List Mgmt. Carlton's 2018 Draft Thread (cont. in Part 2)

[kjr8]

Trade down to two mid-first round picks and take the huge slider in Max King and a midfielder in B.Smith/Caldwell/Bytel/Collier-Dawkins/Hately/Rozee

Sorry skip. But can’t see king sliding outside of top 5 even with the knee.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Arr0w]

If I was gunning for the number one player in the draft, hell yes.

Some clubs and recruiters out there have got an absolute hard on for Lukosis.

I mean the Giants paid picks 3 and 16 for pick 2, simply to try and get McGrath. I don't think picks four and five for 1 and a mid second rounder is beyond the pale. In fact from a points perspective it is about even.

As much as I want Lukosius, I would never give up pick 4 & 5 in this draft for 1 & 22 and nor will GC

I will say it for the last time, GWS did not give up 3 & 16 for 2

 

[Blue_Fusion]

The argument goes that soapy claims that on exposed form, Kerr is going to make it.

I rebutted that by saying Lukosis has shown arguably more than Kerr, and at a much younger age and from about as much exposure to senior footy (as a junior no less). People who watch junior footy are saying things about Lukosis that they were not saying about Kerr (and are not saying about him now).

He also claims that on exposed form TDK, Macreadie, Weitering and BSOS are going to make it as AFL forwards. Notwithstanding the fact they have shown close to zero as forwards on exposed form in the seniors (VFL, SANFL, WAFL, AFL).

Heck on exposed form, I'm still not sure on JSOS or McKay.

Curnow yes. A million times yes. The others are question marks at best.

We have forwards, but none barring Curnow has proven himself. Until they do, I am going to argue we could use another one.

Worst case I'm wrong, and we have a surplus of gun key forwards. We could be in a worse position!

Bit too optimistic, but then again, he listed 22+ from our current list he thinks will be playing in our next grand final...

It's a shame there's too many supporters on here with the blinkers turned on.

Need to be more realistic.

What exposed form is he talking about re Kerr? VFL level? He's still unlikely to make it at AFL level. Of course, I could be wrong, but he has the opportunity to prove his doubters wrong. Not sure where he's going to find the athleticism though.

Ben is behind the pecking order in this year's draft alone. He's showing some really good signs though. FAR too early to tell with him.

TDK is extremely raw right now. Showed some good signs so far but nothing to suggest he'll make it at AFL level yet.

Macreadie as far as I'm aware hasn't exactly been knocking the door down and putting Weitering under pressure even though a spot was up for grabs with Weiters form not being great. Hasn't shown anything to suggest he'll make it as a forward at AFL level though, he hasn't even been given much opportunity in that position either.

Weitering will only excel at AFL imo if he finds a harder edge about his game. He's been far too soft this year, not what he showed early on so not sure what's going on, almost seems like he's playing not to get injured. Saying he'll make it as an AFL forward is based on what exactly?

 

[Malifice]

Mal, if I swap my Volkswagen for a Toyota then swap the Toyota for a Honda then swap the Honda for a BMW.... then I effectively swapped my Volkswagen for a BMW.

The BMW didn't cost me a Volkswagen, Toyota AND a Honda.

The BMW cost you a Honda actually.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

As much as I want Lukosius, I would never give up pick 4 & 5 in this draft for 1 & 22 and nor will GC

I will say it for the last time, GWS did not give up 3 & 16 for 2

I'm with you on that. Let's say hypothetically GC have picks #2+#3. In order for us to get those off them, we'd need to offer up #1 (assuming we have it) and our 2019 1st. THEN they'll consider it. But hard to see why they'd be after Lukosius as much as a SA club would.

I'd do it though, gives us some really good options for this draft. We could go all out on mids and go for Rankine + Walsh. We could go the mid+kpp combo with either Rankine or Walsh +B.King or M.King.

Won't be disappointed either way.

 

[Malifice]

I will say it for the last time, GWS did not give up 3 & 16 for 2

I'm glad it's the last time you're saying it because when I look the trade up on Wikipedia it says very clearly it was picks 3 and 16 for 2 and some later picks.

GWS could have taken picks 3 and 16 to the draft. They didn't - they traded them for picks 2 and some later picks.

 

[Arr0w]

The BMW cost you a Honda actually.

Think you are still missing the point Mal

Forget the time frame, but this is the ultimate guide to trading up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

 

[DangerousD]

He wont get a big enough offer to get a 1st round comp thats why im saying we will match any offer and do a trade

Then why is he leaving the club if we are watching the offer? You can't want to get rid of a player then match a bid. Marc wants to remain at Carlton, the only way he goes, is if we want him to go, meaning we wouldn't match.

 

[Arr0w]

I'm glad it's the last time you're saying it because when I look the trade up on Wikipedia it says very clearly it was picks 3 and 16 for 2 and some later picks.

GWS could have taken picks 3 and 16 to the draft. They didn't - they traded them for picks 2 and some later picks.

Mal, I am sure if you go try this on elsewhere you will get the same response, you can twist things many ways, come the end of a trade period, all they list is the total ins and outs, with no mention of middle ground

Better still, see if you can find pick 3 in the losses of GWS

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-23/trade-verdict-how-did-your-club-fare-during-the-trade-period

 

[DangerousD]

Ok is that how it works so basically if he goes we'll get nothing like betts and waite

We didn't get anything for Betts because we picked up a FA in Thomas on big money, looking back i think the AFL would concede we should have gotten something for Waite.
Have a look at what North got for Wells as a relative comparison to what we could expect if he were to leave, that would currently get us pick 20.

 

[Malifice]

Mal, I am sure if you go try this on elsewhere you will get the same response, you can twist things many ways, come the end of a trade period, all they list is the total ins and outs, with no mention of middle ground

Better still, see if you can find pick 3 in the losses of GWS

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-23/trade-verdict-how-did-your-club-fare-during-the-trade-period

I don't care what your article says GWS held picks 3 and pick 16. They had to trade a whole bunch of sh*t in order to get pick three, including trading picks seven, McCarthy and a bunch of later picks.

They made one trade to get picks 3 and 16. They then made a another trade to trade picks 3 and 16 for pick 2 and a bunch of later picks.

They could have taken 3 and 16 to the draft. They didn't, and instead traded them in order to get pick two.

Whether you like it or not at some stage GWS thought trading their currently held picks 3 and 16 for pick 2 and later picks was worth it.

 

[HARKER]

Why is it that I hear a grunting tennis match going on?

 

[Cripps17]

Mal, I am sure if you go try this on elsewhere you will get the same response, you can twist things many ways, come the end of a trade period, all they list is the total ins and outs, with no mention of middle ground

Better still, see if you can find pick 3 in the losses of GWS

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-10-23/trade-verdict-how-did-your-club-fare-during-the-trade-period

If I swap $1 for $10, swap $10 for $1000, then swap $1000 for $20, is the only pertinent outcome that I've turned my $1 into $20?

The pick 3 and 16 is certainly real for Brisbane. It's an interesting topic, but given Mal is suggesting we find a suitor to trade down with, we're the Brisbane in the scenario, so the 3 and 16 for 2 is relevant.

 

[Malifice]

Think you are still missing the point Mal

Forget the time frame, but this is the ultimate guide to trading up

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_red_paperclip

No mate it is a irrelevant. You don't trade the paperclip for the house, you trade the thing immediately in your possession prior to trading for the house for the house. Each trade needs to be looked at in isolation.

Going back to the Volkswagen for the Toyota for the Honda for the BMW analogy, The dude you are trading for for his BMW didn't want a Volkswagen or a Toyota; he wanted the Honda. At no stage did you trade a Volkswagen for a BMW. Each trade was a separate trade conducted with privity of only two parties.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Mal, bring it back to basics and forget every other side, forget what the Dockers and Brisbane lost or gained

GWS lose McCarthy, 7, 16, 34, 72 gain 2, 31, 51, 60. It is that simple

And what did they get for McCarthy + 7? Excluding the change of course...

#3...

That pick was in their possession. The Lions would not have given up #2 if not for #3 and #16 being given up.

So at the end of the day, they had #3 + #16 and decided to get rid of those picks for #2 again excluding all the change.

 

[Malifice]

If I swap $1 for $10, swap $10 for $1000, then swap $1000 for $20, is the only pertinent outcome that I've turned my $1 into $20?

This.

Dude I turned one dollar into $20... pretty good outcome right?

Or we can instead look at the specifics of each individual trade and figure out if that statement is actually true. The reality is you actually swapped $1000 for $20.

Looking again at the brilliant example you posted above, which is the better way of going about it? What was the real price you paid for that $20?

 

[Arr0w]

If I swap $1 for $10, swap $10 for $1000, then swap $1000 for $20, is the only pertinent outcome that I've turned my $1 into $20?

The pick 3 and 16 is certainly real for Brisbane. It's an interesting topic, but given Mal is suggesting we find a suitor to trade down with, we're the Brisbane in the scenario, so the 3 and 16 for 2 is relevant.

Unfortunately it's not and you just verified what I was saying

Total Nett Los $ 1
Total Nett Gained $20

Everything in between becomes irrelevant

 

[Arr0w]

And what did they get for McCarthy + 7? Excluding the change of course...

#3...

That pick was in their possession. The Lions would not have given up #2 if not for #3 and #16 being given up.

So at the end of the day, they had #3 + #16 and decided to get rid of those picks for #2 again excluding all the change.

Love how everyone is excluding change, like it's worth nothing

 

[Malifice]

Unfortunately it's not and you just verified what I was saying

Total Nett Los $ 1
Total Nett Gained $20

Everything in between becomes irrelevant

No dude your final trade was $1000 for $20. You lost $980 on the final trade!

A better result would have been stopping at the thousand dollar mark yeah?

 

[Arr0w]

No mate it is a irrelevant. You don't trade the paperclip for the house, you trade the thing immediately in your possession prior to trading for the house for the house. Each trade needs to be looked at in isolation.

Going back to the Volkswagen for the Toyota for the Honda for the BMW analogy, The dude you are trading for for his BMW didn't want a Volkswagen or a Toyota; he wanted the Honda. At no stage did you trade a Volkswagen for a BMW. Each trade was a separate trade conducted with privity of only two parties.

So what did you originally give up (Paperclip) what was the end result (House). It is that simple

 

[1981]

Jesus get a life.

 

[BlueRenaissance]

Great back and forth here. I'm changing horses!

Now can we move on and talk about how this helps us bend over another team next draft?

 

[Blue_Fusion]

No mate it is a irrelevant. You don't trade the paperclip for the house, you trade the thing immediately in your possession prior to trading for the house for the house. Each trade needs to be looked at in isolation.

Going back to the Volkswagen for the Toyota for the Honda for the BMW analogy, The dude you are trading for for his BMW didn't want a Volkswagen or a Toyota; he wanted the Honda. At no stage did you trade a Volkswagen for a BMW. Each trade was a separate trade conducted with privity of only two parties.

That's right. Just because the trades happen in succession doesn't mean you exclude all the middle ground. Each trade needs to be looked at separately, not as a collective whole.

 

[BlueRenaissance]

Malifice has segwayed into economics and opportunity cost. And it is indeed relevant.

 

[Blue_Fusion]

Love how everyone is excluding change, like it's worth nothing

Or I can't remember the exact picks and cbf looking them up.