Trade Talk 2013 - Yeo, Doc, Polec, Karnezis, Longer gone - Welcome Paine, West, Magwon!

[Haso]

If we do end up with Grant, we'll need to get him some kind of a cure for this allergy to putting on bulk.

 

[GordonBlue]

Think you'll find Carlton and the Bulldogs upped the ante yesterday....Dogs are in a better position with Grant looking likely to be heading Brisbane with some sort of exchange of draft picks...

I took it from how McKay spoke about Docherty is that they are confident in getting him. When the club you supported as a kid is wanting to trade for you, you would be hell bent to get there (unless of course Dogs put to him crazy money offer). I think Dogs will be used as leverage to get Brissie the best possible deal from Carlton.

Tom Petroro was just on TWR and said a deal should be sorted in the next day or two

 

[theteamtobeat]

Kane Lucus + pick 28 sound about right for Docherty.

 

[GordonBlue]

Unless their name is Mitch Clark.

LOL as indicated in the previous post... once crazy money offer comes into it, then anything could happen.

 

[GordonBlue]

Kane Lucus + pick 28 sound about right for Docherty.

Doubt we'd trade our first rounder from 3 years ago who has shown more than Docherty for Docherty and our second rounder.

If Lucas is involved, second rounders will most likely be out of the equation.

 

[Eons]

Doubt we'd trade our first rounder from 3 years ago who has shown more than Docherty for Docherty and our second rounder.

If Lucas is involved, second rounders will most likely be out of the equation.

Lucas is softer than a teddy bear. No way we'd interested in him.

 

[iBeng]

If we do end up with Grant, we'll need to get him some kind of a cure for this allergy to putting on bulk.

Might have to ask Dank about that one...

 

[GordonBlue]

Lucas is softer than a teddy bear. No way we'd interested in him.

Yes, that's his weakness. However when he's running and finding space whilst others are cramping late in the game, he is valuable.

I think people judged Lucas because of tackles broken (which irritates me as well), however apart from that, he doesn't have too many other weaknesses (depth of kicking sometimes an issue). Heavier period in the gym and tackling training will be very good

 

[JasRulz63]

While Lucas has shown more than Docherty, some of what's been shown has been some major flaws in his game. The biggest one for me is his aversion of the contest which definitely needs a lot of work. I have some big question marks over his disposal too, which I rate below average at best. Docherty has shown much more in both, and I've been especially impressed with his contested work.

 

[Eons]

If we do end up with Grant, we'll need to get him some kind of a cure for this allergy to putting on bulk.

We've been working on Acorn for many years trying to find the same cure. It's called genetics.

 

[POBT]

I'm not keen on trading in someone like Grant. Until this year in only a few games has he shown potential. Jono Marsh from Western Australia U18's (Harrison Marsh from the Swans is his brother) has the exact same attributes as Grant, with a few differences including a good footy brain and aggression.

Grant has spent long enough in the system to be a known quantity and unfortunately he just hasn't shown enough to suggest he will make it. Marsh is the unknown here. Although, unlike Grant, Marsh is both an athlete and a footballer. Not an athlete trying to be a footballer.

I think we need to try and secure another pick in the first round. Whether it be the Buddy compo for Longer if Longer still wants to go or packaging Docherty with something or someone for a first round pick.

I'm not commenting on Marsh at all but I think this is a classic example of potentially ignoring the risk associated with drafting because the exposed deficiencies of an established player are more evident.

It is a lot harder to compare established players to draftees in terms of value. I mean, normally when you draft a player, it is because you've decided another player on your list isn't going to make it. It is a two step process: eg (1) is McKeever going to make it as a footballer? (2) If no, then who do we take in the draft? I see it as similar when considering trade targets who have an element of doubt except it is probably a slightly more convoluted process: (1) Is the trade target going to make it as a footballer in our side? (2) If yes, is the trade price we would need to pay a fair one, given the opportunity cost of giving something up (eg a draft pick)?

As outside observers, we can comment on whether Grant will make it as a footballer. We can probably even comment on his worth in terms of a trade price. But I think it is very difficult to compare him to a potential draftee. There are just too many unknowns - will Marsh be available when we have our pick, does the club rate Marsh etc. They are also recruited for two different purposes. Marsh would be seen as a long term option, the only reason to get Grant is to improve our side immediately.

 

[GordonBlue]

While Lucas has shown more than Docherty, some of what's been shown has been some major flaws in his game. The biggest one for me is his aversion of the contest which definitely needs a lot of work. I have some big question marks over his disposal too, which I rate below average at best. Docherty has shown much more in both, and I've been especially impressed with his contested work.

Lucas is a winger/outside midfielder and he does that pretty well. His strength are his ball finding ability, knows where to run to receive the ball and ability to keep going all day. His disposal is not that bad... sometimes have issues with the weight on the ball. He is also a goal kicker.

Unlike what quite a few Carlton supporters might thing, I rate Lucas highly. He reminds me of Simpson and Gibbs when they started and the more they played the more comfortable they got in going into a contest.

 

[Haso]

Might have to ask Dank about that one...

Yep, I'm very happy with the way I set that one up.

 

[chopperduck]

The theory of not trading a draft pick for a previous high drafted player because they haven't proven anything still makes me laugh. Keeping that pick to then use on an unproven 18 year old is much more valuable for some strange reason.

Doc for tigers pick, 22 iirc would be probably around the mark. Gives us 7, 22 and 24 before compo picks. Would be another decent draft pick if Longer still goes as well. Doc, longer and Yeo will net is the best returns.

 

[Football Pope]

I took it from how McKay spoke about Docherty is that they are confident in getting him. When the club you supported as a kid is wanting to trade for you, you would be hell bent to get there (unless of course Dogs put to him crazy money offer). I think Dogs will be used as leverage to get Brissie the best possible deal from Carlton.

Tom Petroro was just on TWR and said a deal should be sorted in the next day or two

Yeah... you worked the cap well to get a young supporter named Goddard.....

 

[POBT]

Lucas is a winger/outside midfielder and he does that pretty well. His strength are his ball finding ability, knows where to run to receive the ball and ability to keep going all day. His disposal is not that bad... sometimes have issues with the weight on the ball. He is also a goal kicker.

Unlike what quite a few Carlton supporters might thing, I rate Lucas highly. He reminds me of Simpson and Gibbs when they started and the more they played the more comfortable they got in going into a contest.

This is a pretty good point. Simpson always struck me as a player who'd run wide of a contest. I don't think contested footy came naturally to him at all. This year, I saw him put his head over the footy way too often for it to be a fluke. I suspect he's been capable of it for a few years now, albeit that his role remained as a wide runner.

There are a lot of parallels between him and Lucas. Whether Lucas will go through that same process of rectifying a weakness is an unknown.

 

[xplo]

There was a bit of talk about McEvoy vs. Longer and their respective trade values and I have no doubt the Hawks have cut a nice deal to keep them in the frame while their list is challenging.

Longer and McEvoy are obviously at different stages of their development, but I thought there were some interesting comparisons to be made.

              McEvoy              Longer
Draft pos.      9 (2007)            8 (2011)
Total games*    12                  9
Av. Disp**      7.4                  7
Av. Marks**    2.7                  1.5
Av. Hitouts**  8.5                17.5
Av. Tackles**  1.8                  3.3
 
* by completion of second year
** in second year

All up, their numbers are very similar at the same point in their respective careers, with McEvoy being generally better around the ground, but Longer being the considerably better tap ruckman.

Also worth noting that McEvoy's second year was spent supporting two aging, and somewhat injury-prone ruckmen in Stephen King and Michael Gardiner, which created opportunities in what was a very good Saints side.

Anyway, just thought that McEvoy provided an interesting gauge for assessing Billy and his progress.

 

[POBT]

Good comparison.

I've always said that Longer was tracking at the expected pace. He has lots of deficiencies but you can see where he will get to. At minimum he will be a ruckman of Darren Jolly's standard IMO. That's pretty good.

I remember thinking at the time of McEvoy's first couple of years that he wasn't really up to senior footy at that point. He had one weapon (contested marking) which was advanced but his ruck work, movement and endurance needed a lot of work. With Longer, his weapon is his tap work but, similarly, he has a lot of work to do in the next year or two before he will be an AFL quality ruck.

Big guys take time.

For all the reluctance to draft ruckman with early picks, every ruckman taken with an early draft pick in recent years has either established themselves as a first ruck or is developing at the expected pace. There are few clear misses with first round ruckmen in the last several years. So Longer is a low risk trade in this respect.

 

[xplo]

For all the reluctance to draft ruckman with early picks, every ruckman taken with an early draft pick in recent years has either established themselves as a first ruck or is developing at the expected pace. There are few clear misses with first round ruckmen in the last several years. So Longer is a low risk trade in this respect.

True. And while he slipped to 19(ish?), don't think anyone would have complained if their club had taken Brody Grundy with a top 10 pick in last year's draft. I know a few around these parts were very keen on him.

 

[POBT]

Ruckmen taken with high draft picks:

2012

Pick 18 - Grundy

2011

Pick 8 - Longer

2010

Pick 10 - Gorringe

2009

Nil (Gawn taken with pick 34)

2008

Pick 2 - Naitainui
Pick 14 - Cordy (F/S)

2007

Pick 1- Kreuzer
Pick 9 - McEvoy
Pick 16 - Lobbe

2006

Pick 4 - Leuenberger
Pick 17 - Hampson

2005

Pick 7 - Ryder
Pick 18 - Bailey


I would describe Hampson as the only ruckman on that list who either isn't a first ruck or is developing at the right pace. Perhaps Dogs' fans would have some concerns about Cordy's development but, as Lobbe has shown, these things can take time.

 

[Triple R]

I'm not commenting on Marsh at all but I think this is a classic example of potentially ignoring the risk associated with drafting because the exposed deficiencies of an established player are more evident.

It is a lot harder to compare established players to draftees in terms of value. I mean, normally when you draft a player, it is because you've decided another player on your list isn't going to make it. It is a two step process: eg (1) is McKeever going to make it as a footballer? (2) If no, then who do we take in the draft? I see it as similar when considering trade targets who have an element of doubt except it is probably a slightly more convoluted process: (1) Is the trade target going to make it as a footballer in our side? (2) If yes, is the trade price we would need to pay a fair one, given the opportunity cost of giving something up (eg a draft pick)?

As outside observers, we can comment on whether Grant will make it as a footballer. We can probably even comment on his worth in terms of a trade price. But I think it is very difficult to compare him to a potential draftee. There are just too many unknowns - will Marsh be available when we have our pick, does the club rate Marsh etc. They are also recruited for two different purposes. Marsh would be seen as a long term option, the only reason to get Grant is to improve our side immediately.

I totally agree. But do you see Grant making an impact with our team immediately? He and Docherty are not like for like so who's spot is he taking? We have Paparone who has been brought in to play that leading HFF/WING role. We have Green and Zorko (and Banfield) as our crumbers/defensive forwards.

I'm far from ignoring the risk. And I'm not advocating drafting Marsh, I just can't see where either of these types of players would fit into our team. Grant seems reliant on a big FF bringing the ball to ground in order for him to be effective. He had his best season when Hall was at the dogs in 2010 kicking 29 goals as a long leading and then crumbing HFF/FP. He just hasn't got the grasp on FF leading, although he is quite good at long straight leading up to the wing and the HFF.

Grant hasn't been consistent enough in his time in the AFL to justify trading away a HBF/MID who was pick 12, 2 years ago who we took in a compromised draft after losing a KPF/RUCK who was a pick 9 years earlier.

I think I had a similar conversation with cotter101 earlier in the year about Grant and I agree that he has the potential but bringing in a semi-established "will he or won't he make it" type at the expense of a previous or upcoming draftee then I'm not convinced that he will bring anything other than the mostly mediocre and sometimes solid to good games of football.

We've been burnt a bit by our apparent lack of development programs and I am hesitant to assume that Paparone will make it and be our next gun but I do see his potential over Grant and for that I feel brining in Grant will possibly stymie Papa's and others development.

I know we want some players traded in for immediate impact to cover our losses but I don't feel as though Grant is the one we need. This trade IMO should be for draft picks or another young mid with potential like Kane Lucas.

 

[POBT]

At first, I was interesting in exploring Grant as an option. But unless we do think we can turn him into a half back flanker to replace Yeo, then I'm no longer that keen. I don't really see Staker/McGuane as being competition for him - they are more like KPPs than running types. However, I think we've got good coverage with Bewick, Zorko, Hanley, Mayes etc - our runners who play forward of centre roles and who are regulars in our best 22. We also rest inside mids up forward (Rockliff, Redden, Rich etc) and if Green improves his engine, he is also an option to get up field more.
I'm not putting Paparone into that mix (not without seeing a bit more) but clearly we've recruited him to play that sort of linking role too.

I tend to think that he's a better footballer than people give him credit for but, like you say, he's not the best fit for our squad.

I'm becoming more interested in Kane Lucas as a trade option.

 

[Triple R]

At first, I was interesting in exploring Grant as an option. But unless we do think we can turn him into a half back flanker to replace Yeo, then I'm no longer that keen. I don't really see Staker/McGuane as being competition for him - they are more like KPPs than running types. However, I think we've got good coverage with Bewick, Zorko, Hanley, Mayes etc - our runners who play forward of centre roles and who are regulars in our best 22. We also rest inside mids up forward (Rockliff, Redden, Rich etc) and if Green improves his engine, he is also an option to get up field more.

I'm not putting Paparone into that mix (not without seeing a bit more) but clearly we've recruited him to play that sort of linking role too.

I tend to think that he's a better footballer than people give him credit for but, like you say, he's not the best fit for our squad.

I'm becoming more interested in Kane Lucas as a trade option.

Totally agree with the above.

Lucas seems to be a good option for us. Hopefully mitigating the loss of Docherty and perhaps realising his potential. I wonder if Carlton FC would be agreeable to letting him go. I certainly see their supporters on here are happy to part ways.

 

[Bucking Beads]

Pretty surprised we have not made a trade yet considering how many blokes supposedly want to leave

 

[Triple R]

Pretty surprised we have not made a trade yet considering how many blokes supposedly want to leave

Same here, although most of them were done after the FA compensation picks were handed down last year.