill of talent so that you have ‘depth’. So return to the issue at hand: What should we pay Lever and pay for Lever? Probably overs in terms of contract, and overs in terms of pure replacement pick (so a first and a second). What should we get for Watts? Probably unders - we wont get a first pick, and probably a second round pick would be appropriate. That is, unless we can find a suitor that has a specific need that they are trying to fill. He is worth more to us (if he puts the shoulder to the wheel) than his market value because of his 9 years of demonstrated ‘performance’ and unfulfilled ‘potential’. Dealing between clubs is not about ‘winning and losing’ (outcome bias), but about serving our needs. If the club determines that getting Lever for two first round picks is value to us, then so be it. It is not about the deal for Danger, Mitchell, or whomever. This just biases the conversation (and why Burton from Adelaide is a clown). Get the best you can, relative to current need, and get on with chasing the flag. Between filling a few holes in the list, and seeing some significant development in talent on the way up, I think we are well placed. We dont need too much from the draft, so the picks are better used traded out to get what we need in terms of already developed and performing talent.

Dwayne Russell is a [censored]. Who cares what he thinks. He has to keep talking or he would dribble. He has no place in setting the value. Walk to the draft if you must, JL, and screw the crows.

Thanks, Drunkn, I love that you post a perspective here, and that you also hold a confidence when you need to (not giving BenKen up, but giving us a heads up). I get this perspective, but I would be looking for the young players to step up and be demanding better contracts as they develop. I’m sure that there would be some jealousy, but after an initial flush, do they really stand around comparing pay packets? Some of the B Rookies are on a pittance to some of the established players. I hope the message was ‘don’t expect overs’ - and ‘we have to spread the load if we want to win a flag’. Rather than ‘you are all going to be paid less’. I think with the new CBA, there is room for guys like Petracca, Oliver, Hogan, Viney (Kealty??) to earn well. At some point they may have to make a choice as the Cats or Hawks players did - take a little less and get success, or get bigger bucks somewhere else. I dont think we are at that point. In 2-3 years I think there will be a core bunch of guys on Lever money, and a band on a bit less. This is not a Boyd to Bulldogs deal (they seemed to manage...), but I think it may set a new internal benchmark for the guys to aspire to.

Best thing on the interweb today!

This.

You realise this is Demonland...right??

How is this place going to go off when we don't land him? (no info, but I reckon this website would melt quicker than Godzilla's underpants!)

Are we there yet (page 100)....

No wonder the doggies were interested in him....

At the moment we are all speculating about speculation. As I understand it, there are no deals done outside of the trade period. We have not even spoken to Adelaide. Reporters can ask players a question "Would you like Lever at the Dees"? And report the answer (creating news) . So far, I have not seen an unsolicited statement from anyone. We should not even be talking to him now as he prepares for the finals matches in front of him. We may have spoken to his agent, but the rest is either 'pre-negotiation signalling' or speculation. All the flogs in the media who suggest picks and players know NUTHINK. I am pleased that the Dees play things close to their chests, and dont leak these days, only signal. We are not the only ones in the running for Lever. When he comes out in the media and selects us as his preferred destination - then GAME ON!

They want two first round picks - sounds like they get their bargaining strategies from Demonland. They low balled him at $300k, they knocked back a good offer for Gibbs. I think we need to approach this with clear air - We should pay fair, but not overs to Adelaide for the trade. He wants to come, so let him! Offer a pack of burger rings and a used toothbrush, and lowball them for starters...

The question is not if he is any good, but is he what we need? I imagine we have a clear idea of what we need, and outside midfielders might be it for this trade and draft season. If medium forward is not on that list he will go elsewhere, or on our rookie list at best. Looks good, though.

Lever will say nothing until the Crows finish their season. Quite rightly, his focus should be on winning a flag this year... before he nominates us and works at winning another next year... as for your missus...can she take a decent intercept mark?

Yep, that one...

If Lever nominates us to come home, then we may do Frost for Lever as a swap? Seem to remember we let them have Armstrong for a steal because he wanted to go home. Normally if the player nominates a club, they get it done. Sam Frost would be valuable enough for a like-for-like, with the pressure of losing him for nothing. (*Perhaps I'm dreaming...)

Wasn't this a Lever thread? Some of you panty sniffers should start a man-hate thread so you can dump on your favourites. We drift from a trade suggestion of player X to a slanging match that has nothing to do with the topic.

No

I did a really bad fart that smelled better than this mob. Why waste a moment thinking about them? It is galling that they (the club, not the players) used every tactic to avoid responsibility. Its even more galling that the AFL has never properly sanctioned the club because they are too pissweak and beholden to their favourites. I hope they have the Jab Watson curse that lasts 100 years.

I saw that article, and for a team with such a poor win loss record, that is now improving, the stats are meaningless. For a team like the Hawks that won more than it lost over previous seasons, perhaps you could run a correlation over in/out vs wins, however I imagine the correlation would be weak at best. for a team like ours, it is a completely worthless stat. Ask it after our third premiership.

Quite acceptable to wear your red and blue, I would think. If you want to wear yellow and brown, wait for incontinence to hit after you move into the nursing home....

As for the report, he hit the kid pretty hard, when he was unprotected and late. Be interesting how the MRP review it.

Listening to KB read his scripted tosh is embarrassing. He tries to create the story, and I bet he smells of urine and old farts. He may want Trac's biatch at Richmond, but it's not,going to happen. Sainters would be looking at 2018 and beyond for this kid, and the rest is a bonus.

This whole thing is such a joke: it is not a 'supplements saga'. It is a systematic doping saga. there are so many complicit, guilty fools trying to spin the story for their own benefit, it is painful If there is 'truth' here, someone release the evidence that supports it. Otherwise sit down, shut up and hang the sign with 'drug cheat' around your neck and suck it up. I can't wait for these idiots to descend into a bun fight to protect their individual legacies where the truth will actually come out. stupid, club, stupid people. The current 'returning heroes' rhetoric sticks in my craw.

Type 1 diabetes relates to a failure of the pancreas to produce insulin, as opposed to type 2 diabetes which is more about the insulin resistance of cells. You can forget that half-science bs above about Mcmuffin. If he has type 1 diabetes, it is corrected with matching the insulin injected to the carbs consumed and burned, totally manageable in a performance athelete. an AFL footballer with type 2 diabetes would be a major concern. This would require a Plugger Lockett style diet and lack of exercise. young forwards take longer to develop. Judge this contest at the end of their career. He is really a passenger until Roo retires, then he has big boots to fill. happy with Trac, he served massive needs for us.

The Australian article is worth the read. Not an apologist's arse wipe, like the other drivel about this case. When Hird took full responsibility he was on the right path. His advisers swooped in an whispered in his ear. He has not won a single appeal. He looks like a sullen schoolboy, now playing the victim. All of these idiots should have given him better counsel, rather than trying to turn him into a martyr on his death bed (or ICU bed).