buck_nekkid

They still want two first rounders, but will speak ‘only to us’ for now (how nice of them...). These pricks have no idea. I was hoping this would be done quick so we could get on with other things, but it looks like this one may drag over the two weeks.

And HE wanted out!

4th rounder and get it done - boom!

The media are paid to speculate - and to create controversy and click bait. At the end of the day, our FD isn’t sitting there saying “wow! We got that so wrong! Because Weaful Wee said he is worth a first rounder, we need to change our thinking”. Ignore the idiots, ignore the chaff.

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

We are consistently outmarked. If I was coaching against us, I would seek to keep possession through marking, and have an outlet mark just outside 50, and a High HF marking CHF option. The Dees fail against these targets by not killing the contest way too often. We have focused on improving our ground ball game, and I believe we have taken huge steps here. The next thing we need to tackle is the contested marking at the key posts. Afte that, we then need to clean up forward 50 entry. A lot of our defensive issues come down to structure. When we have time to set up behind the ball, we do OK. WHen we are too cute for our own good further up the field (another glaring problem), our structures are caught out, and Nev has to defend whatever he can, even if it is sideshow bob, Franklin or Hawkins. It is just the structure. When we can move the ball more assuredly (without being overly cute) we can avoid the damaging turnovers that mean that Oscar and his defensive mates have little or no chance of even making a contest, let alone having the body shape or capability to win/halve it to advantage,

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.

MFC knew what they were getting. Was almost the steal of the draft. Three years but doubt he is expected to play in the firsts for more than 1 1/2. Worth that to secure him. Week to week, like most players, his performance will vary. However, I am happy we got him, and watching him direct and structure on the field, hop in and distribute, and still put his body into contests, think we are getting value. compare what he brings compared to H.....

This kid is just amazing. His vision and speed of hand out of a contest is sublime. It is a different skill to something like a Dangerfield or a Fyfe, but it is so valuable. He has a high hand pass to kick ratio, and given the places he finds himself, I think that is OK. I love the fact he plays for the Dees.