Opinion Beams Trade [Officially derailed: Now disussing the folly of gambling, net negative players and the merit of Sier]

[sr36]

Same feeling, McLarty has much more value for the future I believe.

I would rather lose Wills, Crocker, or Greenwood, but the first 2 are contracted and I thought we had made a one year offer to the last. If we haven't already, and in the light of acquiring Beams, I would be looking to move Greenwood on.

Actually, if I could do anything it would be to retire Wells and pay out, I just think his body will not be up to AFL football in 2019.

If a youngster is going to be delisted, it's pretty obvious that they would be offered around during trade week to try to find them a new home even if it's for a pick that's not going to be used. So if we delist a youngster, it's pretty clear that no other club is particularly interested either. Bearing that in mind, it seems a bit silly to be too concerned about delisting a youngster.

 

[loki04]

The Sam Murray trade was a 12 point giveup in the draft order. He was showing every sign of it being a good trade.

It was overpaying even if he did come on he was a rookie listed 20 yo no experienced NEAFL player heavily rumoured the Swans were talking de-listing prior to Pies loud interest.
Plus he had 2 good games while new, then teams put time into him and he was found wanting after that. May have developed into something may not have but one thing is certain his career is stuffed now.

 

[loki04]

Beams I think was slight over payment (probably close to par due to 18/quaynor) but overall happy with the deal due to still being able to land our ACA/FS selections.

 

[MarkT2]

It’s effectively pick 16 for beams assuming we finish top four next year. That’s not really overs.

Salary-wise we should have loads of cap next year with many of Reid Goldsack Dunn Greenwood Varcoe Wells and Mayne potentially playing their final year or two of afl football.

So having missed out on a kpp, we can relaunch at the trade table next year.

I can understand this view but "effectively" is assumtion based. We don't know what the bids on our targets will be, we don't know where we will finish next year and we don't know if a KP tall will be available/gettable. By the same token we don't know if Moore will stand up or be a good KP defender but if he does tick both boxes maybe we don't need one. The cost is the cost. The wisdom is to be judged in hindsight as it always is. I'd much rather not have paid 2 firsts but as I keep saying if he wins us a flag he's worth much more. I happy enough right now on balance so I can't be critical of the judgements made and the result achieved. I do think, however, that we aren't great negotiators. Negotiation and talent judging are 2 difefrent skill sets That's one thing I hoped Gubby would have brought to us.

 

[MarkT2]

Are you under the impression Contracted players cannot be delisted?

They can be delisted but the payout comes within the cap so it can easily push your over the cap if you are tight becuase you still have to pay the replacement. I expect we will keep contracted players and delist from uncontracted players.

 

[Boris the Contradiction]

Agree. I think that's being overlooked by some who are saying "we didn't need a midfielder" or "he'll be 29 next year" or whatever. Quite simply he will be in our top few players. Can't bloody wait for round 1.

As it stands right now, I think he's our second best player after Grundy.

 

[BEEG]

Slightly overpaid should have got a 2nd round pick back but then again our first round pick was 18

Pies miss the 8 next year which we are quite capable of doing with a tougher draw and injuries we will be spewing on this trade

Makes our midfield/forward line a lot more dangerous and Roughead is a bargain.

Beams Miocheck Thomas

WHE DeGoey Elliot/Cox

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

It’s effectively pick 16 for beams assuming we finish top four next year. That’s not really overs.

Salary-wise we should have loads of cap next year with many of Reid Goldsack Dunn Greenwood Varcoe Wells and Mayne potentially playing their final year or two of afl football.

So having missed out on a kpp, we can relaunch at the trade table next year.

I can understand this view but "effectively" is assumtion based. We don't know what the bids on our targets will be, we don't know where we will finish next year and we don't know if a KP tall will be available/gettable. By the same token we don't know if Moore will stand up or be a good KP defender but if he does tick both boxes maybe we don't need one. The cost is the cost. The wisdom is to be judged in hindsight as it always is. I'd much rather not have paid 2 firsts but as I keep saying if he wins us a flag he's worth much more. I happy enough right now on balance so I can't be critical of the judgements made and the result achieved. I do think, however, that we aren't great negotiators. Negotiation and talent judging are 2 difefrent skill sets That's one thing I hoped Gubby would have brought to us.

Everything is assumption based. If you don’t make assumptions then you’re sitting on the fence.

I assume that between Dunn Goldsack Reid and Roughead we have enough temporary key defence ammunition to hold the fort until Moore and shaz get fully fit and our newer draftees like mclarty and Kelly develop.

I also assume that the club knows only too well what quaynor and Kelly are worth.

I also assume that beams will improve our team

 

[jackcass]

How did you arrive at McLarty and not some other fringe player?

Your essentially limited to those OoC players. McLarty remains 1 of those.

 

[jackcass]

Listening to Mike Sheahan this morning on SEN, he reckons only Beams would be in his top 10 of players had he rated his top 50. Saying his is Pies number 1 midfielder
Good enough for me


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

I'm not a huge fan of Mike Sheahan and/or his top 50's but wasn't it the only player who traded clubs who would be in his top 10? Without him actually naming who else and their positions it's pretty hard to say whether Beams or Sidey (I assume he'd also be top 10) would ultimately be higher. Either way, Beams should very much have been in the AA discussion this year despite missing a few games and struggling with off field issues.

 

[jackcass]

Fair enough, IMV Blair, Crocker, Kirby, Smith and Wills might be ahead of McLarty

Pesky contracts.

 

[jathanas]

We might have, but nothing ventured - nothing gained. We came damn close this year and who knows what we can achieve in 2019 with Beemer in the side. That, and it's really cool to have him back.

 

[swoop42]

Beams finished 2nd in Brisbane's B&F (1 vote behind Zorko) and was Brisbane's leading Brownlow vote receiver and finished 8th overall.

His trade cost is effectively our 2019 1st round selection as we'll leave the draft with the same two players we intended to take.

Not sure how anyone can believe we've overpaid and while the trade could prove to be a bust if his body fails him you can say they same thing now about using pick 6 on Scharenberg so risks are ever present whatever the age.

In my opinion wherever the bid for Quaynor comes now is inconsequential to how you rate the Beams trade or whether you preferred to retain pick 18 and for a number of reasons.

1. The landscape has changed with us parting with pick 18 and gaining further points so clubs may not be so inclined to make a tactical bid in the first round now because we've insulated ourselves against it and by our actions they know we will match it. I accept I may be wrong on this of course but with the whole song and dance routine now surrounding the first round of the draft on Foxtel will a club with pick 15 or 17 really waste the time focusing on any player they can't get if they see his value between 15 to 25?

If a bid comes don't be surprised if it's Brisbane at 18.

2. If the Beams trade hadn't eventuated then their is every chance we would have chosen to do what Sydney did and exchanged pick 18 for multiple selections that was worth more points. This is an entirely plausible scenario because once Moore and Langdon re-signed we seemingly had little capacity outside the trading of future picks to gain points for this years draft. The picks we entered trade week with only equated to 453pts which wasn't nearly enough to match a bid for Quaynor prior to pick 18 and would have pushed back our 2019 1st round selection to the 2nd round. Taking Kelly would have seen that 2nd round pick wiped out also should a bid for him come in the range anticipated.

3. Finally if you are happy to have Beams back at the club then pick 18 was always going to be involved. More importantly though if you believe like I do that the club values Quaynor as being worthy of pick 18 then it would have been a disaster to not use the bidding system to our advantage and obtain him with lesser selections in the draft.

Personally I think we've been very fortunate that the availability of Quaynor and Kelly has coincided with a season we've returned to September with a bullet and giving up pick 18 as part of the deal for Beams is in no way comparable to using pick 6 on Stephenson the previous season.

We've maximised the value of pick 18 in my opinion and will leave this trade/draft period with not only the player we were prepared to use it on we don't get Beams without it.

I'm stoked.

 

[mike123]

Sometimes you just have to pay up for quality and that’s what we did here.

 

[TKiL]

Beams finished 2nd in Brisbane's B&F (1 vote behind Zorko) and was Brisbane's leading Brownlow vote receiver and finished 8th overall.

His trade cost is effectively our 2019 1st round selection as we'll leave the draft with the same two players we intended to take.

Not sure how anyone can believe we've overpaid and while the trade could prove to be a bust if his body fails him you can say they same thing now about using pick 6 on Scharenberg so risks are ever present whatever the age.

In my opinion wherever the bid for Quaynor comes now is inconsequential to how you rate the Beams trade or whether you preferred to retain pick 18 and for a number of reasons.

1. The landscape has changed with us parting with pick 18 and gaining further points so clubs may not be so inclined to make a tactical bid in the first round now because we've insulated ourselves against it and by our actions they know we will match it. I accept I may be wrong on this of course but with the whole song and dance routine now surrounding the first round of the draft on Foxtel will a club with pick 15 or 17 really waste the time focusing on any player they can't get if they see his value between 15 to 25?

If a bid comes don't be surprised if it's Brisbane at 18.

2. If the Beams trade hadn't eventuated then their is every chance we would have chosen to do what Sydney did and exchanged pick 18 for multiple selections that was worth more points. This is an entirely plausible scenario because once Moore and Langdon re-signed we seemingly had little capacity outside the trading of future picks to gain points for this years draft. The picks we entered trade week with only equated to 453pts which wasn't nearly enough to match a bid for Quaynor prior to pick 18 and would have pushed back our 2019 1st round selection to the 2nd round. Taking Kelly would have seen that 2nd round pick wiped out also should a bid for him come in the range anticipated.

3. Finally if you are happy to have Beams back at the club then pick 18 was always going to be involved. More importantly though if you believe like I do that the club values Quaynor as being worthy of pick 18 then it would have been a disaster to not use the bidding system to our advantage and obtain him with lesser selections in the draft.

Personally I think we've been very fortunate that the availability of Quaynor and Kelly has coincided with a season we've returned to September with a bullet and giving up pick 18 as part of the deal for Beams is in no way comparable to using pick 6 on Stephenson the previous season.

We've maximised the value of pick 18 in my opinion and will leave this trade/draft period with not only the player we were prepared to use it on we don't get Beams without it.

I'm stoked.

EFA: Thanks for using paragraphs inc numbering

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Sometimes you just have to pay up for quality and that’s what we did here.

I think the point here is that we DIDN’T pay up. Not overs by any stretch. We played a fair price for a high quality 29 year old, who just happens to be a colllingwood premiership player.

 

[Crazy Tails]

I haven't read through all the responses to date and although at first I would have said yes on looking at the finer details of the deal (essentially the associated points) I say it's about right.

Before people complain about paying two firsts a few things need to be highlighted:

* Technically we gave up two first round picks but this years pick was 18 (2 picks from a 2nd rounder) and hopefully next years first will be 12-18 also;
* These aren't two top 10 picks like we gave up for Treloar.
* We didn't just give them two first rounders for Beams and that was it; we got 2 picks in the 40s back for this year that go towards helping us match bids this draft.

If we had have stuck with pick 18 and a future 2nd for Beams we would have got nothing back from the Lions and we would have had a void of bidding points to try and land our two boys. We would have only had pick 51 and 56 with points (and maybe 57) and as such would have gone into huge deficit in matching bids.

In isolation those two picks (41 and 44) give us the equivalent of pick 24. Adding 56 to the deal (-194) means on balance we are back to about pick 32.

Pick 32 by itself gets Quaynor outright if a bid comes in from 24 onwards (possible). I think we might end up going into slight deficit matching a Kelly bid but I'll leave that out of this.

So in essence we have changed pick 18 this year up to 32; which should get us most of Quaynor. Based on expert opinion Quaynor is a worthy first round selection so 18 was going to go on him anyway. We should still be able to land him because of this deal.

So after all that I feel that we have almost landed Beams for that future first rounder and 56 (and end of 3rd round pick) and a movement back of 14 spots from 18 to 32. My only gripe is the addition of pick 56 which would have been some value to us for bidding purposes. But if that was the only sticking point to get the deal over the line; chuck it in!

Well done Ned and co. it's not bad for an elite goal kicking mid (who finished 8th in this years Brownlow) who will hopefully take us 1 step further next year.

 

[mike123]

I think the point here is that we DIDN’T pay up. Not overs by any stretch. We played a fair price for a high quality 29 year old, who just happens to be a colllingwood premiership player.

Not overs but a high price so I’d consider that paying up.

 

[The Royal Sampler]

I think it soothes the burn a little to consider that Beamer won’t be a huge hit to our cap over the next couple of years, especially for a player playing at his peak and a top-10 in the Brownlow. Brisbane have paid most of the coin in his current contract and there was even talk of Beamer stretching his remaining contract payments over an extra year, ie. if he had $900k total owing on his remaining two years he’d consider recontracting at three years for $300k each rather than two for $450k. Those numbers are made up but you get the idea.

Compare that to Tom Lynch, who cost nothing in trade but isn’t playing at as high a level as Beamer currently, and is reported to be on $1.5m per annum for his last couple of seasons at the Tigers...

 

[partypie]

I think we would have trade 18 for later multiple picks regardless. Let’s say we picked someone else with 18 and quaynor goes at 19 . Our next pick is 51 so we would have been stuffed.

There is nothing saying we should have matched a bid on Quaynor if it came at 18.

Anyway it's all moot now - the trade has happened, so we have to hope it works out for the better in the short term (ie. it helps get us to a flag) and justifies the potential long term impact.

 

[Knightmare]

The answer unless a premiership with Dayne back is that the club clearly overpaid. Though that is the condition that cures all ills.

Beams has over/under four years and 60 games left in him (based on his 16.8 game per season average - which was 14.5 at Brisbane). He's not worth one first round pick. Collingwood are a situation where junior talent ID has always been strong, young player development has always been strong and the culture and leadership internally is such that Collingwood is an ideal environment for development - as proven by the success of Jaidyn Stephenson and the breakout seasons to Brayden Sier, Mason Cox, Jordan De Goey, Tom Phillips, Josh Thomas, Will Hoskin-Elliott while Brodie Grundy and Steele Sidebottom had clear career best years.

The last time Collingwood had pick 18, Brodie Grundy was drafted. Collingwood's 2019 first round pick could be anywhere with the ladder so open a finish 1-12 is possible.

Pick 18 on it's own would have been my very upper limit.

I'll go back as far as 1999 just so that we get a large sample size:
1999: Rhyce Shaw (F/S) - next pick Brad Green
2000: Daniel Kerr
2001: Shane Harvey
2002: Kris Shore
2003: Llane Spaanderman
2004: Cameron Wood
2005: Max Bailey
2006: Leroy Jetta
2007: Alex Rance
2008: Luke Shuey
2009: Luke Tapscott
2010: Matthew Watson
2011: Brad McKenzie
2012: Brodie Grundy
2013: Luke Dunstan
2014: Isaac Heeney (Academy) next pick Blaine Boekhorst
2015: Jade Gresham
2016: Sam Powell-Pepper
2017: Brandon Starcevich

Bolded are those I consider more valuable or project to be over the span of their careers more valuable than 60 games from Beams. Italics for those too early to say.

Looking 2007-2017, an 11 year sample, that's 7/11 who I'd take ahead of Beams today on span/projected span of career. 6/11 if you take out Heeney as Academy and replace him with Boekhorst.

Going back to the notes that Collingwood draft and develop effectively and there is a good case already that just pick 18 on its own is worth Beams and why I considered that the upper limit for an appropriate trade to be struck. And that's before including into the equation Collingwood are strong talent identifiers and developers of talent which sees the odds of that pick being a success in Collingwood's situation rise. *Note - had pick 18 been retained I would have passed on Quaynor had a bid before that selection occurred.

Collingwood in 2019 with a 1-12 finish range covering for the necessary variation of likely outcomes with that 1-12 group in the competition even like we have never seen before may mean that Collingwood's 2019 pick could gain an even greater return. What if that's a top 10 pick? Collingwood would feel really silly then.

--
With the midseason draft to be introduced in 2019, the concept of depth is obsolete with clubs able to bring back retired/delisted players from seasons past to fill list needs.

The addition of Jordan Roughead is depth which is a waste of a list position I have no time for when someone with best 22 chances can be picked through the draft. As a ruckman Darcy Moore is in my mind that clear option to play as lead ruck if Brodie Grundy is absent and I believe that would if he had the chance to perform there be his best position. Beyond Moore, there is the tallest man in the AFL in Mason Cox who is a capable tap ruckman in his won right can also fill that spot.

Up forward Collingwood are fine with Mason Cox and Brody Mihocek. If one misses a game or has to play elsewhere Collingwood can comfortably play small with Jordan De Goey able to offer a key target. Ben Reid can swing forward, as can Darcy Moore.

Down back Darcy Moore, Lynden Dunn, Matthew Scharenberg and Tyson Goldsack can all play tall while Ben Reid and Brody Mihocek can play key position at either end. Sam McLarty would be better suited in defence and should be developed there with his contested marking potentially making him a future threat there.

So there is already a lot of guys internally who can cover for others anyway.

If Collingwood wanted another number to those KPP stocks Noah Gown as a developing player through the draft who would have been that ideal guy to get and someone Collingwood could trade a second round pick to get. If a more immediate KPP was wanted, a Tyler Keitel would do the job as a rookie as someone comparable to Brody Mihocek with capabilities at both ends.

It wouldn't have been hard either during the trade period or pick exchange period for Collingwood to have offered pick 18 for a combination of picks with one pick gained with the view to draft Noah Gown.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

Not overs but a high price so I’d consider that paying up.

I'll agree to disagree then because its not my definition.

 

[surfer1]

Slightly overpaid should have got a 2nd round pick back but then again our first round pick was 18

Pies miss the 8 next year which we are quite capable of doing with a tougher draw and injuries we will be spewing on this trade

Makes our midfield/forward line a lot more dangerous and Roughead is a bargain.

Beams Miocheck Thomas

WHE DeGoey Elliot/Cox

No room for Stephenson?

 

[ash84]

Slightly overpaid should have got a 2nd round pick back but then again our first round pick was 18

Pies miss the 8 next year which we are quite capable of doing with a tougher draw and injuries we will be spewing on this trade

Makes our midfield/forward line a lot more dangerous and Roughead is a bargain.

Beams Miocheck Thomas

WHE DeGoey Elliot/Cox

You'd like to think our injuries aren't as bad as they were this year.

 

[surfer1]

The answer unless a premiership with Dayne back is that the club clearly overpaid. Though that is the condition that cures all ills.

Beams has over/under four years and 60 games left in him (based on his 16.8 game per season average - which was 14.5 at Brisbane). He's not worth one first round pick. Collingwood are a situation where junior talent ID has always been strong, young player development has always been strong and the culture and leadership internally is such that Collingwood is an ideal environment for development - as proven by the success of Jaidyn Stephenson and the breakout seasons to Brayden Sier, Mason Cox, Jordan De Goey, Tom Phillips, Josh Thomas, Will Hoskin-Elliott while Brodie Grundy and Steele Sidebottom had clear career best years.

The last time Collingwood had pick 18, Brodie Grundy was drafted. Collingwood's 2019 first round pick could be anywhere with the ladder so open a finish 1-12 is possible.

Pick 18 on it's own would have been my very upper limit.

I'll go back as far as 1999 just so that we get a large sample size:
1999: Rhyce Shaw (F/S) - next pick Brad Green
2000: Daniel Kerr
2001: Shane Harvey
2002: Kris Shore
2003: Llane Spaanderman
2004: Cameron Wood
2005: Max Bailey
2006: Leroy Jetta
2007: Alex Rance
2008: Luke Shuey
2009: Luke Tapscott
2010: Matthew Watson
2011: Brad McKenzie
2012: Brodie Grundy
2013: Luke Dunstan
2014: Isaac Heeney (Academy) next pick Blaine Boekhorst
2015: Jade Gresham
2016: Sam Powell-Pepper
2017: Brandon Starcevich

Bolded are those I consider more valuable or project to be over the span of their careers more valuable than 60 games from Beams. Italics for those too early to say.

Looking 2007-2017, an 11 year sample, that's 7/11 who I'd take ahead of Beams today on span/projected span of career. 6/11 if you take out Heeney as Academy and replace him with Boekhorst.

Going back to the notes that Collingwood draft and develop effectively and there is a good case already that just pick 18 on its own is worth Beams and why I considered that the upper limit for an appropriate trade to be struck. And that's before including into the equation Collingwood are strong talent identifiers and developers of talent which sees the odds of that pick being a success in Collingwood's situation rise. *Note - had pick 18 been retained I would have passed on Quaynor had a bid before that selection occurred.

Collingwood in 2019 with a 1-12 finish range covering for the necessary variation of likely outcomes with that 1-12 group in the competition even like we have never seen before may mean that Collingwood's 2019 pick could gain an even greater return. What if that's a top 10 pick? Collingwood would feel really silly then.

--
With the midseason draft to be introduced in 2019, the concept of depth is obsolete with clubs able to bring back retired/delisted players from seasons past to fill list needs.

The addition of Jordan Roughead is depth which is a waste of a list position I have no time for when someone with best 22 chances can be picked through the draft. As a ruckman Darcy Moore is in my mind that clear option to play as lead ruck if Brodie Grundy is absent and I believe that would if he had the chance to perform there be his best position. Beyond Moore, there is the tallest man in the AFL in Mason Cox who is a capable tap ruckman in his won right can also fill that spot.

Up forward Collingwood are fine with Mason Cox and Brody Mihocek. If one misses a game or has to play elsewhere Collingwood can comfortably play small with Jordan De Goey able to offer a key target. Ben Reid can swing forward, as can Darcy Moore.

Down back Darcy Moore, Lynden Dunn, Matthew Scharenberg and Tyson Goldsack can all play tall while Ben Reid and Brody Mihocek can play key position at either end. Sam McLarty would be better suited in defence and should be developed there with his contested marking potentially making him a future threat there.

So there is already a lot of guys internally who can cover for others anyway.

If Collingwood wanted another number to those KPP stocks Noah Gown as a developing player through the draft who would have been that ideal guy to get and someone Collingwood could trade a second round pick to get. If a more immediate KPP was wanted, a Tyler Keitel would do the job as a rookie as someone comparable to Brody Mihocek with capabilities at both ends.

It wouldn't have been hard either during the trade period or pick exchange period for Collingwood to have offered pick 18 for a combination of picks with one pick gained with the view to draft Noah Gown.

I wont comment on Beams but given that you mention Reid, Dunn, Shazz and Goldsack in one breathe and ignoring Moore's last year I dont understand why Roughead isnt seem as sensible backup.