List Mgmt. 2016 Free Agency/Trades/Draft thread Part 2

[Vhaluus]

Lord almighty. The part I'm contending is the only part of your post that mattered - Hartlett is better than you give him credit for.

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...2=14&type=A&pid1=1766&pid2=3110&fid1=S&fid2=S

Am I not giving Mackay enough credit too?

 

[Iron]

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...2=14&type=A&pid1=1766&pid2=3110&fid1=S&fid2=S

Am I not giving Mackay enough credit too?

Surely you aren't saying these guys are comparable players?

 

[Scorpus]

The jury is still well and truly out on whether or not last year's trading was a failure. It certainly hasn't been a roaring success in the short term.

Of the 4 players we traded in:

• Seedsman is the only one to have played an AFL game. He finishes the season outside the best 22, and only a 50/50 chance of being a "best 22" selection in 2017.
• Hampton missed a large chunk of the season through injury, and has never been considered for AFL selection as a result. Probably less than 50/50 to be "best 22" in 2017.
• Menzel was clearly unfit (by AFC standards) at the start of the season. Since then he's been concussed twice, and had a stop-start season courtesy of the SANFL fixturing. Has never been close to gaining AFL selection in 2016, and it's hard to see this changing in 2017.
• Gore hasn't really impressed much, even at SANFL level. Some posters have even suggested that he could be delisted (though I think that's unlikely). Unlikely to make it at AFL level.

That just leaves Milera (who was drafted using the pick we gained from Geelong). Milera played half the season, and definitely showed some promise. However, he does have a lot of work to do if he's to play in the AFL again next year (or beyond). Of the 5 players arriving as a result of last year's trading, he's by far the most likely to play 100 games for the AFC. Actually, he's probably the only one who is likely to play 100 games for the AFC.

If you call that a success, then I think you're kidding yourself. It's too early to call it a failure, but that's the way the scales are leaning.

** Doedee was drafted using our own 1st round draft pick, and his recruitment is/was not the result of trading.

I agree with your assessment of Gore, but i'm not so sure about the others.

Seedsman has been best 22 the entire year, and has only been dropped for one match. His injury came at a bad time and we're unlikely to bring him back this week.

Hampton has shown promise in the twos, and I expect he will replace Henderson (if Hendo departs) in the pecking order. I think it's likely he'll play round 1 next year.

Menzel is a tricky one and I think we would have seen him this year had we received more injuries. I expect he'll fire for us in 2017

 

[Vhaluus]

Surely you aren't saying these guys are comparable players?

That is the position HH is going to be competing for, a wing. There is no way he competes with any of our back 6.

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

The jury is still well and truly out on whether or not last year's trading was a failure. It certainly hasn't been a roaring success in the short term.

Of the 4 players we traded in:

• Seedsman is the only one to have played an AFL game. He finishes the season outside the best 22, and only a 50/50 chance of being a "best 22" selection in 2017.
• Hampton missed a large chunk of the season through injury, and has never been considered for AFL selection as a result. Probably less than 50/50 to be "best 22" in 2017.
• Menzel was clearly unfit (by AFC standards) at the start of the season. Since then he's been concussed twice, and had a stop-start season courtesy of the SANFL fixturing. Has never been close to gaining AFL selection in 2016, and it's hard to see this changing in 2017.
• Gore hasn't really impressed much, even at SANFL level. Some posters have even suggested that he could be delisted (though I think that's unlikely). Unlikely to make it at AFL level.

That just leaves Milera (who was drafted using the pick we gained from Geelong). Milera played half the season, and definitely showed some promise. However, he does have a lot of work to do if he's to play in the AFL again next year (or beyond). Of the 5 players arriving as a result of last year's trading, he's by far the most likely to play 100 games for the AFC. Actually, he's probably the only one who is likely to play 100 games for the AFC.

If you call that a success, then I think you're kidding yourself. It's too early to call it a failure, but that's the way the scales are leaning.

** Doedee was drafted using our own 1st round draft pick, and his recruitment is/was not the result of trading.

Lol Vader

So you explain how the first three have had injury ruined 2016's and then go on to write off their AFC careers.

Please wind the clock back 12 months and tell us what Mitch McGoverns prospects at the AFC are...

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

well that just furthers my point. Menzel and Hampton if they play up to their potential can be big additions to our side, Seedsman is either not an upgrade or a marginal upgrade.

Yep, agreed.

 

[DangerSloane]

My gut feel about how we will approach this year's trade/draft:

Last year (and previously) we brought in quite a lot of players who have the potential to be first 22 - B grade or A grade - in 2017 and beyond.
Hampton/CEY/Doedee/Milera/Gore/Seedsman/Wigg/Knight and so on.

All players out of our current 22, and all with the potential to play roles - some hopefully significant - in our next best 22.

(I know some posters have expressed negative views about how many on that list will make it, but let's assume for the moment that the club at least has a view that some or most of them will hit the mark to some degree.)

So, it seems to me that our list is pretty well stocked with that sort of player, and therefore I would expect that this year we will either (or both)
1. Package up some of these players and maybe a draft pick to land a Big Fish - a ready-made A grader - or
2. Just do the draft (maybe trading for a pick upgrade / get in to the second round)

What I don't see us doing is repeating the 2015 trade period in terms of bringing in more "second string / potential" players.

This is the way I see it.
And the way I described it is Big Fish or Kids. There should be no in between this season.

 

[DangerSloane]

Vader its only a failure if those guys dont perform when called upon.
If they're our 23-26 players thats EXACTLY what we want to be a successful football club. Guys on the fringes who are AFL standard but cant make our side.

Its the first time we've really had that depth.

People have to miss out every week. You want those missing out to be able to fill the hole. Thats exactly what we've done.

 

[WaynesWorld19]

He absolutely is getting that much at St Kilda...

Unless his salary has been cut due to his coke habits.

If St Kilda are that stupid, good on em ......but that doesn't impact Essendon's TPP

 

[Rory Walkerfield]

“I’ve made it well clear that I’m keen to play on again next year, but I’m confident it’ll be sorted out in the next week or two.”

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/ad...e/news-story/5dbe1811fa7df701b0b44fbae289abeb

 

[Iron]

That is the position HH is going to be competing for, a wing. There is no way he competes with any of our back 6.

What he should be competing for is Douglas' position. He should be in the midfield. He has the body and the skills for it. He just doesn't have the mental drive at the moment, for whatever reason. Mackay is the polar opposite, and is giving 100% to the team currently. If you're trying to compare them using current output, you're not looking properly, and you're deliberately ignoring context to prove a point.

Hartlett's potential is arguably greater right now than Menzel, Milera or Hampton. The first has the potential to be great, still. The second is too young to help us immediately. This is the part you can choose to disagree with if you like.

I should also say that I'm not particularly fond of the strings attached to Hartlett. I hope we look elsewhere to improve our midfield, because I like the look of all the players coming through that you've brought up. I do disagree that his acquisition somehow makes all the trades from last year a failure. That's an agenda driven call, and makes no sense really. A good opportunity in the present doesn't invalidate the decision made in the past. Surely as a financial wizard you would know this?

 

[DangerSloane]

The general public obviously have no idea or choose not believe how rife Cocaine is in the AL industry.

Nobody is ignoring shit, its just that his club said that they'd sanction his contract after he was caught snorting up.

 

[Vhaluus]

What he should be competing for is Douglas' position. He should be in the midfield. He has the body and the skills for it. He just doesn't have the mental drive at the moment, for whatever reason. Mackay is the polar opposite, and is giving 100% to the team currently. If you're trying to compare them using current output, you're not looking properly, and you're deliberately ignoring context to prove a point.

Hartlett's potential is arguably greater right now than Menzel, Milera or Hampton. The first has the potential to be great, still. The second is too young to help us immediately. This is the part you can choose to disagree with if you like.

I should also say that I'm not particularly fond of the strings attached to Hartlett. I hope we look elsewhere to improve our midfield, because I like the look of all the players coming through that you've brought up. I do disagree that his acquisition somehow makes all the trades from last year a failure. That's an agenda driven call, and makes no sense really. A good opportunity in the present doesn't invalidate the decision made in the past. Surely as a financial wizard you would know this?

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...2=14&type=A&pid1=1622&pid2=3110&fid1=S&fid2=S

Again, if he's an upgrade to Douglas he's an unbelievably small upgrade and I believe we've got better upgrade potential in our SANFL for next year.

 

[Iron]

http://www.footywire.com/afl/footy/...2=14&type=A&pid1=1622&pid2=3110&fid1=S&fid2=S

Again, if he's an upgrade to Douglas he's an unbelievably small upgrade and I believe we've got better upgrade potential in our SANFL for next year.

My turn: read my post properly and stop wasting my time.

 

[Vhaluus]

My turn: read my post properly and stop wasting my time.

I read your post but there are logical flaws in your argument that I couldn't be bothered really correcting, but since you're going to try and call me on it here it is.

Sure if HH was a free agent you might be able to make the argument, but he isn't.

What you're ignoring is opportunity cost.

Let's use an example outside the football world, let's hypothetically say I'm looking for a blender. I see a good blender that's $100 for 1,000watts of power and decide to buy it, I take it home and use it. A week later I'm out shopping and see another blender, $100 and identical in all ways except for being 1,200watts. The logic you are using says I should buy the second blender because it's slightly more power for the same cost.. but that ignores that I'm out $200 but I only really need 1 of the blenders I have.

It's the same thing here, why would we be giving away draft picks or players for someone who is at best a moderate upgrade on what we got only a year ago.

 

[DangerSloane]

If St Kilda are that stupid, good on em ......but that doesn't impact Essendon's TPP

Well it kinda does because they would have put away around that much to sign him, then couldnt.
Then they had all their players suspended...not sure how that was treated, but I'm guessing those funds would still be available.

 

[gothecrows]

I read your post but there are logical flaws in your argument that I couldn't be bothered really correcting, but since you're going to try and call me on it here it is.

Sure if HH was a free agent you might be able to make the argument, but he isn't.

What you're ignoring is opportunity cost.

Let's use an example outside the football world, let's hypothetically say I'm looking for a blender. I see a good blender that's $100 for 1,000watts of power and decide to buy it, I take it home and use it. A week later I'm out shopping and see another blender, $100 and identical in all ways except for being 1,200watts. The logic you are using says I should buy the second blender because it's slightly more power for the same cost.. but that ignores that I'm out $200 but I only really need 1 of the blenders I have.

That's quite possibly the worst analogy I've heard. Football players are not like blenders - for a start, you need more than one of them. Secondly, there are a bunch of other people (clubs) that are willing to aquire "second-hand" players, which let you make room for the new ones.

It's the same thing here, why would we be giving away draft picks or players for someone who is at best a moderate upgrade on what we got only a year ago.

If it's a net upgrade, why wouldn't you?

 

[Iron]

I read your post but there are logical flaws in your argument that I couldn't be bothered really correcting, but since you're going to try and call me on it here it is.

Sure if HH was a free agent you might be able to make the argument, but he isn't.

What you're ignoring is opportunity cost.

Let's use an example outside the football world, let's hypothetically say I'm looking for a blender. I see a good blender that's $100 for 1,000watts of power and decide to buy it, I take it home and use it. A week later I'm out shopping and see another blender, $100 and identical in all ways except for being 1,200watts. The logic you are using says I should buy the second blender because it's slightly more power for the same cost.. but that ignores that I'm out $200 but I only really need 1 of the blenders I have.

It's the same thing here, why would we be giving away draft picks or players for someone who is at best a moderate upgrade on what we got only a year ago.

What?

Well see there's your problem. If you're looking at them like that, then yes, Hartlett and Douglas and Mackay are all equally as effective at blending things.

Also that is not an opportunity cost. A week latter it's a different assessment. What you're going for is the concept of sunk costs. The difference here is that blenders are a one per person need. Footballers can be played in the same team, and aren't mutually exclusive. If you can improve your team you do it. What we disagree on is the worth of one H Hartlett. Let's move on before you start talking about how spreadsheets aren't useful for calculating things again

 

[Captain Furious]

Strange how so many seem to rate players on their draft position rather than their output. Hartlett was a number 4 pick, yes. But his career has been equivalent of a third rounder. Just not a great footballer. If he was Port wouldn't be trying to offload him.

 

[mattymac]

It has to be a big(ish) fish. There is virtually a universal expectation that we bring in a gun mid to bolster our midfield - easily our weakest line.

Even look at the draft thread on this board. No one is interested except Bicks who is passionately hopeful we'll take another Ballarat Rebel. Normally that thread is huge this time of year.

It's our window. A big trade is expected. Last year we could kind of claim that Patrick leaving "was a surprise","we didn't know until too late", "we were caught off guard", "Brad Crouch might fill Paddy's shoes" etc. This year no such liberties. We know exactly what we need to do to win a premiership and that is get in a gun mid to partner Sloane.

PS - Hartlett is not that gun mid so everyone can relax about that

 

[Vhaluus]

That's quite possibly the worst analogy I've heard. Football players are not like blenders - for a start, you need more than one of them. Secondly, there are a bunch of other people (clubs) that are willing to aquire "second-hand" players, which let you make room for the new ones.


If it's a net upgrade, why wouldn't you?

Yes but you only need a certain number of them.

Also anytime you are deliberately looking to trade away talent you get under the market rate, just like poaching talent costs above the market rate.

 

[Vhaluus]

What?

Well see there's your problem. If you're looking at them like that, then yes, Hartlett and Douglas and Mackay are all equally as effective at blending things.

Also that is not an opportunity cost. A week latter it's a different assessment. What you're going for is the concept of sunk costs. The difference here is that blenders are a one per person need. Footballers can be played in the same team, and aren't mutually exclusive. If you can improve your team you do it. What we disagree on is the worth of one H Hartlett. Let's move on before you start talking about how spreadsheets aren't useful for calculating things again

It is an opportunity cost, because that $100 or draft pick can be spent elsewhere. We can get a brand new player with their entire career in front of them rather than one who is already more than halfway through their career without setting the world on fire.

 

[gothecrows]

Yes but you only need a certain number of them.

Also anytime you are deliberately looking to trade away talent you get under the market rate, just like poaching talent costs above the market rate.

The story is that Port are trying to offload Hartlett. By your reasoning, that means we automatically get him for under the market rate... This is not helping your argument.

 

[Iron]

It is an opportunity cost, because that $100 or draft pick can be spent elsewhere. We can get a brand new player with their entire career in front of them rather than one who is already more than halfway through their career without setting the world on fire.

No, it's a sunk cost. Here's a non-blender related example:

2015: Menzel + Milera + Hampton come into the side for $X. That $X could have been spent to buy something else, now it's a sunk cost.
2016: Hartlett comes into the side for $X. That $X could have been spent to buy something else, now it's a sunk cost.

Two separate decisions made at different points of time with different alternatives to choose between. An opportunity cost would require a reality where Hartlett is available in 2015, like this:

2015: Menzel + Milera + Hampton come into the side for $X. We choose not to sign Hartlett for $X. Hartlett becomes the opportunity cost.

That way, if Hartlett has an amazing 2016 (haha he didn't), we can THEN say that M+M+H was a trade failure. Because of opportunity costs. Because we, at the same point in time, made a bad decision.

 

[Vader]

Vader its only a failure if those guys dont perform when called upon.
If they're our 23-26 players thats EXACTLY what we want to be a successful football club. Guys on the fringes who are AFL standard but cant make our side.

Its the first time we've really had that depth.

People have to miss out every week. You want those missing out to be able to fill the hole. Thats exactly what we've done.

No.. it's a failure if none of them are able to establish themselves in our best 22, for a number of years. Anything less than 3 (of 5) best 22 players from that trading period and it has to be regarded as a failure. Right now, Seedsman is the only one who has come close to establishing himself - and he's fallen out of favour in the second half of the season (albeit not helped by injuries).

It is not enough for these players to be providing "depth".