Adam The God

Fair enough and agree with all of that.

Do you need more than $300k year though? The only other scenario I can think of is that Richmond have only put a 2 year deal in front of him.

Hang on though. We're not attempting to trade in depth. We're attempting to trade in two walk up best 22 players. Elliott would immediately be in our top 10-12 players and Tomlinson's attributes would make him just about the most unique player on our list.

Bizarre move from Ellis. Money talks.

I was saying you couldn't build a list from scratch with only trading away first rounders. But if you plan for it at the top (like say 2004-2005), you have a few decent players around when you get ordinary picks in 2007, 2008 etc.

Let's get in on this, @Macca. Who do we go for? Trade pick 2 or 3 this year and next year's first rounder.

I'm just glad we beat them. Fell over the line after Champions League commitments midweek.

Yep, that's what I was saying too.

I agree and would proffer this...

Yep, that could have worked in 2005 and it could work now. Completely agree that we seemed to become lazy this year and that the trend is worrying with our better players. Our core of Oliver, Brayshaw, Petracca, Lever, Gawn and May is still pretty bloody good. Brayshaw struggled this year and Lever did with injury, but let's reassess this after a strong pre season. They can all get better, but 6 potential A graders is decent. Agreed. It looks good on paper and they played well in 2018 too. They showed what they are capable of. Agreed. Far too slow. We need at least another 2 or 3 to join the aforementioned group and for that group to lift and rise above 2018 standards. I also wouldn't say the good form of the above players is an aberration.

Yep, okay. Now that we have our core, we could play the long game from here on out.

Yep, completely agree. Trading out Frosty will have to happen if we want a steadier, more reliable backline too.

You still haven't answered my original question, which was how does the maths work? Also, the strawman nature of the idea, that a proven talent in the 21-23 age bracket would go to a basketcase, hasn't really been dealt with in your answers. If you're building a core from scratch (which we would have been - Jones is not and has never been, an A grader, but for a long time was our only half decent player), you need to think about the players you are trying to lure. As if an A grader in the 21-23 age bracket would have chosen us in 2008 or 2009. That's not how it works. Players go for success or they go for money. So you're not dealing with the financial realities of paying overs (which you need to in order to attract most good players). If you had 3 or 4 early first rounders (HTF do you obtain them?), you could go about building a core of A graders from other clubs, but that's not how the paradigm is set up. Unless you get rid of draft picks and change the paradigm completely, you must work within the paradigm and you get 1 first rounder a year...

I agree with all of this. We now have the core, we can trade our top picks for proven talent. This is how it works. Who would you target and what is the carrot to get them over the line?

That's not what I'm saying at all. We now have the core to build around and that core attracted the likes of Lever and May. We can go all out now, but we couldn't until we got that core together. And drafting exclusively is not 'my way'. I believe you need to use every mechanism at your disposal to build a great list. All the dynasty teams of the modern era have used the draft, trading and FA to prolong and enhance their success. I'm not sure you can point to a single team that has only used trading as a way to build success. There's literally not one example. Hawthorn drafted their core and then got lucky with the advent of FA and used trading very cleverly too. Richmond drafted their core and then used trading to get B graders like Houli and Caddy into the club, before attracting FA targets in Prestia and Lynch. Geelong got lucky with their father-son selections at the top of this century, which enabled them to build a gun team. They also selected beautifully in the draft. West Coast are perhaps the only example where probably more of their stars have been traded in (Kennedy and Yeo), but you could argue just as many (Shuey, Barrass, McGovern, Sheed and NikNat) have been drafted. Can you point to a single AFL team that has used exclusively trading top picks to build a core?

To be clear, I'm not arguing that we shouldn't keep turning our list over. I'm arguing that we can't simply build a team by trading in players on big wages, because we'll risk losing the players (Gawn, Oliver, Lever, May) we want to keep. I get that we have to pull the trigger at some point, but you need to be smart about it. Do you really think we haven't inquired about the likes of Dangerfield (when he was on the move) and a few of the other stars that have moved? Just because it hasn't leaked, doesn't mean we haven't. Those players just haven't wanted to come, because we've been puss. It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation, and without building a core first (mostly through good drafting), you can't attract these players. That's my argument.

I'd argue we've been dormant until last year because we needed to build the core first to attract FAs. Hawthorn, Geelong, Collingwood etc were strong clubs when FA started. Our timing was unlucky and theirs was anything but. We were able to get May effectively because they would risk losing him for less as a FA compo this year, so I class May as effectively a FA get. We're having a look around this year too seemingly, but you've got to convince players to choose you. That only happens if you want to put your cap out of whack.

You're just saying the same thing again though. I've done the maths and I struggle to see how you could build the guts of a team by only trading. You need to have one or two guns to begin with and then you need to be average enough to stockpile enough picks, not lose your guns in the meantime, and then those picks can be traded. But first rounders come once a year, unless you're trading a future first rounder as well. How do these numbers work?

I like it. I was at a family birthday earlier today with the other half of my family who support Geelong. They were furious that Scott had changed their game style half way through the year, from manic forward pressure to a more controlled style of play. I argued that Scott (who I think is a pretty good coach, despite fluking a flag in his first year) probably had to change the game style mid year, given Geelong had stacked its forward half with relatively young players. With such a taxing game style, they were never going to be able to sustain that play for the entire year. And when he changed the system, they started to lose. Then having qualified for the top 4, Scott reverted to that manic style again in the finals series as this is a proven finals-winning formula (see Richmond 2017). Their other complaint was that Scott rotated players around far too much against Richmond and playing Blicavs on a wing didn't help their cause, while shifting a dominant Dangerfield forward and off the ball, changed the course of the match. Now, I argued once again that rotations come into it and with such a taxing game style, it's difficult to implement for 120 minutes, particularly at 110% finals pressure-cooker intensity. This brings me back to your post and our game style going forward. Not only does the taxing game style concern me (though Burgess will hopefully help in this area), but the lack of clear tall forward options for us worries me. Fritsch, Petracca, Melksham are all really good medium options and in form will be damaging forwards that hit the scoreboard regularly. But we need someone to step up and be the man to take that big contested mark inside 50 when we really need it. Can Tom replicate his first two finals' performances? He really leapt at the ball in those games and took some great contested marks. As did Weideman. If we can stay fit and get a proper pre season into Lever, May, Hibberd and Jetta, I think with continuity together early next year, this could go a long way to forming an impregnable defensive line. With more run on the wings from Tomlinson, Langdon and potentially a KK pushing for selection, this should hopefully contribute to greater two-way-running, as will full pre seasons for Oliver, Petracca, Brayshaw, Harmes and Viney. Preuss needs a massive pre season, because right now, he's a liability up forward and in the ruck. So the clear trend of high pressure forward set ups are something we need to get back to. Playing the territory battle in our attacking 50. But as many of us acknowledge, we desperately need speed in our forward 50, to compliment the height and strength of those mid-sized forwards, as well as McDonald and Weideman. If well coached, this will enable us to play the forward pressure game that Geelong played and Richmond played so successfully - two teams, it's worth noting, that aren't known as great clearance teams. What we have over those teams is a potentially dominant midfield group that will either win the contested possession and get it moving forward or defend the opposition's spread. It needs to be two-way running though as you say and I truly believe the missing piece that can enable us to leap back up the ladder is leg-speed in our forward 50, combined with forwards who create a contest and kick goals. We coped relatively well defensively this year, but as we are well aware of, couldn't score. Fix the scoring and we'll win more often than not.

Sorry mate, but I've been thinking about this comment as well. If anything, I'd argue that it's almost entirely up to system and whether a coach is capable of devising a successful system and then their ability to implement that system with the players at their disposal. Richmond are a really good example. They've got 4 or 5 absolute guns and then the rest are role players within a finely tuned system, where every player knows his role. We're right to blame coaching 9 times out of 10, because most teams have a few really good players, and a team of decent players can look A grade in a top system. But I'm a believer in system over almost everything, like you're a believer in trading picks.

This already feels like the T$ Thread. Yuck.

Max, Clarry, Lever and May are all A graders. Based on 2019, many on Demonland are saying Clarry doesn't qualify, so really it's just Max. However, if you've watched the grand output of these players, it's not unfair to classify each of them as A graders.

Simple answer? Without knowing the KPIs and the scope of the position, it's pretty hard to know.

See, this is all great in some dream world, but how many teams would give up an A grade talent at 21-22 or even in their prime at 24-26? Not many. Only GWS and GCS probably. I get the strategy and I think it can/does work, but it's the exact strategy we've clearly changed to in the last 2-3 years in order to land Lever and May. They've both had A grade seasons previously - Lever is young and May is nearing the end. We've built our midfield at the draft, we're trying to build our backline via FA and trading, and our forwardline should be a mixture of drafting/trading and FA. But to be fair to the MFC, you can't just throw first round picks around if the rest of your list is puss. You won't attract anyone this way. You need to build a reasonable core first and then you can attract with money and potential.

The thing about those aforementioned teams (and the problem I have with @Macca's post) is that they've built from the draft first and then they've kept topping up with A graders from other clubs. Something we are trying to do now. We've started by drafting our core, we've targeted Lever and May, and now we're targetting some FAs. I think as with everything, there's a balance. You need to nail your top end first rounders for a 2-3 year period, then you can rely on FA and the trading of top end picks to top up your list. I think it's an oversimplification and disingenuous to say/imply you can build a whole team with the trading of first round picks.