Universal Love Steve Silvagni - List Manager Extraordinaire

[1981]

So in essence we got one win and one so-so outcome out of the Bell deal, but we could have got two wins !!

There's your answer

 

[1981]

Of course with all these trades we have to also factor in that underpinning these deals is we managed to overturn the club culture. Menzel and Henderson didn't want to be there (and Menzel was injured a lot) and they along with undisciplined types Robinson and Garlett and also Waite (JW in respect to being eternally injured and undisciplined) have all been moved on and with this arguably we have been able to instil new values team wide.

 

[omdd]

Bell trade should never be classified as a win or a loss, he had to get back home for his father so our hands were tied and the lions gave us adequate compensation when they probably could have played hardball especially for taking docherty and hendo off them in the past. Both clubs did the right thing which is all that matters.

 

[1981]

Yes forgot about that.

 

[My name geoff]

Just watched the last half of the nab cup again, if what kerridge dished up on Thursday night is the norm for him, he is easily in the top 10 players on our list and probably pushing to be top 5.

 

[Jeremias]

Certainly a debatable point. Personally I think it helps.

Each to their own but I don't see it as being of any relevance at all.

We're not talking about buying or selling something which has been assigned a monetary value.

Whether you win or lose a trade can surely only be determined by the comparative performances of what you give up and what you receive in return.

 

[therubbernub]

I know some are saying that SOS just wanted to put his stamp on our list asap and so engineered a massive list turnover. I am hoping however that he was being far more strategic than that. I know it is too early to tell, but the top 20 draftees and especially top 12 seemed to be particularly strong in taller players. It could have been more a matter of its now or never to address our lack of quality key position players. Knowing that next year is very strong on midfielders and that statistically there are always more midfielder draftees to rebuild from , he wanted to concentrate on key position in this draft while he had the opportunity. If that is the case then we can excuse the little losses we may have endured on the trade table, if it can bring in some genuine tall talent. I guess that is the difference between having and not having a List manager/strategist

 

[mediumsizered]

Just watched the last half of the nab cup again, if what kerridge dished up on Thursday night is the norm for him, he is easily in the top 10 players on our list and probably pushing to be top 5.

And he is yet to turn 23.

 

[Magruder]

You ignore what benefit it had for us. We could have kept 28 and picked Luke Partington. Is Luke Partington better than Lachie Plowman? I doubt it. Not to mention Phillips, who has looked the goods. Lamb and Summer are uninspiring, sure. But the reality is that we only need one of the 4 to become a consistent best 22 player and the trade was worth it. If two make it, we've won. It's also much lower risk, particularly given SOS has spent time with these kids up close.

The Giants were also in a unqiue position needing to cut the list and get a second rounder for the academy players. But that doesn't mean the players they culled have no value. It simply means that getting second round picks and the academy kids had more relative value. So the trade was good for them too. Your thesis basically assumes the players have no value because GWS traded them, which is bollocks. If you want to suggest that we took on Lamb's contract as a sweetner to get it over the line, fine. But you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater to stretch that kind of argument to the others.

As for the value of first round picks - history doesn't really support your argument. Who has relied on multiple years of high picks as the basis for success? The only teams (outside the expansion clubs) with that kind of experience are Melbourne and ourselves. It hasn't really proven to be a blueprint for success. If you look at the really successful teams over the past decade, none have been at the top of the draft order for long periods before being sucessful. In fact, counter to your argument, Hawthorn's success is based largely on one smash and grab year in the draft, muchy like we've tried to do here.

The bottom line is that draft picks are only as good as the player you pick and how you develop him. There is no inherent difference in the value of picks year to year and to suggest otherwise is, with respect, without basis.

Finally, someone else uses the term "relative value" when discussing trades. Thank you.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

Finally, someone else uses the term "relative value" when discussing trades. Thank you.

Not all traded players/picks is spuds.

I feel like it's something AFL teams should think about a bit more too. In the past, trading seems to have been motivated solely by a desire to 'get one over' another club. If a trade wasn't lopsided team were almost too scared to pull the trigger. I think with the advent of free agency and the ability to trade future picks (not to mention player movement become more 'acceptable' to clubs and fans), we'll see trading become a bit more sophisticated. Hopefully we'll position ourselves to take advantge of it.

 

[Magruder]

The irony of an economist not getting it was just stunning to me.

The concept must bear some similarity to Krugmanesque trade theories. Particularly relative competitive/comparitive advantage.
You'd hope he'd be familiar with these at least.

Too often we have dills carrying on about picks as if they are somehow a currency rather than a bartered commodity. Too often people say ridiculous things like player x is worth pick 14 but not pick 9 as if they're haggling over the dollar cost of a small car.

 

[Canyouhearthedrums]

The irony of an economist not getting it was just stunning to me.

The concept must bear some similarity to Krugmanesque trade theories. Particularly relative competitive/comparitive advantage.
You'd hope he'd be familiar with these at least.

Too often we have dills carrying on about picks as if they are somehow a currency rather than a bartered commodity. Too often people say ridiculous things like player x is worth pick 14 but not pick 9 as if they're haggling over the dollar cost of a small car.

This is is the thing that bugs me the most, particularly in the context of a pick being a completely unknown quantity. Putting aside the obvious standouts that appear in the top 2-3 of any draft, the idea that you can accurately (or even rationally) argue that there is a real difference between pick 9 and 14 is absurd to me.

The teams that go out and get business done are invariably the ones that do well in trade week. Look at Geelong. Their thought process was: (1) We need KP help and Henderson will improve our side; (2) We won't get Henderson with our second round pick.

Fin.

 

[Magruder]

This is is the thing that bugs me the most, particularly in the context of a pick being a completely unknown quantity. Putting aside the obvious standouts that appear in the top 2-3 of any draft, the idea that you can accurately (or even rationally) argue that there is a real difference between pick 9 and 14 is absurd to me.

The teams that go out and get business done are invariably the ones that do well in trade week. Look at Geelong. Their thought process was: (1) We need KP help and Henderson will improve our side; (2) We won't get Henderson with our second round pick.

Fin.

we are in furious agreement...

more and more the rationale will be:

"are we getting what we need from this trade?" rather than "can we screw some more value out of the other club?"

The Yarran trade where we accepted #19 is a case in point. The trade was acceptable so we did it, partly so that we could focus on the attempted Tomlinson deal; but also because Richmond's first pick was off-limits and this was a reasonable alternative that satisfied agendas for all concerned. Yes we dragged it out, but that could have been for a number of machiavelian reasons.

 

[BluesRule]

we are in furious agreement...

more and more the rationale will be:

"are we getting what we need from this trade?" rather than "can we screw some more value out of the other club?"

The Yarran trade where we accepted #19 is a case in point. The trade was acceptable so we did it, partly so that we could focus on the attempted Tomlinson deal; but also because Richmond's first pick was off-limits and this was a reasonable alternative that satisfied agendas for all concerned. Yes we dragged it out, but that could have been for a number of machiavelian reasons.

I think we got unders for Yarran and his proven ability/youth and potential, but CFC should be very happy with the deal as we needed him gone. Not a great deal, but a necessary deal and hence the delay and result at the deadline.

Hopefully with Cuningham we ultimately have a suitable replacement. But it is a massive unknown/risk -> Cuningham may be significantly better.
Love SOS's work so far and can totally see the logic.

 

[HARKER]

Just remember that it's the player first and the number second.

After taking three talls we were always going to take the runner and Cuningham was the guy we wanted.
Would have we taken Rioli with #13? Fiorini, Ben Mckay, Lovell, Burton, Doedee, Lovell? Probably not.

Were we keen on Gresham? Maybe but we still wanted pace.
Cut a long story short, we may have just taken Cuningham anyway.

 

[T2B_]

Just watched the last half of the nab cup again, if what kerridge dished up on Thursday night is the norm for him, he is easily in the top 10 players on our list and probably pushing to be top 5.

Agree. And while I don't want to be 'that guy', his ability to consistently be in the play and have impact will be far more valuable to us at our stage of development than cream on the cake, turn up for a quarter here and there Menzel.

 

[My name geoff]

Agree. And while I don't want to be 'that guy', his ability to consistently be in the play and have impact will be far more valuable to us at our stage of development than cream on the cake, turn up for a quarter here and there Menzel.

Trading a 'might have a good game, depending on how his body feels, and what the opposition are like' player for a 'will have a good game no matter what' player is very positive move by Silvagni.

I also don't what to be 'that guy,' but Kerridge displayed a hunger for the footy that actually reminded me of one C.Judd

 

[1981]

I know some are saying that SOS just wanted to put his stamp on our list asap and so engineered a massive list turnover. I am hoping however that he was being far more strategic than that. I know it is too early to tell, but the top 20 draftees and especially top 12 seemed to be particularly strong in taller players. It could have been more a matter of its now or never to address our lack of quality key position players. Knowing that next year is very strong on midfielders and that statistically there are always more midfielder draftees to rebuild from , he wanted to concentrate on key position in this draft while he had the opportunity. If that is the case then we can excuse the little losses we may have endured on the trade table, if it can bring in some genuine tall talent. I guess that is the difference between having and not having a List manager/strategist

Well he needs to put his stamp on it, but that is by showing what we need to do, what the direction is, to fix the place.

It was a great off season, could go down in history as one of the best for the club, maybe.

We needed to regenerate the list and talls take time to develop so in one swoop he got ...

Plowman - pick 3
Weits - pick 1
McKay - pick 10
Curnow - pick 12
Silvagni - FS
Phillips
Gorringe

And we got Jaksch a former top ten pick 12 months prior

We have done well to change the list landscape in terms of talls

It needed to be done

Jamison is old and has a dodge shoulder.
Rose is old and not elite.
White is getting old.
Waite was old and injury prone.
Casboult is mid age and not a star (yet).
Kreuzer is mid age and injury prone.
Etc etc etc

So we have turned over the talls and added 5 top 12 picks (talls) in the last 12 years. That is as good as you can ask for.

Next will come mids. Over the next few drafts.

But we have in the meantime, in the last 2 drafts added some mid/smaller/flanker types. Not all will make it but it's not like we had 5 noi.1 picks in the draft last year. We have added ...

Cuningham - top 20 pick
Boekhorst - first round pick
Sumner - first round pick
Lamb - first round pick
Etc

Even though mids/smalls/flankers wasn't the main focus we have nonetheless added a number of players who went early in the draft. So you cannot have asked for more there too.

Anyone who complains about our list strategy and draft/FA/trading outcomes the last 2 years is VERY VERY a hard marker to the point of being unreasonable.

And as I said earlier, it is not about SOS making his mark as an ego driven thing, it is about making his mark by doing what needs to be done for the club. We needed a massive turn over, to regenerate the list but also address cultural issues within the playing group. Don't underestimate the last part there.

 

[Windhover]

Anyone who complains about our list strategy and draft/FA/trading outcomes the last 2 years is VERY VERY a hard marker to the point of being unreasonable.

Much to agree with in your post (which does not need repetition or response). I do not understand about the "2" years though.

As good as the 2015 draft/trade period will be for us, IMO the 2014 draft/trade period can already be described as a disaster. We brought in BB, Jones, DVR, Jaksch, Tutt, Whiley, Smith, Foster, Gowers, Dick, Walsh, Fields and Russell.

Of those 12 recruits the last 3 named have now gone. They're just kiddy rookies you say? So were Jack Sinclair (18 games), Adam Saad (16 games) and Josh Glen (5 games).

Of the remaining 9 most of us have given up on Jones and Jaksch, Dick and Whiley have much to prove and little time left to show they will even be adequate filler-type AFL footballers.

DVR, Foster and Gowers have shown nothing even at reserves level to get interested in, let alone excited by, although they are still young. Walsh, who has gone, had shown more.

Tutt has shown he has speed and ball gathering abilities at the level but is an inconsistent thinker/ball disposer at AFL level so although not useless not a complete waste.
Smith has shown all that could be hoped for in a late round young draft pick and, whether or not he makes it, was a good selection.
That leaves BB. I must say I was very unhappy to receive the draft pick used for him as part of the pick 7/Jaksch trade. And I was unhappy to have recruited him ahead of Laverde. But they are past quibbles and it is unfair to judge BB on that basis. At this stage, after a pretty useless first season, BB has shown in the first NAB challenge match that he more likely than not will become a regular AFL player (125 plus games player). I don't see him as ever being a top 5 Carlton player but he might make top 10. This would make him, at best, just better than an average AFL player.

In summary, to get 3 not very impressive "strikes" out of 12 draft picks, and with such limited prospects from the still "in doubts" is as bad a result as 2015 can already be seen to be great. And do NOT get me started on the strategy behind our 2014 drafting, about which I have said much elsewhere, usually intermixed with swear words like MM.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

But is it just me or is the Bell wash-up not that good? Have I got this wrong? Seems to me we ...
LOSE : Bell, Pick 20, Pick 41.
GAIN : Pick 11 (Curnow) + a 3rd Round Pick (assume this gets us SOSOS).
MY TAKE : I see this as a neutral outcome. I dunno, I guess it all depends on how SOSOS develops. And I assume Curnow will be a good player. We could have instead gone to the draft with picks 20 AND 21 (but not 11). Tells me we REALLY liked Curnow, or the top 12. Have to trust SOS I guess.

Taking liberties with this trade IMO.

Bell & 41 for 21 and 60 was the trade. The difference between 41 and 60 is negligible since we were only ever using it for Silvagni and didn't have the list spots available. Bell for 21 is as good as we were going to get anywhere.

The trade you probably need to question is 20 and 21 for 11. Fortunately for us we got a top 10 slider, one that was touted as high as 3 at times. If we took a player that was touted to go around the 20/21 mark, that would have been a terrible trade for us.

 

[1981]

Taking liberties with this trade IMO.

Bell & 41 for 21 and 60 was the trade. The difference between 41 and 60 is negligible since we were only ever using it for Silvagni and didn't have the list spots available. Bell for 21 is as good as we were going to get anywhere.

The trade you probably need to question is 20 and 21 for 11. Fortunately for us we got a top 10 slider, one that was touted as high as 3 at times. If we took a player that was touted to go around the 20/21 mark, that would have been a terrible trade for us.

Um, that is what I am questioning.
I am looking at the entire process, from the Bell trade to the final result.

 

[1981]

Much to agree with in your post (which does not need repetition or response). I do not understand about the "2" years though.

As good as the 2015 draft/trade period will be for us, IMO the 2014 draft/trade period can already be described as a disaster. We brought in BB, Jones, DVR, Jaksch, Tutt, Whiley, Smith, Foster, Gowers, Dick, Walsh, Fields and Russell.

Of those 12 recruits the last 3 named have now gone. They're just kiddy rookies you say? So were Jack Sinclair (18 games), Adam Saad (16 games) and Josh Glen (5 games).

Of the remaining 9 most of us have given up on Jones and Jaksch, Dick and Whiley have much to prove and little time left to show they will even be adequate filler-type AFL footballers.

DVR, Foster and Gowers have shown nothing even at reserves level to get interested in, let alone excited by, although they are still young. Walsh, who has gone, had shown more.

Tutt has shown he has speed and ball gathering abilities at the level but is an inconsistent thinker/ball disposer at AFL level so although not useless not a complete waste.
Smith has shown all that could be hoped for in a late round young draft pick and, whether or not he makes it, was a good selection.
That leaves BB. I must say I was very unhappy to receive the draft pick used for him as part of the pick 7/Jaksch trade. And I was unhappy to have recruited him ahead of Laverde. But they are past quibbles and it is unfair to judge BB on that basis. At this stage, after a pretty useless first season, BB has shown in the first NAB challenge match that he more likely than not will become a regular AFL player (125 plus games player). I don't see him as ever being a top 5 Carlton player but he might make top 10. This would make him, at best, just better than an average AFL player.

In summary, to get 3 not very impressive "strikes" out of 12 draft picks, and with such limited prospects from the still "in doubts" is as bad a result as 2015 can already be seen to be great. And do NOT get me started on the strategy behind our 2014 drafting, about which I have said much elsewhere, usually intermixed with swear words like MM.

Are you able to show the picks and the pick ups?
Only then can I make a call.
Mind you it is early to call I think given Smith, Foster etc are still on the list and are just kids.

 

[Windhover]

Are you able to show the picks and the pick ups?
Only then can I make a call.
Mind you it is early to call I think given Smith, Foster etc are still on the list and are just kids.

It was you who claimed:
"Anyone who complains about our list strategy and draft/FA/trading outcomes the last 2 years is VERY VERY a hard marker to the point of being unreasonable."

. . . and it was that to which I replied. I would have thought you knew the picks and pickups before making your statement to which I did object. If you were ignorant (as you now seem to suggest - though the rest of your original post does not) then I do not see how you can comment on those of us who would criticise 2014 strategy and draft outcomes.

The strategy for the trading/drafting in 2014 was a disgrace - and is NOT dependent on the outcome (since bad strategy can lead to lucky outcomes and vice versa). But bad outcomes are the likely result of bad strategy and it does not seem to me to be an "early call" to say the draft outcome for 2014 was a disaster. I think only North got worse value than us in the 2014 draft/trade period and North did not pick up 12 players. Or, in other words, I would happily swap all our 2014 trade/drafts for all the picks of any other Club bar North.

OTTH I would not swap our 2015 pick ups with anyone.

 

[JustaBattler]

The Carlton story begins (again) in 2015 - this time on surer footing - no point in rehashing the epic fail MM years where the Club was taken for an expensive ride down a black hole of despair.

 

[therubbernub]

The strategy for the trading/drafting in 2014 was a disgrace - and is NOT dependent on the outcome (since bad strategy can lead to lucky outcomes and vice versa). But bad outcomes are the likely result of bad strategy

I have a problem with this type of (non ) logic.