Mega Thread Trade and List Management discussion

[Cudi]

86 goals over two seasons shouldn't be easily dismissed. Would be a big upgrade on Redpath, just not sure if he'd be worth what Adelaide would want.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

46 goals in a season and 2 40 goal seasons in a row is not good? righto.

Thats while playing significant minutes in the ruck and its not even like hes being carried by a good team. Harsh judges around here.

Ill be absolutely stoked when Boyd gets to even 3qtrs of that output.

Sorry, you're right. He's great.

The only game he didn't kick a goal was against us. 5 vs WCE and 4 vs Hawthorn.

46 goals a season is a very good return from a second forward.

If the Boyd/Redpath combination doesn't work we should seriously look at him.

I think a lot of forward/rucks across the competition are unfairly maligned. He's one of them. Plus his output has got better each and every year.

I've just never liked him. There's a reason Adelaide supporters hate him.

 

[Dogsman16]

Jenkins would be a massive upgrade on Redpath but I still wouldn't be up for chasing him. Probably would cost too much for a player that isn't spectacular.

Crameri isn't a spectacular player yet we all have been reasonably happy with his output.

From the sounds of it Jenkins would cost a similar amount of money and we probably have 300k extra to spend thanks to essendon getting Crameri banned.

If we got Jenkins we would have 3 players who have kicked 45+ goals in a season, Crameri who averages 30 - 35 goals and Tom Boyd whom we expect to reach 40 + sooner rather than later.

Pretty damaging forward line if you ask me.

 

[threenewpadlocks]

Yes to Jenkins, if he can be valuable in our forward press/structure and use his raw running power in that regard.
In fact it's actually quite similar to Crameri. He was a player who was effective using his running power running back toward an open forward 50 at Essendon. We managed to flip that and use the same running power to maintain a solid forward press/zone with his ability to cover the deck and run horizontal across the ground when other teams switch etc.

 

[Yojimbo]

86 goals over two seasons shouldn't be easily dismissed. Would be a big upgrade on Redpath, just not sure if he'd be worth what Adelaide would want.

Josh Jenkins
69 Games, 121 Goals, 74 Behinds, 27 years old.
Hmmm let's see going off our recent trade history the
Crows would probably want Jake Stringer plus our
first rounder plus a significant amount of Stringer's
salary paid in advance.

Yeah seems about par for the course.

 

[Pannalstaroz]

Josh Jenkins
69 Games, 121 Goals, 74 Behinds, 27 years old.
Hmmm let's see going off our recent trade history the
Crows would probably want Jake Stringer plus our
first rounder plus a significant amount of Stringer's
salary paid in advance.

Yeah seems about par for the course.

He's 27!

 

[immortalmike]

Crameri isn't a spectacular player yet we all have been reasonably happy with his output.

From the sounds of it Jenkins would cost a similar amount of money and we probably have 300k extra to spend thanks to essendon getting Crameri banned.

If we got Jenkins we would have 3 players who have kicked 45+ goals in a season, Crameri who averages 30 - 35 goals and Tom Boyd whom we expect to reach 40 + sooner rather than later.

Pretty damaging forward line if you ask me.

He'd cost a fair bit more than Crameri and wouldn't be worth as much to us. Jenkins would have several suitors driving up the price.

And honestly I wouldn't want to spend $550 grand plus and a low second rounder to high first on a 27 year old ruck/forward who hates body contact.

 

[doggies ftw]

Sorry, you're right. He's great.

yeah thats what I said

 

[Yojimbo]

He's 27!

Yeah his birthday is the 08/02/1989, still young enough for our
seven years with the lot deal. Can you smell the irony?

 

[TiAn_]

Jenkins would be a great get. Extremely athletic, proven goalkicker. Jenkins & Crameri are very awkward match ups due to their speed and aerobic capacities. We'd seriously stretch teams without being too top heavy.

 

[JEDi 44]

Can someone explain the '10 game, first year' rule to me again as happened to Dale, Webb and Daniel last year?
I'm asking in relation to Adams and Collins this year. Thanks

 

[Yojimbo]

Can someone explain the '10 game, first year' rule to me again as happened to Dale, Webb and Daniel last year?
I'm asking in relation to Adams and Collins this year. Thanks

I don't think they were referring to a rule as such, just that they can win
the rising star this year as well because they played 10 games or less.
Yes that is right they limited their games to win the rising star the next
year.

 

[JEDi 44]

I don't think they were referring to a rule as such, just that they can win
the rising star this year as well because they played 10 games or less.
Yes that is right they limited their games to win the rising star the next
year.

Thanks bud, I thought it must have had something to do with 2nd year payments or the like. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[LittleG]

Thanks bud, I thought it must have had something to do with 2nd year payments or the like. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

It is to do with payments too. If you play more than 10 games a season, your year two contract is higher.

 

[JEDi 44]

It is to do with payments too. If you play more than 10 games a season, your year two contract is higher.

ah ok, I thought it was something like that. Cheers. Do you think the club would be reluctant to play Adams and/or Collins more than 10 games because of this? I'm not sure on where we are in the salary cap and what sort of increases the players would get.

 

[LittleG]

ah ok, I thought it was something like that. Cheers. Do you think the club would be reluctant to play Adams and/or Collins more than 10 games because of this? I'm not sure on where we are in the salary cap and what sort of increases the players would get.

IF they are good enough, they will play more than 10. Last year, the new boys were good but not perfect. McLean was the best and could have gone for more than 10 games if not for his injury.

 

[bontshow]

IF they are good enough, they will play more than 10. Last year, the new boys were good but not perfect. McLean was the best and could have gone for more than 10 games if not for his injury.

That's a bit revisionist. Dale, Webb & Daniel all played 10. McLean only played 4 in rounds 10, 12, 13 & 14 where he got injured. He was the 3rd of those 4 to be introduced to the side, whilst it's possible he could have played out the year and reached 13 games it's more likely he would have petered out and been dropped back to the VFL for a few weeks

 

[NthBondiDoggies]

Looking at an article today and was wondering whether there is some moneyball logic around how our list is progressing.

For example - list changes:

Lost:
Ayce Cordy
Fuller
Grant
Talia
Darley
Goodes
Pearce
Kelly

Something like the total CD points over last 12 months. Average is not accurate because if you are not good enough to be picked then you shouldn't benefit. Goodes is an example - I really liked him as a player and he would get ok points when he played but couldn't hold a spot. Talia also couldn't hold a spot but accumulates against weaker opposition.

Then we gain:

Libba (injury)
Suckling
Adcock (Draft - Experience)
Dunkley (Draft)
Collins (Draft)
Adams (Draft)
Bailey (Draft)
Goetz (Draft)
Lynch (Draft)

For the first years - it could be average for a year player with same draft position based over the first thee years based on the value you acquire. Kids that don't work out are often given three years and many fantastic draftees hardly play in first year - eg Rance.

Then you have progression rate time CD points. Now we know this won't work because last year this would have meant that Murphy, Morris and Moyd would have trended down but it is still statistically valid. If based on games rather than age it may work better because players on 250 May be so good they don't drop off so quickly but 30 year olds on 150 do.

Without doing the numbers we could see something like:

Top CD accumulators - percentage change

Murphy -20
Moyd - 20
Morris -10
Minson -10
Wood - even
Picken - even
Dickson - even
Dalhaus +10
JJ +10
Wallis +10
Stevens +10
Hunter +10
Redpath +10
Hamling +10
Roughhead +10 (Ruck progress till 100 games- 8 years)
Campbell +20
Roberts +20
Stringer +30 (Top 10 draft at games level)
Bonti +30
Macrae +30
Boyd +50 (3rd year number 1 pick but off low CD base)

Obviously you would adjust for whether they tracking to the curve - ie Bonti in front and Roughy may have slowed.

What it probably would show is that in/outs was pretty close with substantial future upside and that out list is mostly still in a high progression phase with very few in plateau and only a couple not yet on or above the curve (eg Hamilton - and even that is tough at this stage)

 

[Del165892]

Looking at an article today and was wondering whether there is some moneyball logic around how our list is progressing.

For example - list changes:

Lost:
Ayce Cordy
Fuller
Grant
Talia
Darley
Goodes
Pearce
Kelly

Something like the total CD points over last 12 months. Average is not accurate because if you are not good enough to be picked then you shouldn't benefit. Goodes is an example - I really liked him as a player and he would get ok points when he played but couldn't hold a spot. Talia also couldn't hold a spot but accumulates against weaker opposition.

Then we gain:

Libba (injury)
Suckling
Adcock (Draft - Experience)
Dunkley (Draft)
Collins (Draft)
Adams (Draft)
Bailey (Draft)
Goetz (Draft)
Lynch (Draft)

For the first years - it could be average for a year player with same draft position based over the first thee years based on the value you acquire. Kids that don't work out are often given three years and many fantastic draftees hardly play in first year - eg Rance.

Then you have progression rate time CD points. Now we know this won't work because last year this would have meant that Murphy, Morris and Moyd would have trended down but it is still statistically valid. If based on games rather than age it may work better because players on 250 May be so good they don't drop off so quickly but 30 year olds on 150 do.

Without doing the numbers we could see something like:

Top CD accumulators - percentage change

Murphy -20
Moyd - 20
Morris -10
Minson -10
Wood - even
Picken - even
Dickson - even
Dalhaus +10
JJ +10
Wallis +10
Stevens +10
Hunter +10
Redpath +10
Hamling +10
Roughhead +10 (Ruck progress till 100 games- 8 years)
Campbell +20
Roberts +20
Stringer +30 (Top 10 draft at games level)
Bonti +30
Macrae +30
Boyd +50 (3rd year number 1 pick but off low CD base)

Obviously you would adjust for whether they tracking to the curve - ie Bonti in front and Roughy may have slowed.

What it probably would show is that in/outs was pretty close with substantial future upside and that out list is mostly still in a high progression phase with very few in plateau and only a couple not yet on or above the curve (eg Hamilton - and even that is tough at this stage)

But why male models?

 

[Deadly Darcy]

But why male models?

It's a walk off....yep....it's a walk off

 

[hatescaptcha]

Really wanted to get Peter Wright to come across, guess i'll have to wait a couple more years...

 

[Deadly Darcy]

Really wanted to get Peter Wright to come across, guess i'll have to wait a couple more years...

Would be such an exciting addition to our list. Happy to give up plenty to get him in!

 

[hatescaptcha]

Would be such an exciting addition to our list. Happy to give up plenty to get him in!

He'd be perfect for that CHF, rotating ruck position! Looks to have only extended his contract for another year, which could suggest he might be willing to move if things don't go to plan at the SUNS.

 

[Pugz89]

He'd be perfect for that CHF, rotating ruck position! Looks to have only extended his contract for another year, which could suggest he might be willing to move if things don't go to plan at the SUNS.

Would think that's the possie that is earmarked for Goetz. If Suns fail this year, he may be available next year though for the right price, which would be significant.

 

[Del165892]

Would think that's the possie that is earmarked for Goetz. If Suns fail this year, he may be available next year though for the right price, which would be significant.

Goetz is a project player. Nothing is earmarked for him at this stage in terms of our senior side.