View Full Version : hyperthetical
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 11:28
Do you guys think you would 'top up' for a premiership tilt next year?
Heres a scenario. Carlton has picks #1 and #2. Pies have pick #3 or #4. Dogs have pick #9 or #10
Carlton takes the two best midfielders and reserves their 2nd rounder for a key defender.
You guys need quick, goal kicking silk in the middle. In this scenario the 3rd best midfielder is NQR (a long term project, or has question marks, or is the wrong type). The next best player in the draft is a key forward with a decent pedigree.
Think you would trade down your #3 pick for a macmahon or eagleton and pick #9 or #10, for a quick fix?
Or would you just 'bank' the tall forward or the 3rd best midfiedler, and soldier on.
If we had pick 3 or 4 I'd offer it to St. Kilda for Dal Santo and maybe Brisbane for Power but I'm less certain about that. We'll end up with closer to 7 again and that is a decent offer for Power, even if we have to top it up with a player or later pick.
In other words, I would top up and try to win next years flag while we have Buckley and Burns in the midfield, Rocca up forward and a good solid backline. If Buckley breaks down when he comes back and Rocca doesn't look like he'll make a full recovery I'd change my mind and draft young mid's and trade players to get better draft picks.
Add a fit Buckley, Rocca, Richards (is there such a thing?) and Johnson to Monday's side and it would make a huge difference. Throw in Power and 1 more quick midfielder with a lower profile (Egan, yakka, recruit) and we would be contenders. Solid defence, dangerous forward set up and decent midfield without a standout opponent means you have to have a crack while you can. This whole rebuilding scenario is unproven and hugely uncertain. The worst that can happen is that you fall to the same position a year later which makes it a steeper fall and you might spend 1 extra year low down accumulating another early pick.
Topping up has a far worse rep that deserved in a regulated player market. Essendon, Port and Brisbane topped up to the last 5 flags.
Supermercado
15 Jun 2005, 11:42
Think you would trade down your #3 pick for a macmahon or eagleton and pick #9 or #10, for a quick fix?
Nobody in their right mind would swap a #73 pick for Eagleton.
Do you guys think you would 'top up' for a premiership tilt next year?
Heres a scenario. Carlton has picks #1 and #2. Pies have pick #3 or #4. Dogs have pick #9 or #10
Carlton takes the two best midfielders and reserves their 2nd rounder for a key defender.
You guys need quick, goal kicking silk in the middle. In this scenario the 3rd best midfielder is NQR (a long term project, or has question marks, or is the wrong type). The next best player in the draft is a key forward with a decent pedigree.
Think you would trade down your #3 pick for a macmahon or eagleton and pick #9 or #10, for a quick fix?
Or would you just 'bank' the tall forward or the 3rd best midfiedler, and soldier on.
"Hyper"thetically, we should not be trading down again. Ever!
What our "brains trust" do and what we should do however, is historically proven to be very different.
You scenario assumes too many things. 1) we have to finish practically second last, 2) that the Filth want midfielders when they really need talls, 3) that we need "fast goal kicking silk" in the middle, when we really just need a decent midfielder period.
Too many variables which are iffy. But the one thing I will say is the we MUST NOT trade down our first round pick for second rung players. Chad Morrison might have been mildly servicable, but he will never win us footy games!!
With pick 5 6 or 7 (we wont end up below Hawthorn Carlton or Essendon!!!) we'd be jumping all over a very very good midfielder, probably the third or fourth best available. We'll do the same with pick 21 22 or 23.
I don't think we'd go for the quick fix. Besides how in the hell could Eagleton be described as a fix for anything???
(ps Morrison was not recruited a quick fix. he was recruited as a stop gap to allow the next generation to come through). Trading down last year cost us nothing. We would have got Egan at 7 anyway, and we picked up Morrison for Nixon.
If we had pick 3 or 4 I'd offer it to St. Kilda for Dal Santo and maybe Brisbane for Power but I'm less certain about that. We'll end up with closer to 7 again and that is a decent offer for Power, even if we have to top it up with a player or later pick.
.
Dont get your hopes up, those teams would want no less than a top 3 pick or two in the top 15.
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 12:49
The only way you get dal santo or power for a single top 3 pick is if they wanted to jump ship for the cash, so you had the other club over a barrel. I presume thats the scenario you were looking at.
But in that case, wouldnt carlton come to the party with the first pick of the pre-season draft? they would match your cash...
Im afraid that this year, carlton will be the first under the tree, so you will have to shake long and hard to get anything worthwhile.
I wont defend eagleton, he is soft as shyte, but he is good at what he does. if you want a speedy receiver with a good long kick that runs hard to average 25 possessions, then you could have him. We have that in spades and I cant see a place for him in our midfield next year, as long as the likes of gilbee, ray and guido continue to develop.
I also mentioned macmahon who is super fast and improving with every game now he is settled into a role in the backline. Imagine a rhyce shaw that can reliably hit a target at full tilt, and also minded his opponent a bit.
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 12:54
"Hyper"thetically, we should not be trading down again. Ever!
What our "brains trust" do and what we should do however, is historically proven to be very different.
You scenario assumes too many things. 1) we have to finish practically second last, 2) that the Filth want midfielders when they really need talls, 3) that we need "fast goal kicking silk" in the middle, when we really just need a decent midfielder period.
Too many variables which are iffy. But the one thing I will say is the we MUST NOT trade down our first round pick for second rung players. Chad Morrison might have been mildly servicable, but he will never win us footy games!!
I thought my scenario was pretty spot on in terms of need. Carlton has a good forward line, an emerging backline that needs another key post, and an absolute rubbish midfield that if it didnt have stevens in would be the joke of the competition. camporeale and kouta will be gawn very soon.
as for you guys, yeah well, a star midfielder everybody needs, but who do you need more: a jordie macmahon or a brock mclean? lets assume a judd or cooney isnt available this year after carlton has used its picks.
We want a Dal Santo/Power, or an unknown kid with infinite potential. At 5, 6 or 7 there will be plenty of talented players worth drafting. We dont want Footscrays rejects.
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 13:24
well that answers my question then. youd rather draft for the future rather than try to top up for a cup tilt. do you reckon malthouse, buckley and mcguire share your view?
pieman1
15 Jun 2005, 13:24
I don't mind reading hypotheticals however this one is flawed. Firstly we won't finish that low, secondly the names offered up are distincly ordinary. What the Bulldogs need are some key position players. Scott Clayton always takes the best available talent with his picks which inveriably end up as midfielders or flankers. Taller players are taken with later picks and these players are the hardest to find. I like the Bulldogs lineup but it's just to short, you can't win the big games without the big blokes. I'd be posting on the Carlton board seeing what they want for Whitnall but if you want to put Cooney, Griffen or Gilbee on the table we can start the dialogue again.
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 13:35
my gut feeling is that you could have had gilbee 2 years ago if you had made an offer worth considering. Now the price has skyrocketed. Eade just loves his precise kicking. I think he would have 5 gilbees for his style of game, if he could.
Eagleton is no gun and never will be, but he is better than rhyce shaw and woewodin. just.
macmahon will be a player. Im not sure eade will want to trade him after resurecting his career, but if I am any judge, I rate him. Similar to gilbee last year in my opinion. just about to go places.
obviously cooney and griffen would be signed to 10 year contracts if it was legal.
yeah, I guess you guys wont finish that low. hard to say who will. the hawks arent going too badly, they just arent winning. have they got the heart to keep trying?
if it wasnt for calrton, I dont think any team would get a PP this year.
My prediction is
Carlton #1
Carlton #2
Hawthorn #3
Collingwood #4
Essendon #5
Richmond #6
Freo #7
Roos #8
Dogs #9
Sydney #10
Dogs are improving. richmond and roos on the slide. Freo and essendon going nowhere. Time running out for the pies, when your finals hopes die, so will your spirit, and your brains trust will look for the picks.
my gut feeling is that you could have had gilbee 2 years ago if you had made an offer worth considering.
The Bulldogs correctly decided he was a required player. We had a serious crack at him because he wanted to leave. The Dogs told him they wanted to keep him, and that was the end of that.
well that answers my question then. youd rather draft for the future rather than try to top up for a cup tilt. do you reckon malthouse, buckley and mcguire share your view?
We didnt trade any picks away last year (except 7 for 10 but we got Egan anyway) so I'd have to say the answer is yes they do.
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 13:44
The Bulldogs correctly decided he was a required player. We had a serious crack at him because he wanted to leave. The Dogs told him they wanted to keep him, and that was the end of that.
theres 'required' and 'REQUIRED'. gilbee was 'required' at the dogs right up until the point where somebody offered enough for us to trade him. Nobody is going to say to a player:" well you can stick around since they arent offering enough, but at the right price your history sunshine."
theres 'required' and 'REQUIRED'. gilbee was 'required' at the dogs right up until the point where somebody offered enough for us to trade him. Nobody is going to say to a player:" well you can stick around since they arent offering enough, but at the right price your history sunshine."
You can argue semantics until the cows come home. The Dogs wanted to keep him so there was no point in haggling.
pieman1
15 Jun 2005, 13:49
Eagleton is not as good as Rhyce Shaw, you need to watch more Collingwood games and you would see the difference. But back to my point about the Bulldogs goal to goal line imagine something like this
Fullback Harris
CHB Rawlings, Hargave as the third tall defender
CHF Whitnall, swap him for you 2nd round selection.
FF Grant, try to sqeeze one more year out of him.
Then swap Faulkner AND Eagleton for a Troy Chaplin (a serious player stuck behind Chad Cornes) and that goal line would vault the Doggies into the top 8. A guy like Travis Gaspar might also be a possibility. Your team needs sructure, without it you'll only ever be a pesky side.
silverphoenix
15 Jun 2005, 15:44
I would like to see us go after gianciracusa, now that Gilbee has re-signed. Dal Santo is out of reach, and if power goes anywhere it will be to the bulldogs. Thinking about it, there could be a 3 way trade eventuate from that, unfortunately, the doggies dont really need more skillful midfielders.
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 15:48
gilbs: its not semantics. had you offered enough, eade would have traded him. its a case of collingwood flipping a 3rd rounder at us, eade going to the brains trust and saying 'this gilbee kid, is he worth a 3rd rounder?' they no, so eades public annoucement is 'hes required'. had you gone the extra yard, I am certian he would be in black and white right now.
shaw: as far as I can see, he gets a lot of ball, but his opponent gets a lot of ball and uses it better. trademark is a gather or receive at full pace, running like a madthing then bombing it to nobody in particular. Eagleton is not as fast but is 10 times a better kick, and smarter. shaw is just a bit dumb if you ask me.
faulkner. interesting. Id forgotten about him. has skill, pace and goes in hard, but is very inconsistant. just goes missing for long periods. think neon leon with a backbone or Picket jnr. I think he would be small 'r' required.
bradrowe#32
15 Jun 2005, 16:30
It's an interesting idea.
We really need a decent midfielder. We have so many players that are similar. A Power or Del Santo, whilst not overly quick, would be a great acquisition because they have excellent disposal and are very creative.
I think our forwards are good, but only if a few things fall into place. We really need Richards to stand up in the ruck, which would allow Josh to go forward. Obviosuly, Rocca needs to come back ok.
I still think we need a really good athletic tall backman. The jury is still out on Tristen Walker. As we saw on Monday with Brad Miller, we have to have someone that can go to him. We can't just use Clement everytime a forward gets out of control.
I would also have a serious crack at Brogan from Port. Give them Lonie/Cole and a 2nd round.
I would also have a serious crack at Brogan from Port. Give them Lonie/Cole and a 2nd round.
Deja vu all over again.
jimmy35
15 Jun 2005, 16:39
I would love to see them go very , very hard for both Power and Dal Santo. Our first pick and Coley to the Saints. Second round and a player to Lions. We could trade with Bulldogs for Sam Power to hedge the bet with Luke Power.
Two quality, ready to go midfielders is worth the price.
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 16:48
neither team would willingly give up those players, so unless the player themself wants to jump ship for money, you have no hope.
if they DO want to jump ship for money, they go to carlton who has all the low picks to trade or wait for the preseason draft, and just as much cash.
i.e. unless you can shake both players out of both clubs, and split them with carlton, you have no hope.
bradrowe#32
15 Jun 2005, 16:55
Deja vu all over again.
Exactly. But we have to do something. I'm sick of getting smashed in the ruck since Monkey left.
neither team would willingly give up those players, so unless the player themself wants to jump ship for money, you have no hope.
if they DO want to jump ship for money, they go to carlton who has all the low picks to trade or wait for the preseason draft, and just as much cash..
You still need salary cap room. Neither Carlton nor Collingwood will get both Power and Dal Santo, so its not a total lost cause. Hawthorn wont chase them, they'll be after kpp's.
jimmy35
15 Jun 2005, 17:04
neither team would willingly give up those players, so unless the player themself wants to jump ship for money, you have no hope.
if they DO want to jump ship for money, they go to carlton who has all the low picks to trade or wait for the preseason draft, and just as much cash.
i.e. unless you can shake both players out of both clubs, and split them with carlton, you have no hope.
The chance is slim but never impossible. The first step is getting both players to want to come to the Pies. Power would be easiest,recruit his brother and then offer to pay him very well,Dal Santo would be more difficult but offer him the earth,a 'offer too good to refuse' if you like. Once they both want to come thats where you trade for them. Their clubs would take those trades offered rather than losing them in the PSD. Guaranteed :D
jimmy35
15 Jun 2005, 17:06
You still need salary cap room. Neither Carlton nor Collingwood will get both Power and Dal Santo, so its not a total lost cause. Hawthorn wont chase them, they'll be after kpp's.
Im not so sure the Pies couldnt fit them both in.There is a bit of overpaid deadwood to cut off I would have thought.
stefoid
15 Jun 2005, 17:17
The chance is slim but never impossible. The first step is getting both players to want to come to the Pies. Power would be easiest,recruit his brother and then offer to pay him very well,Dal Santo would be more difficult but offer him the earth,a 'offer too good to refuse' if you like. Once they both want to come thats where you trade for them. Their clubs would take those trades offered rather than losing them in the PSD. Guaranteed :D
if both power and dal santo wanted to leave, I would expect calrton to simply wait for you to offer one of those clubs your 1st round pick, then pick the other up in the PSD for free.
Unless they really, really wanted to get dal santo, in which case they could offer pick #2 for him, and still trump you for power in the PSD simply by paying his asking price. ouch!
3rd scenario is that st kilda takes a faulkner/macmahon + pick #7 offer from the dogs for dal santo or brisbane does a similar deal for Luke Power.
The more I think about it, the worse positioned collingwood is. you have the cash but you dont have the player/draft position leverage to make it work for you.
dogs would take clement in a heartbeat, but he might be 'REQUIRED' ?
magpies42
15 Jun 2005, 17:22
I would love to see them go very , very hard for both Power and Dal Santo. Our first pick and Coley to the Saints
This could have been avoided if we picked up dal santo instead of cole in the first place! i doubt collingwood will trade of cole for dal santo now! Cole is good but no where near as good as dal santo, we made a big boo boo there!
magpies42
15 Jun 2005, 17:23
First line in my previous comment is a quote!
jimmy35
15 Jun 2005, 17:27
if both power and dal santo wanted to leave, I would expect calrton to simply wait for you to offer one of those clubs your 1st round pick, then pick the other up in the PSD for free.
Unless they really, really wanted to get dal santo, in which case they could offer pick #2 for him, and still trump you for power in the PSD simply by paying his asking price. ouch!
3rd scenario is that st kilda takes a faulkner/macmahon + pick #7 offer from the dogs for dal santo or brisbane does a similar deal for Luke Power.
The more I think about it, the worse positioned collingwood is. you have the cash but you dont have the player/draft position leverage to make it work for you.
dogs would take clement in a heartbeat, but he might be 'REQUIRED' ?
What is required nowdays? But yes, I would think Clement was.
The point of getting the players to agree to come to Pies is the first thing you would have to do. Once they are dedicated to go , then Blues or whoever couldnt trump any deal. Clubs cant trade a player to another club unless the player wants to go there. Get the players locked away and then it becomes easier. Lions would take a pick and a player rather than 'do a Port/Stevens" type of deal. As long as Pies offered something of value.
pieman1
15 Jun 2005, 20:54
gilbs: its not semantics. had you offered enough, eade would have traded him. its a case of collingwood flipping a 3rd rounder at us, eade going to the brains trust and saying 'this gilbee kid, is he worth a 3rd rounder?' they no, so eades public annoucement is 'hes required'. had you gone the extra yard, I am certian he would be in black and white right now.
shaw: as far as I can see, he gets a lot of ball, but his opponent gets a lot of ball and uses it better. trademark is a gather or receive at full pace, running like a madthing then bombing it to nobody in particular. Eagleton is not as fast but is 10 times a better kick, and smarter. shaw is just a bit dumb if you ask me.
faulkner. interesting. Id forgotten about him. has skill, pace and goes in hard, but is very inconsistant. just goes missing for long periods. think neon leon with a backbone or Picket jnr. I think he would be small 'r' required.
Your 'opinion' of Rhyce couldn't be more wrong. Your describing the Rhyce of several years ago. He can shut down his man, as evidenced by beating Judd the last couple of times he's played on him, and his completion % for kicks is also well above league average AND he gets twice as many possessions as he used too. Like I said before you need to watch more Collingwood games before you make such ignorant observations about our players.
Deja vu all over again.
Redundent
Deja Vu = all over again
Redundent
Deja Vu = all over again
Its a turn of phrase, a "joke expression".
I suggest you check your spelling before you start criticising others about their use of the English language.
I heard Power on MMM recently. He sounded Stevens non committal to me. We have to pursue hard. First round pick, whatever that ends up being, is what we should offer Brisbane right now. They won't agree to anything but they will have to think about it. Meanwhile we have to make the financial offer to Power that Brisbane can't match and that will crystallise exactly how much it will cost him to stay. Given he seems like he wants to come home and be near his family the money may push him over the edge. It wouldn't do any harm to try and do a deal for his brother either.
If we can get this deal done it has to be signed early in trade week so we can focus on further trades in and out and try and trade back into the first round. We can't give up on Dal Santo, who I would prefer, but a Power deal looks easier.
stefoid
16 Jun 2005, 12:09
Your 'opinion' of Rhyce couldn't be more wrong. Your describing the Rhyce of several years ago. He can shut down his man, as evidenced by beating Judd the last couple of times he's played on him, and his completion % for kicks is also well above league average AND he gets twice as many possessions as he used too. Like I said before you need to watch more Collingwood games before you make such ignorant observations about our players.
Its true the last time I watched Shaw was in Rnd 1 against us when he picked up 28 or so posessions, a large number of which went to nobody or to us, while his opponent got a similar number of very damaging posessions and kicked a few goals.
Im not being malicious, thats just what happened. dont be so thin skinned.
pieman1
16 Jun 2005, 12:22
I'm just drawing your attention to the facts. You say yourself you've only seem Rhyce once this year so how can you make a accurate judgement on him? Rhyce is a much better player than Eagleton or McMahon and the stats back it up. Those are the facts you can now distort them as much as you please.
Its a turn of phrase, a "joke expression".
Oh now I see, like Hotpie = "joke expression"
And thanks for the advice on the spelling, Miss Teacher.