Mega Thread Draft Day Supermegaultrathread - It's finally here

[kane249]

If we get Rance could we swap Mitch Brown for Coniglio? I know that's a bit of a dick move to Brown after we made him stay here but GWS would definitely want a ready-made key defender and we need our midfielder. Brown's ACL may lower his value to the giants but also it has the potential to make him less useful to us, and I think GWS's need for a player like him would make swapping definitely plausible.

As someone said, Brown coming off an ACL has no currency. Schofield would however.

 

[Sweet Jesus]

You've been sitting on the fence and have been vague in order to not have your ideas scrutinized.

Don't kid yourself, mate. The prospect of your 'scrutiny' isn't scary.

If my suggestions are vague, it's because we don't know what bargaining chips each side will have. How specific can we be without knowing that?

Even then, I've suggested packaging two second-rounders or an exchange of first-rounders as an addition. That's not sitting on the fence. So I don't think it's viable for you to simply keep repeating the line that I've offered no alternative.

What's considered pragmatic is subjective. I think my deal is pragmatic. You disagree. Yet you won't be specific as to what would get a deal done.

Again, erroneous.

You just continue to deflect with "It depends" and "obviously hinges heavily on what picks both sides have at season's end. And we don't know what those will be." We're discussing a hypothetical, so fire away and be specific.

Well, it does depend. What's objectionable about that?

See my suggestions above.

WC don't have anything to lose, for they can't lose something they don't have. GWS have everything to lose, for if they don't bend, they can lose Coniglio for nothing.

Well, this is where you're wrong.

If we get to the point where Coniglio is willing to leave GWS and willing to nominate WC, then WC absolutely have something to lose.

You're probing is shallow, for it goes no further than 'I disagree'.

If I've overstated how far WC could shaft GWS, then explain it in more detail than "I disagree'. You've been nothing but vague right from the start with me.

Well, what more detail is required?

It's a straightforward point – in my view, your suggested trade won't cut it. It's fairly self-explanatory. How does that need to be inked in any further for it to make sense?

It's like you're trying to confect reasons my disagreement is invalid. It's suspicious.

I've answered your question "why don't we use a third rounder?" more than once. Your inability to comprehend is showing by asking the same question a third time. Do you have comprehension difficulties? You obviously do given that you've twice cited my answer, yet continue to ask the question.

No one has said for WC to offer a third round pick, so you're answering your own strawman.

You've answered it unconvincingly. You said it's about maintaining trading relations. That's claptrap. It's about pragmatism.

And there's no strawman. I merely used the scenario of trading a third-rounder to demonstrate the point.

Now you reveal you're a troll by cutting off "empty" which preceded "rhetoric". This selective quoting shows you to be a disingenuous troll.

More posturing. More bluster.

Don't just call me a troll because I disagree with you. It's unnecessary.

An exchange of first rounders and what? Is that all there is to the deal, or is it simply more of what's now becoming a common trait of yours ambiguity?

An exchange of first-rounders – in the event GWS finish a few spots higher than WC – in addition to our second-rounder.

So let's say we have pick 6 and pick 24 and they have pick 9. Hypothetically. Again, we don't know what the bargaining chips will be.

A deal like pick 6 and 24 for Coniglio and pick 9 would make more sense than simply Coniglio for pick 24.

You have stated the packaging of two second rounders, yet I answered that with "If Coniglio states his intention to head to WC, what's your reasoning for WC having to put up 2x 2nd round picks, given GWS have no leverage to force such a demand upon WC?". You didn't explain the reasoning for such except to continue to say that you disagree with my view and that you don't need to explain yourself.

Geez, that's a mouthful.

GWS can't force any trade on WC. But pragmatism may compel WC to get a deal done.

Your attitude of 'this is my simple view and I don't care to expand upon and explain that view' makes your contribution to this discussion a waste of bandwidth.

More posturing. More bluster. This isn't the way to make a sound argumernt.

Why are you getting agitated? Are you unaccustomed to having people disagree with you?

 

[SpaceClef]

ah, the Dargie multi-quote

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

Did I say or imply it covers other player comparisons? No. I was specific to these two players. I said in this situation it was a "rough guide". Both have had injury-plagued starts to their careers which has held them back from playing as often as they could've. Hence future potential playing the biggest part in their trade value. Does such apply to NicNat and Watts? Of course not. The suggestion was used as a rough guide for trade compensation based upon a few similarities. Hence I believe it makes for an apt comparison.

One had played 9 games and shown little, one has played 50 games and has played games where he's had 25+ pos and a couple of goals.

You can't use them being picked in a similar spot in the draft as a rough guide. There careers are on a completely different trajectory

 

[Dark Sharks]

We pretty much have the same trade bait as last year, which we did absolutely nothing with.

Schofield - Thankfully not trading him worked in our favour now all our KPD are dead.
Lecras - Cherry on top of a forward line we don't exactly need given the fact we aren't in premiership contention and he would hold the most trade value, would trade to fix our mids but don't see it happening, the club loves him too much.
Selwood - Obviously another shit/injury ruined season from him, that makes 3 in a row now from memory. Trade this campaigner please. FA anyway.

That's about it really, can't see any other currency on our list unless Fraser decides to do something special and we trade rather than delist.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

We pretty much have the same trade bait as last year, which we did absolutely nothing with.

Schofield - Thankfully not trading him worked in our favour now all our KPD are dead.
Lecras - Cherry on top of a forward line we don't exactly need, would trade to fix our mids but don't see it happening, the club loves him too much.
Selwood - Obviously another shit/injury ruined season from him, that makes 3 in a row now from memory. Trade this campaigner please. FA anyway.

That's about it really, can't see any other currency on our list unless Fraser decides to do something special and we trade rather than delist.

I'd rather keep Selwood than lose him for nothing

 

[Dark Sharks]

I'd rather keep Selwood than lose him for nothing

Nothing how? 2nd rounder at worst i'd say, if he left via free agency. Which i'd hold in higher value than him being injured or down on form all the time.

 

[Milenko]

Darling goes on the table now IMO, if we are fair dinkum about improving our midfield.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

Nothing how? 2nd rounder at worst i'd say, if he left via free agency. Which i'd hold in higher value than him being injured or down on form all the time.

Do you think he'd get us a 2nd rounder? Has barely played for 3 years

 

[Dark Sharks]

Club champion will work in our favour.

 

[dajesmac]

How so? Coniglio is a much better prospect than Wellingham.

He's a pretty decent player but a first rounder and a player would be overs. The upside just isn't there to be paying that much.

I do agree that he will cost more than an early second on fair value but much earlier than pick 15 would be a bit of a loss from our perspective.

 

[dajesmac]

By the way the Selwood leaving talk has really escalated since he got injured again. He was pretty unlikely to ever leave IMO (bought a house here recently) and usually when a player is perpetually injured he is usually motivated to repay the faith of the club that stuck by him.

 

[dajesmac]

ah, the Dargie multi-quote

Holy **** it took me that long to realize who it was

 

[Spoon_Man]

Darling goes on the table now IMO, if we are fair dinkum about improving our midfield.

If we're thinking that our window is in 3+ years time, then surely Kennedy is the one to trade now. Would net something quite good i reckon.

 

[LordHaart]

If we're thinking that our window is in 3+ years time, then surely Kennedy is the one to trade now. Would net something quite good i reckon.

By now we're just throwing player's names out there... the number one factor in trading out a player is that they want to leave - when was the last time a player was traded against their will?

So with that in mind, who from West Coast would even be open to being traded? I would guess none of our main players - it would have to be someone on the fringe who is therefore likely worth less. Brown would be the highest value player up for trade IMO, but that's only going to happen if he falls back in the pecking order because we nab Rance, or if Schofield or Barrass go ahead of him this year somehow.

 

[flamingEMBERS]

As someone said, Brown coming off an ACL has no currency. Schofield would however.

A KPP will still have currency, just not peak currency. Considering he might even fall behind Barrass/Schofield/Sinclair/RoPo/McInnes by the beginning of next year, we'd be silly not to trade him and try and get a pick upgrade or something else. Why keep these players on our list, it only brings mediocrity.

 

[tesseract]

Don't kid yourself, mate. The prospect of your 'scrutiny' isn't scary.

If my suggestions are vague, it's because we don't know what bargaining chips each side will have. How specific can we be without knowing that?

Even then, I've suggested packaging two second-rounders or an exchange of first-rounders as an addition. That's not sitting on the fence. So I don't think it's viable for you to simply keep repeating the line that I've offered no alternative.

If The prospect of my 'scrutiny' isn't scary, then put up or shut up!

Do you even understand what "hypothetical" means? If so, your being vague is no excuse, and just makes for a cop-out.

No, you didn't say you'd offer 2x 2nd rounders with an addition of an exchange in first rounders. You made those suggestions in separate posts as thought hey were stand alone ideas. Also, you didn't back your suggestion with reason, so throwing out 2x 2nd rounders with no explanation, while stating that your being vague is due to not knowing "what bargaining chips each side will have" is sitting on the fence.

Again, erroneous.

Solid argument. I suppose whatever comes from your mouth must be considered indisputable fact given that you say that what's considered pragmatic in this situation isn't subjective.

Well, it does depend. What's objectionable about that?

See my suggestions above.

The lack of accompanying reason and your vagueness that makes for a sitting on the fence position. Saying I disagree but not following up with solid reasoning as to why doesn't make for persuasive argument.

Well, this is where you're wrong.

If we get to the point where Coniglio is willing to leave GWS and willing to nominate WC, then WC absolutely have something to lose.

WC can't lose something they don't have. WC don't have to give up their leverage in order to accommodate GWS - which is basically what your supposed pragmatic approach entails. We've seen in the Yeo trade WC giving up their leverage voluntarily and unnecessarily. WC simply needed to stand firm and stick to their guns when offering pick 31 rather than 28. The trade still would likely have got done, but without WC folding like a cheap suit.

Well, what more detail is required?

It's a straightforward point – in my view, your suggested trade won't cut it. It's fairly self-explanatory. How does that need to be inked in any further for it to make sense?

It's like you're trying to confect reasons my disagreement is invalid. It's suspicious.

Reasoning would be a start, or is such beyond your capabilities?

It's one thing to say "your suggested trade won't cut it", but it lacks the why.

Your avoidance of applying reason to your conclusions does somewhat invalidate your conclusions, due to its very lack of reasoning.

You've answered it unconvincingly. You said it's about maintaining trading relations. That's claptrap. It's about pragmatism.

And there's no strawman. I merely used the scenario of trading a third-rounder to demonstrate the point.

Says the guy who refuses to apply reasoning to his conclusions. You say, in your vagueness, that it's about pragmatism, yet I've offered a more specific reason.

Your issuance of the suggestion of a third rounder is a strawman. It's not my position and yet you're continuing to use such as though what I'm saying is comparable. So, it's not only disingenuous and a strawman, it's verging on trolling.

More posturing. More bluster.

Don't just call me a troll because I disagree with you. It's unnecessary.

Don't strawman me and selectively quote me and you won't get labeled a troll.

An exchange of first-rounders – in the event GWS finish a few spots higher that WC – in addition to our second-rounder.

So let's say we have pick 6 and pick 24 and they have pick 9. Hypothetically. Again, we don't know what the bargaining chips will be.

A deal like pick 6 and 24 for Coniglio and pick 9 would make more sense that simply Coniglio for pick 24.

Finally! It wasn't so hard was it, princess? You're finally being more specific. Why didn't you specify this from the start of our conversation rather than drop 2x 2nd rounders in one post and an exchange of 1st rounders in another post? It didn't need to take multiple posts to extract this from you.

In a hypothetical situation we don't need to know exactly where GWS and WC will finish, for we can discuss the many possible outcomes - all that's needed is to specifically state where we think GWS and WC will finish in order to have a basis for a proposed deal. It's not hard.

Geez, that's a mouthful.

GWS can't force any trade on WC. But pragmatism may compel WC to get a deal done.

Your version of pragmatism seems to involve WC giving up their leverage in order to appease GWS and get the deal done before your "the deal may collapse" bogeyman appears.

.Why are you getting agitated? Are you unaccustomed to having people disagree with you?

We can now add assumption on top of vagueness to your repertoire.

 

[tesseract]

One had played 9 games and shown little, one has played 50 games and has played games where he's had 25+ pos and a couple of goals.

You can't use them being picked in a similar spot in the draft as a rough guide. There careers are on a completely different trajectory

The difference in the number of played games is explained by Coniglio having being drafted a year earlier and O'Rourke being often injured. So, of course I can use them two comparatively as a rough guide.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

The difference in the number of played games is explained by Coniglio having being drafted a year earlier and O'Rourke being often injured. So, of course I can use them two comparatively as a rough guide.

It doesn't matter if he was injured or not, Coniglio has 4 times the amount of exposure. I'd go as far to say, Coniglio is a proven midfielder while O'Rourke is not. While future potential also comes in to the equation, surely the minimum you'd get, which is a proven mid in Coniglio or a delist worthy player in a couple of years in O'Rourke, also comes in to the equation.

I just don't know how you can see both as being roughly equal in terms of worth. The mind works in mysterious ways I guess.

 

[Spoon_Man]

By now we're just throwing player's names out there... the number one factor in trading out a player is that they want to leave - when was the last time a player was traded against their will?

This thread is about hypotheticals. We all know it will never eventuate anyway... I for one don't want Kennedy or Darling traded just to be clear, but since we were throwing up names/scenarios (hypotheticals) i thought i may as well throw up a scenario and see where the discussion goes...

 

[tesseract]

It doesn't matter if he was injured or not, Coniglio has 4 times the amount of exposure. I'd go as far to say, Coniglio is a proven midfielder while O'Rourke is not. While future potential comes in to the equation, surely the minimum you'd get, which is a proven mid in Coniglio or a delist worthy player in O'Rourke, also comes in to the equation.

I just don't know how you can see both as being roughly equal in terms of worth. The mind works in mysterious ways I guess.

Four times the amount of not much. That's why I say that both Coniglio and O'Rourke would still mainly be trading off of future potential rather than output. I wouldn't say Coniglio is proven, he's developing. He's shown glimpses of potential and what he could be.

We can speculate as to career trajectory in both cases, but it'd be simply that - speculation.

I never said that Coniglio and O'Rourke are worth the same, I said the trade to Hawthorn was a rough guide. The trade stands as a basis for what WC could potentially trade to GWS if WC finish low enough on the ladder to make WC giving up their 1st selection an unrealistic, and thus non-viable, option to trade to GWS. That's where my stance has been misconstrued.

 

[Lyyynnnchy]

Four times the amount of not much. That's why I say that both Coniglio and O'Rourke would still mainly be trading off of future potential rather than output. I wouldn't say Coniglio is proven, he's developing. He's shown glimpses of potential and what he could be.

We can speculate as to career trajectory in both cases, but it'd be simply that - speculation.

I never said that Coniglio and O'Rourke are worth the same, I said the trade to Hawthorn was a rough guide. The trade stands as a basis for what WC could potentially trade to GWS if WC finish low enough on the ladder to make WC giving up their 1st selection an unrealistic, and thus non-viable, option to trade to GWS. That's where my stance has been misconstrued.

I'd say an inside mid who last year averaged over 24 disposals, 4 marks and 5 tackles a game as well as kicking 10 goals for the season as a 20yr old (not including the 2 games he was sub) is as close to being a proven midfielder as you can get.

O'Rourke has never had OVER 21 disposals.

 

[bombard]

I'd say an inside mid who last year averaged over 24 disposals, 4 marks and 5 tackles a game as well as kicking 10 goals for the season as a 20yr old (not including the 2 games he was sub) is as close to being a proven midfielder as you can get.

O'Rourke has never had OVER 21 disposals.

more than*

 

[tesseract]

I'd say an inside mid who last year averaged over 24 disposals, 4 marks and 5 tackles a game as well as kicking 10 goals for the season as a 20yr old (not including the 2 games he was sub) is as close to being a proven midfielder as you can get.

O'Rourke has never had OVER 21 disposals.

You're still missing the point. It's not just about Coniglio's market value in comparison to O'Rourke, it also involves what WC could realistically offer GWS in compensation, and it also involves the leverage WC would hold in a potential trade where Coniglio has opted out and wants in at WC.

Coniglio shone as a teenager against men in the WAFL, so it's of no surprise that he continues to do such at the next level given his talent, as reflected in his being drafted at #2. Given his young age, he's still going to be traded mostly on potential. Current solid stats don't change this. If Coniglio is doing well now, and he's still a developing young'un, such leads to future potential still being the biggest case made for his trade price - though filtered through the lens of what WC have by way of draft picks and tradeable player options. If WC's first round pick is early enough, WC may well simply take it off the table as saying that it's paying too much for someone out of contract and has his heart already set on leaving and coming to us anyway. Hence the rough guide of the O'Rourke trade when an early first pick wants out to a club that doesn't have the currency to pay fully for the potential implied by such an early draft pick.

 

[paran]

You're still missing the point. It's not just about Coniglio's market value in comparison to O'Rourke, it also involves what WC could realistically offer GWS in compensation, and it also involves the leverage WC would hold in a potential trade where Coniglio has opted out and wants in at WC.

Coniglio shone as a teenager against men in the WAFL, so it's of no surprise that he continues to do such at the next level given his talent, as reflected in his being drafted at #2. Given his young age, he's still going to be traded mostly on potential. Current solid stats don't change this. If Coniglio is doing well now, and he's still a developing young'un, such leads to future potential still being the biggest case made for his trade price - though filtered through the lens of what WC have by way of draft picks and tradeable player options. If WC's first round pick is early enough, WC may well simply take it off the table as saying that it's paying too much for someone out of contract and has his heart already set on leaving and coming to us anyway. Hence the rough guide of the O'Rourke trade when an early first pick wants out to a club that doesn't have the currency to pay fully for the potential implied by such an early draft pick.

Correct. You might as well use the Ebert trade as a template instead of the JOR one, or use the Yeo trade. The JOR trade is a step up from the Yeo trade, and the premise is that Conniglio nominates WCE as the club he wants to be traded to.

It's not brain surgery ppl...