List Mgmt. 2014 Draft + DFA Talk Part II

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

[QUOTE="Stylo, post: 35806936, member: 126770"

Cockatoo isnt the finished product & Some say that he is a risk with pick#12 but would be more than happy to take him with #23

Guess what we dont have pick #23 and he will be gone by #33 so if we want him it has to be #12

People are talking about some flaws in his game and he's not highly rated: If he played in 2014 he would of been a top 10, Just think of it this way
Brayshaw is nearly 10 months older than Cockatoo , If Nakia was born 7 weeks later he wouldnt be eligable for the draft and would have to spend next year at TAC level and would be top 10 easily

He will probably grow another 2-3 cm and become that monster 191cm midfielder in 2 years

THIS KID IS A BOTTOM AGE PLAYER THATS A BEAST - Give him 12 months development and the Chocco treatment everybody will say what an inspired selection by Richmond

But FJ wont have the B4ll5
 
We can rule out getting Cockatoo or Blakely with #33.
Even if Blakely manages to slip past St Kilda's and WB's consecutive double picks then chances are that WC will take him at #32.
There is no chance Cockatoo gets past North Melbourne's #25. He trained with them and showed enough talent to warrant that selection. Even Adelaide are keen on Cockatoo and could possibly take him at #14. I know from a very accurate source (same source as Crouch bros.) that Crows like the utensil and are really keen on Duggan (who obviously doesnt affect us at #14, but says something if they were happy to drop 4 places in the draft....).
 
Last edited:
Just saw Cockatoo's highlight reel on the AFL site and about half his disposals don't hit the target!

If that's the highlights...I'm not impressed.

That was his first game back from injury......sure his kicking wasn't that sharp but give the utensil a chance. Actually his kicking action and his overall style reminds me of Dustin Martin
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I wouldn't exactly call trading away pick 12 as being aggressive or risky.

Not that I would do it but offering Rance and Martin to GWS for Sheil & picks 4,6,7 is being risky and aggressive.
Or offering a free agent $800k+ for 7 years is risky and aggressive.

Can you tell me when an aggressive trade has worked?

Maybe Sydney coming of a premiership and throwing a truckload at Tippet and Franklin, but it didn't result in a flag (yet) and they were in a fantastic position to take the risk coming off a flag. Even then it was all built on practical trades, trade out Jolly for 14 (Collingwood took the risk here and that might be another that has worked out well) bring in Mumford and Seaby for 22, Kennedy and McGlynn for 39, Morton for 88 ect..

All Hawthorn's trades have been sensible, down trade in the 20's for Lake, Top 10 pick for Burgoyne a genuine superstar, Gibson for pick 25, Frawley on 500k a year, Gunston for 24.

Even Port have only been sensible, Polec for a small downgrade in the teens, Ryder for 17.

Big moves with big money have rarely worked, Judd is a break even but I think Carlton wouldn't mind Josh Kennedy right now. Fevola was a bust, McLean for 11 has been average, Andrew Lovett for 16 bust, Dale Thomas for 700k bust, Sylvia Bust, Tambling for end of 1st round bust, Sherman for end of 1st round bust, Mitch Clark for 12 (while unlucky) bust ect..


Maybe Hawks and Sydney know the worth of player then everyone else but they never ever over pay, they under pay or pay fair value. When you be aggressive you over pay somewhere and it all falls apart IMO.
 
Can you tell me when an aggressive trade has worked?

Maybe Sydney coming of a premiership and throwing a truckload at Tippet and Franklin, but it didn't result in a flag (yet) and they were in a fantastic position to take the risk coming off a flag. Even then it was all built on practical trades, trade out Jolly for 14 (Collingwood took the risk here and that might be another that has worked out well) bring in Mumford and Seaby for 22, Kennedy and McGlynn for 39, Morton for 88 ect..

All Hawthorn's trades have been sensible, down trade in the 20's for Lake, Top 10 pick for Burgoyne a genuine superstar, Gibson for pick 25, Frawley on 500k a year, Gunston for 24.

Even Port have only been sensible, Polec for a small downgrade in the teens, Ryder for 17.

Big moves with big money have rarely worked, Judd is a break even but I think Carlton wouldn't mind Josh Kennedy right now. Fevola was a bust, McLean for 11 has been average, Andrew Lovett for 16 bust, Dale Thomas for 700k bust, Sylvia Bust, Tambling for end of 1st round bust, Sherman for end of 1st round bust, Mitch Clark for 12 (while unlucky) bust ect..


Maybe Hawks and Sydney know the worth of player then everyone else but they never ever over pay, they under pay or pay fair value. When you be aggressive you over pay somewhere and it all falls apart IMO.

Difference between Sydney and Hawks and (the majority) of the trades you mentioned is that Sydney and Hawks initially bought those players in to be role players. The others were clearly to be studs for their new teams.

At the end of the day, there is always an element of risk with trades. Will what you get be equal to or greater than what you give up? Will player x fit in with our culture? Our style of play? Will he break down? Will he stop improving?
 
I wouldn't exactly call trading away pick 12 as being aggressive or risky.

Not that I would do it but offering Rance and Martin to GWS for Sheil & picks 4,6,7 is being risky and aggressive.
Or offering a free agent $800k+ for 7 years is risky and aggressive.

Pick 12 for Trengove and 23 whilst it was a good move by the club I myself wouldn't call it aggressive. It was safe if you ask me. Very smart but SAFE

Yep I called it balanced.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top