2012 List Management - Drafts, Trading and Delistings

[Nath09]

I still dont like the involvement of Richmond in a three way trade, there is no logic behind it:

If you look at fig 1 richmond is surplus to needs, they are a link in the chain that is not required, we are downgrading pick 5 so they can get Tyson.

Fig 2 shows we can cut out the middle man and get Dom Tyson directly, it doesnt make a difference to GWS who is losing him, they are getting picks 5 and 6 anyway. Why let richmond take him and settle for pick 9?. Tyson is good friends with charger draft class Jong and Pearce, I am sure we can make a good pitch to him.

Fig 3 shows we dont even have to help richmond out and completely distance ourselves from Tyson, getting MD1 and JA or just MD1 for pick 6 is a likely result given our position of power. Not only that we get to keep pick 5, why downgrade it to pick 9 to help shitmound out? why strengthen the opposition? we are not charity.

Love the effort and agree completely! Do you really think we could get Martin and Anderson for pick 6 though? A lot of people seem to think us paying 6 for Martin alone (who some rate as #2 this year and a possible #1 next year) is paying massive unders.

 

[Mutt]

100action:

the pick 9 and Tyson part doesn't make sense unless there is something else coming from Richmond to GWS that we don't know about and which doesn't directly involve us. There must be something more to it than we are aware of.

 

[Testekill]

Do we have to say who we're planning on using the mini-draft pick on when we're trading? Because I would love to pull a fast one on the Giants.

 

[Mutt]

Do we have to say who we're planning on using the mini-draft pick on when we're trading? Because I would love to pull a fast one on the Giants.

We trade for the picks, not the players. What fast one?

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

Somewhat in poor taste to have a player review for Andrew Hooper, currently on the WB site

 

[Testekill]

We trade for the picks, not the players. What fast one?

Pretty much imply to them that we want to get Hogan with the pick. I imagine in that situation that the Giants wouldn't demand as much as if we just came out and said that we wanted Martin.

 

[josh the gent]

TROLL Alert....

Pick 47 will not come into the above equation.

Really?! CNB1990 has been pretty reasonable in his assessment of things IMO.

He acknowledges that the deal on Richmond's end will involve more than pick 9, if they're to end up with Tyson.

He also correctly points out, that our pick 6 by itself is not enough for MD pick 1 (at least for the time being anyway).

I think the deal he put forward is pretty good. Imagine, if that trade goes ahead we could very easily end up with Martin, Stringer and Anderson - a better situation that we could conjure up by keeping 5 and 6.

Another point to the Stringer fans (of which I am certainly one), is that Stringer is no certainty to be available at pick 5 even. What is to stop Melbourne taking him with pick 4?!

IMO, there is not too much between players from picks 3-12 in this draft. Pick 9 should still deliver a quality player.

In that case, we might end up with Mayes & O'Rourke, as opposed to Martin, MacCrae and Anderson.

Lol, I love this time of year - there is so much to talk and think about!!!

 

[Igloo]

Somewhat in poor taste to have a player review for Andrew Hooper, currently on the WB site

Why is it in poor taste? They're going through every player. Even though he's gone now, I don't see a problem with it. They didn't say anything bad about him or anything.

 

[fronkalicious]

I've seen a lot of people both rate O'Rourke and Macrae differently. What's your personal opinion on who is the better prospect and why?

I'd take o'rourke ahead of macrae. I'm not convince macrae has elite level speed nor disposal, which is what you'd need from a genuine outside mid (which he seems very much to be).

I like o'rourke a lot. Really really versatile, tough, good user of the ball.......and something I really love......seems a superb decision maker. We need that in spades. We don't have enough clean players who make good decisions

 

[Nath09]

Really?! CNB1990 has been pretty reasonable in his assessment of things IMO.

He acknowledges that the deal on Richmond's end will involve more than pick 9, if they're to end up with Tyson.

He also correctly points out, that our pick 6 by itself is not enough for MD pick 1 (at least for the time being anyway).

I think the deal he put forward is pretty good. Imagine, if that trade goes ahead we could very easily end up with Martin, Stringer and Anderson - a better situation that we could conjure up by keeping 5 and 6.

Another point to the Stringer fans (of which I am certainly one), is that Stringer is no certainty to be available at pick 5 even. What is to stop Melbourne taking him with pick 4?!

IMO, there is not too much between players from picks 3-12 in this draft. Pick 9 should still deliver a quality player.

In that case, we might end up with Mayes & O'Rourke, as opposed to Martin, MacCrae and Anderson.

Lol, I love this time of year - there is so much to talk and think about!!!

A lot of people have been saying this but looking at the drafts over the past 10 or so years, there are never really more than 4 champion players taken in the top 10. Even in the stronger drafts there has never been the type of consistency people are claiming of this years draft. Perhaps they all seem evenly placed now but that may not mean that in 5 years there won't be a big difference between a Martin, Wines, O'Rourke, Macrae or Mayes...in fact statistically speaking its highly unlikely that more than two of those names will go on to be elite players of the competition.

 

[Mutt]

A lot of people have been saying this but looking at the drafts over the past 10 or so years, there are never really more than 4 champion players taken in the top 10. Even in the stronger drafts there has never been the type of consistency people are claiming of this years draft. Perhaps they all seem evenly placed now but that may not mean that in 5 years there won't be a big difference between a Martin, Wines, O'Rourke, Macrae or Mayes...in fact statistically speaking its highly unlikely that more than two of those names will go on to be elite players of the competition.

Please define your terms: what do you mean by elite players of the competition?

If there are only 20 elite players in the competition then your figure of 2 per draft is about right, but if you define as elite the best 3 or 4 players at every team, then you are talking about 6 or 7 per draft.

 

[Mutt]

double post

 

[paulveed]

I'm far from on an expert on the kids in this draft so just wondering which hypothetical situation supporters in the know see as a better draft outcome:

a) Martin + Anderson + Garlett (or an equivalent player available at 9)

or

b) Stringer + Mayes/O'Rourke/Macrae/Wines

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I vote a variant on option b].

 

[doggies ftw]

I vote Hogan, Martin and Anderson for 5+6+sweetner.

Trade into the pick 10 area and pick up Macrae/Stringer(more keen on Stringer if we DONT get Hogan though)/O'Rourke/Garlett/any sliders.

 

[Butane]

A lot of people have been saying this but looking at the drafts over the past 10 or so years, there are never really more than 4 champion players taken in the top 10. Even in the stronger drafts there has never been the type of consistency people are claiming of this years draft. Perhaps they all seem evenly placed now but that may not mean that in 5 years there won't be a big difference between a Martin, Wines, O'Rourke, Macrae or Mayes...in fact statistically speaking its highly unlikely that more than two of those names will go on to be elite players of the competition.

Agreed!

If we can some how engineer getting Martin, Anderson(or Hogan) and pick 9 then that's a better result than just having picks 5 and 6 because it spreads the risk by 1 more kid. That's assuming that Anderson(or Hogan) is considered a top 10ish pick either this year or next year. Might even be able to get a sweetner upgrade or something..I dunno?

Anyway. Now I'm just rambling on.

 

[cammo78]

Pretty much imply to them that we want to get Hogan with the pick. I imagine in that situation that the Giants wouldn't demand as much as if we just came out and said that we wanted Martin.

Based on Kevin "Shifter" Sheehan's assessment of Hogan at the Draft Camp, I think he's the one we should be going after in the first place.

Massive Centre Half Forward who can run all day with mega agility. A Wayne Carey type player.

Something this club's NEVER had.

 

[zephskinner26]

Dream scenario for me is Martin, stringer and jed Anderson. That would be great... And it's plausible

 

[Mutt]

If at 2:00pm tomorrow Gold Coast bids for Jack Viney with their #2 pick, then our current 5 and 6 picks effectively become picks 4 and 5. Whether Melbourne uses pick #3 or lets Gold Coast use #2, Viney then must be taken earlier than our picks and one of the two clubs burns a top 3 pick on Viney.

It wouldn't surprise me if 2:00pm tomorrow figures heavily in our clubs' thinking about trading for MD pick(s).

 

[Igloo]

If at 2:00pm tomorrow Gold Coast bids for Jack Viney with their #2 pick, then our current 5 and 6 picks effectively become picks 4 and 5. Whether Melbourne uses pick #3 or lets Gold Coast use #2, Viney then must be taken earlier than our picks and one of the two clubs burns a top 3 pick on Viney.

It wouldn't surprise me if 2:00pm tomorrow figures heavily in our clubs' thinking about trading for MD pick(s).

Isn't it on Monday?

 

[Mutt]

Isn't it on Monday?

Bids have to be made at 2:00pm tomorrow and then the meeting when clubs need to respond to f/s bids is Monday morning before trade period officially starts.

 

[Igloo]

Bids have to be made at 2:00pm tomorrow and then the meeting when clubs need to respond to f/s bids is Monday morning before trade period officially starts.

Oooh, ok. Well that makes me happy. We'll finally know! Melbourne will definitely match it, so the answer will be clear.

 

[Mutt]

Oooh, ok. Well that makes me happy. We'll finally know! Melbourne will definitely match it, so the answer will be clear.

Whether Melbourne match it or not, someone has to use either #2 or #3 for Viney if GC bids.

 

[Nath09]

Please define your terms: what do you mean by elite players of the competition?

If there are only 20 elite players in the competition then your figure of 2 per draft is about right, but if you define as elite the best 3 or 4 players at every team, then you are talking about 6 or 7 per draft.

Perhaps elite is the wrong word, but I mean very good players, club champions who can dominate games. Look at drafts from the year 2000 onwards. Of the top 10 picks in any given year I've highlighted players who I would deem to be quality picks, the question marks are speculative:

2000 - Riewoldt, Kosi (?), Didak
2001 - Hodge, Ball, Judd, Bartell
2002 - Godard, Wells(?), Mackie(?)
2003 - Cooney
2004 - Delidio, Roughead, Griffen, Franklin, Lewis(?)
2005 - Murphy, Thomas, Pendlebury
2006 - Gibbs, Boak, Selwood
2007 - Kreuzer, Cotchin, McEvoy(?)
2008 - Naitanui, Hill, Hurley, Yarran, Rich
2009 - Trengove, Martin, Rohan
2010 onwards is probably too soon to tell and dilute by GC & GWS

Of the top ten picks on average only 3-4 picks end up being good quality selections. I know it's subjective and up for debate but my point is that in no draft has the quality between picks 1-12 been close to even...

 

[Mutt]

Perhaps elite is the wrong word, but I mean very good players, club champions who can dominate games. Look at drafts from the year 2000 onwards. Of the top 10 picks in any given year I've highlighted players who I would deem to be quality picks, the question marks are speculative:

2000 - Riewoldt, Kosi (?), Didak
2001 - Hodge, Ball, Judd, Bartell
2002 - Godard, Wells(?), Mackie(?)
2003 - Cooney
2004 - Delidio, Roughead, Griffen, Franklin, Lewis(?)
2005 - Murphy, Thomas, Pendlebury
2006 - Gibbs, Boak, Selwood
2007 - Kreuzer, Cotchin, McEvoy(?)
2008 - Naitanui, Hill, Hurley, Yarran, Rich
2009 - Trengove, Martin, Rohan
2010 onwards is probably too soon to tell and dilute by GC & GWS

Of the top ten picks on average only 3-4 picks end up being good quality selections. I know it's subjective and up for debate but my point is that in no draft has the quality between picks 1-12 been close to even...

OK. Thanks.

In two of the years you quoted there are 5 players you class as A-graders taken in the top 10. This year could easily be such a year, or may be a year in which 6 or even 7 A-graders emerge from the top 10.

 

[Nath09]

OK. Thanks.

In two of the years you quoted there are 5 players you class as A-graders taken in the top 10. This year could easily be such a year, or may be a year in which 6 or even 7 A-graders emerge from the top 10.

I very much hope it is and that we manage to snare two of them