Traded 2018 Live Trade: Carlton trade #4 (2019) to Adelaide for #19 (2018) and #9 (2019)

[Shaz2012]

That's a good video, really interesting to see.

If they rated Stocker 6...

Walsh, Lukocious, Rankine, M. King, B. King, Smith - which wouldn't they have top 5?

Maybe they were drafting for need rather than best available. Inside mids was the need. I think it was obvious from a long way out they were always taking Walsh over Luko or Rankine.

Draft board for inside mids: 1. Walsh, 2. Smith, 3. Jones, 4. Caldwell, 5. Hately, 6. Stocker

 

[C4[2]Yo`DooR]

That's not correct

The word posted on the Carlton board by a solid poster was that the club rated Stocker higher than Smith.

If Stocker was in their top 6 - this would mean Smith was outside the top 5.

 

[Arr0w]

The word posted on the Carlton board by a solid poster was that the club rated Stocker higher than Smith.

If Stocker was in their top 6 - this would mean Smith was outside the top 5.

A link would be great

 

[Kernafides]

Maybe they were drafting for need rather than best available. Inside mids was the need. I think it was obvious from a long way out they were always taking Walsh over Luko or Rankine.

Draft board for inside mids: 1. Walsh, 2. Smith, 3. Jones, 4. Caldwell, 5. Hately, 6. Stocker

Finally someone with some brains

 

[HARKER]

Finally someone with some brains

I think Carlton had;

1. Walsh 2. Rankine 3. Lukosius 4._______ 5._______ 6.Stocker.

Can only speculate on 4 & 5, but feel it could have been Rozee & Caldwell.
MKing was very highly rated but maybe just not a real need, given the forward line is all young and put in place strategically.

 

[eastfreo75]

Watched the video.

The vibe seem to be one of “group think”, no one seem to give an different view.

Maybe, the list of players was debated vigorously weeks before.

They rated Stocker 6 on their list but wasn’t surprised he fell later. The trade idea seem to be an idea thought out before the draft.

Because they rated Stocker at pick 6, they seem very pleased with themselves.

Not sure why the Blues fans on here think it’s a great move.

Dogs,Port,GWS,Freo,Cats, and Suns all passed on him.

 

[Arr0w]

Watched the video.

The vibe seem to be one of “group think”, no one seem to give an different view.

Maybe, the list of players was debated vigorously weeks before.

They rated Stocker 6 on their list but wasn’t surprised he fell later. The trade idea seem to be an idea thought out before the draft.

Because they rated Stocker at pick 6, they seem very pleased with themselves.

Not sure why the Blues fans on here think it’s a great move.

Dogs,Port,GWS,Freo,Cats, and Suns all passed on him.

You mean players selected in the 2nd and 3rd rounds of past drafts have never been re-rated as 1st rounders/top 10 picks in years to come?

Recruiters must have a 100% strike rate, what an easy gig

 

[La Dispute]

Watched the video.

The vibe seem to be one of “group think”, no one seem to give an different view.

Maybe, the list of players was debated vigorously weeks before.

They rated Stocker 6 on their list but wasn’t surprised he fell later. The trade idea seem to be an idea thought out before the draft.

Because they rated Stocker at pick 6, they seem very pleased with themselves.

Not sure why the Blues fans on here think it’s a great move.

Dogs,Port,GWS,Freo,Cats, and Suns all passed on him.

Of course they’re all on the same page. They would have spent the year compiling a list, and then prior to the draft come up with a consensus draft board. Some might have drafted him at 4, some at 11, some at 6 etc - regardless the group clearly all liked him as a player and there was complete agreement he’d be a good selection for the club.

Of course they’d be happy with their work if they rated him at 6, surely that much is obvious?

Not sure why other clubs passing on him is at all relevant either? The Bulldogs ended up with a top line midfielder, Swans were always going to match an early bid for Blakey, Port clearly prioritised outside run, GWS took some sliders and Geelong and Freo went for needs.

 

[dlb99]

Maybe they were drafting for need rather than best available. Inside mids was the need. I think it was obvious from a long way out they were always taking Walsh over Luko or Rankine.

Looks a certainty that the Blues draft board was needs based.

 

[Rich01]

Watched the video.

The vibe seem to be one of “group think”, no one seem to give an different view.

Maybe, the list of players was debated vigorously weeks before.

They rated Stocker 6 on their list but wasn’t surprised he fell later. The trade idea seem to be an idea thought out before the draft.

Because they rated Stocker at pick 6, they seem very pleased with themselves.

Not sure why the Blues fans on here think it’s a great move.

Dogs,Port,GWS,Freo,Cats, and Suns all passed on him.

This seemed planned well in advance.
The time for debate over which player they pick up at 19 should and would have been done and agreed upon weeks before.

Stocker was plan A, B and C with this trade for the Blues. Glad for them they got him as they obviously rated him so highly.

 

[Jeremias]

Not sure why the Blues fans on here think it’s a great move.

I reckon the reasons why we're happy with the move have been covered extensively already.

How is it that you're still not sure?

 

[eastfreo75]

Of course they’re all on the same page. They would have spent the year compiling a list, and then prior to the draft come up with a consensus draft board. Some might have drafted him at 4, some at 11, some at 6 etc - regardless the group clearly all liked him as a player and there was complete agreement he’d be a good selection for the club.

Of course they’d be happy with their work if they rated him at 6, surely that much is obvious?

Not sure why other clubs passing on him is at all relevant either? The Bulldogs ended up with a top line midfielder, Swans were always going to match an early bid for Blakey, Port clearly prioritised outside run, GWS took some sliders and Geelong and Freo went for needs.

Remember Collingwood rating Murphy at pick 7 last year.

What big mistake would have been if live trading was year?

Not sure you think Stocker wouldn’t have been a need at Fremantle and the Cats need to replace their inside midfield in a few years.

 

[eastfreo75]

This seemed planned well in advance.
The time for debate over which player they pick up at 19 should and would have been done and agreed upon weeks before.

Stocker was plan A, B and C with this trade for the Blues. Glad for them they got him as they obviously rated him so highly.

Collingwood had Murphy rated at pick 7 last year.

 

[La Dispute]

Remember Collingwood rating Murphy at pick 7 last year.

What big mistake would have been if live trading was year?

Not sure you think Stocker wouldn’t have been a need at Fremantle and the Cats need to replace their inside midfield in a few years.

All speculation Murphy was rated at 7. In any case if that’s where he was rated and went on to be a good player why does it matter Bigfooty saw it as a reach? Cripps also universally seen as a reach at 13 in his draft year too.

Clubs have multiple needs and priorities - Freo took Brayshaw and Cerra the year before so their need for a mid was lessened. Geelong wanted a half-back to help replenish their half-back stocks.

 

[Mitchell54]

Because they rated Stocker at pick 6, they seem very pleased with themselves.

Not sure why the Blues fans on here think it’s a great move.

Think you answered your question in the previous sentence.

 

[blue_trinity]

Think you answered your question in the previous sentence.

Thank you

 

[blue_trinity]

Not sure why the Blues fans on here think it’s a great move.

Dogs,Port,GWS,Freo,Cats, and Suns all passed on him.

Not sure why it's so hard to understand that we rated a player at 6, then logically decided to make a play when he started to fall.
Surely, either you back your own ratings, or you don't? Otherwise, just sack the recruiting department and just get some bloke to cross off names from a BF phantom draft. Would be a lot cheaper.

Also, not sure why what dogs, port, gws, freo and cats are relevant at all?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I become 'not sure'.

 

[LemmingMaster]

The word posted on the Carlton board by a solid poster was that the club rated Stocker higher than Smith.

If Stocker was in their top 6 - this would mean Smith was outside the top 5.

My source was
Walsh
Lukosius
Rankine
Max King
Caldwell
Stocker

 

[eastfreo75]

Not sure why it's so hard to understand that we rated a player at 6, then logically decided to make a play when he started to fall.
Surely, either you back your own ratings, or you don't? Otherwise, just sack the recruiting department and just get some bloke to cross off names from a BF phantom draft. Would be a lot cheaper.

Also, not sure why what dogs, port, gws, freo and cats are relevant at all?

Actually, the more I think about it, the more I become 'not sure'.

Do you think the most recent Blues draft history gives you confidence that they know better than 6 other clubs?

Crows are a pretty good drafting team overlooked Stocker three times.

All the clubs I mentioned didn’t rate Stocker in the best top 10 picks.

I really think you are overrating SOS ability to trade/draft due to him being a club legend.

 

[blue_trinity]

Do you think the most recent Blues draft history

Is there supposed to be more attached to this sentence? Or am I missing something?

 

[LemmingMaster]

Do you think the most recent Blues draft history gives you confidence that they know better than 6 other clubs?

Crows are a pretty good drafting team overlooked Stocker three times.

All the clubs I mentioned didn’t rate Stocker in the best top 10 picks.

I really think you are overrating SOS ability to trade/draft due to him being a club legend.

In recent history tell me our bad picks.

 

[eastfreo75]

In recent history tell me our bad picks.

Since 2015 when SOS took over, in terms of drafting a lot of pass mark picks (remember it's an easier to get a game at the Blues) and no brainer picks ie Walsh, Weitering, SPS.

Their no evidence that shows he has a superior ability to spot talent.

It's a massive gamble for a player that other teams didn't rated highly as the Blues.

Nathan Murphy is the classic example of a club overrating a player that others clearly didn't rate.

Collingwood out of the own mouth where considering Murphy at pick 6, but went pick 39.

Their a huge question marks over Stocker's ability to spread and play another role than inside mid. Richmond already spoke to him about improving his spread.

He maybe the player who gets a lot of stats but your team get killed on the spread.

 

[Jeremias]

All the clubs I mentioned didn’t rate Stocker in the best top 10 picks.

Prove it.

The reality is that we know only where one club - Carlton - rated Stocker.

 

[eastfreo75]

Prove it.

The reality is that we know only where one club - Carlton - rated Stocker.

Suns had pick 6 and need inside midfielders. Ben King is more of a flight risk than Stocker. Maybe, they did have Stocker in the top 10.
GWS had picks 11 and pick and they picked Hately who is an inside mid.
Crows had picks 9,16 and 19 and they placed a bid on Thomas.
Cats had pick 15.
Dockers had pick 17 and need more help in the middle. If they rated him pick 10, then they would have picked him.
Port had picks 12 and 18.

I don't rate Freo's and Suns ability to spot first round talent but the other teams have a pretty good record.

Doesn't take rocket science to work out that at least 5 clubs didn't rate Stocker in the top 10.

 

[AndyLucimitis]

Since 2015 when SOS took over, in terms of drafting a lot of pass mark picks (remember it's an easier to get a game at the Blues) and no brainer picks ie Walsh, Weitering, SPS.

Their no evidence that shows he has a superior ability to spot talent.

It's a massive gamble for a player that other teams didn't rated highly as the Blues.

Nathan Murphy is the classic example of a club overrating a player that others clearly didn't rate.

Collingwood out of the own mouth where considering Murphy at pick 6, but went pick 39.

Their a huge question marks over Stocker's ability to spread and play another role than inside mid. Richmond already spoke to him about improving his spread.

He maybe the player who gets a lot of stats but your team get killed on the spread.

You say ' no brainer' picks but he chose Charlie Curnow at Pick 12-ish when 10 other clubs overlooked him. Does he get credit for that ?

Don't quote me on the exact draft positions but Zac Fisher at 25 and Tom Williamson at 60-odd are also looking to be great gets.