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

[Cleric]

I love how people put forward ‘never bottoming out’ like it’s some great achievement. All it indicates is that your club doesn’t like taking risks, and as a result never gets rewards.

Carlton have been down the bottom because the club tries to take huge risks in order to succeed. Even right now they’re rebuilding a list which they gutted after winning a final just 5 years ago because being average is not an achievement at Carlton. The supporter base agreed that they’d rather 4-5 years of pain and then sustained dominance rather than hover around the middle of the ladder year in year out like the Crows fans seemingly love to do.

Its far easier to lose games than win them. You must be so strong at Carlton.

 

[Jeremias]

Back on topic thanks everyone.

Discuss the trade in here and find another thread to discuss whatever else you want.

Head to Bay 13 if you want to troll.

 

[Robertio]

Thats a knock out punch. Close thread.

There's a few more rounds to go yet my friend, you wont know the result of this trade for a few years. But i always love it when the opposition are over confident.

 

[119others]

There's a few more rounds to go yet my friend, you wont know the result of this trade for a few years. But i always love it when the opposition are over confident.

Can’t wait

 

[Patty_Moz]

Not that I care which team wins this trade I'd much prefer if Carlton do well and don't give up a to 3 pick next year. That way more developing teams who are likely to have top picks will be willing to take a gamble like this in the future.

It kinda reminds me of the Dockers trade of pick 1, 20 & 36 for McPharlin and Croad. Out of that trade we got a 250 game AA chb and Croad was serviceable for us though ended up playing his best football back at the hawks. It wasn't a terrible trade. The problem was Hodge turned into arguably the best #1 pick we've seen and the hawks picked up Mitchell as well. This scared everybody off trading the #1 pick ever again. If it had have been Watts or even players like Gibbs or Murphy we would've been laughing and trading #1 wouldn't be so taboo. So my fingers are crossed this works out for Carlton.

 

[Jeremias]

Back on topic thanks everyone.

Discuss the trade in here and find another thread to discuss whatever else you want.

Head to Bay 13 if you want to troll.

It seems some people didn’t take notice of this warning.

Thread bans will be issued. And don’t come back whinging you as if you weren’t warned.

 

[Arr0w]

This deal will take a number of years, to determine if it was effective for both sides. It will be even more complicated if either and or both sides on-trade the picks for a combination of players/picks

 

[Robertio]

Interesting.

So you believe Silvagni is the right man to build Carlton's next premiership list?

He doesn't do it alone, now tell me who do you think will be busts from the last four drafts who were taken inside the top 20.

 

[Buzzasto DaSilva]

He doesn't do it alone, now tell me who do you think will be busts from the last four drafts who were taken inside the top 20.

It seems some people didn’t take notice of this warning.

Thread bans will be issued. And don’t come back whinging you as if you weren’t warned.

Sorry mate, we have been warned

 

[Cleric]

I really dont see why Carlton are getting slammed.
If they rated Stocker at pick 6 in a strong draft, and they get Adelaides first back as well, its not a big deal. I think Carlton will finish 17th to 16th. I think the Crows will finish around 8th.
So it would be pick 2 or 3 for pick 6 and pick 10 ish in Carltons mind. Seems reasonable to me.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

I really dont see why Carlton are getting slammed.
If they rated Stocker at pick 6 in a strong draft, and they get Adelaides first back as well, its not a big deal. I think Carlton will finish 17th to 16th. I think the Crows will finish around 8th.
So it would be pick 2 or 3 for pick 6 and pick 10 ish in Carltons mind. Seems reasonable to me.

There is a reason why a club with pick 2 or 3 will rarely trade for 6 and 10 (GC would have been offered that by the SA clubs this year and declined) as top 5 picks are prized.

Realistically Carltons pick needs to be no earlier than pick 7 for them to win on the trade and thats a big gamble given how much dross is on their list, a few injuries and they will struggle to win more than 2 or 3 games. I like Stocker but its not a risk i would have taken.

 

[DangerSloane]

There is a reason why a club with pick 2 or 3 will rarely trade for 6 and 10 (GC would have been offered that by the SA clubs this year and declined) as top 5 picks are prized.

Realistically Carltons pick needs to be no earlier than pick 7 for them to win on the trade and thats a big gamble given how much dross is on their list, a few injuries and they will struggle to win more than 2 or 3 games. I like Stocker but its not a risk i would have taken.

Especially if the draft isnt as deep in 2019 as people keep saying.
A top 4 pick might be worth even more than usual if its a shallow draft.

 

[La Dispute]

We’re set for young talent. A pick downgrade does little for us, and we’re absolutely no guarantee to retain the pick anyway. 12 months development into an extra first round mid is the part of this trade that continues to be overlooked.

Our midfield is currently the worst in the league and the aim this trade and trade period was to add extra players in this area, as realistically going forward all we’ve got for young talented mids are Dow, Fisher and SPS, and the latter two aren’t guaranteed to be playing as permanent midfielders.

Adding Walsh, Setterfield and Stocker does far more for us than a (hypothetical) Top 4 Pick in a weaker draft pool.

 

[Jeremias]

Realistically Carltons pick needs to be no earlier than pick 7 for them to win on the trade

Realistically?

I'd suggest this viewpoint is simplistic rather than realistic, given how much of the trade you seem to have ignored.

What if Stocker becomes a gun? If he does, do you really think we'll give a s**t we downgraded a future pick to get him through the door?

What if the player we select with Adelaide's pick becomes a gun?

What if we trade the pick for an established gun?

What if the player Adelaide selects next year doesn't develop as they hope?

There is a hell of a lot more to this trade, than just the finishing positions of both clubs in 2019.

 

[Robertio]

Realistically?

I'd suggest this viewpoint is simplistic rather than realistic, given how much of the trade you seem to have ignored.

What if Stocker becomes a gun? If he does, do you really think we'll give a s**t we downgraded a future pick to get him through the door?

What if the player we select with Adelaide's pick becomes a gun?

What if we trade the pick for an established gun?

What if the player Adelaide selects next year doesn't develop as they hope?

There is a hell of a lot more to this trade, than just the finishing positions of both clubs in 2019.

Have told them this but they only hear what they want to hear. Stocker only has to become a regular 22 player for the trade to be a good one. I actally think the Carlton bashers don't understand this.

 

[DangerSloane]

We’re set for young talent. A pick downgrade does little for us, and we’re absolutely no guarantee to retain the pick anyway. 12 months development into an extra first round mid is the part of this trade that continues to be overlooked.

Our midfield is currently the worst in the league and the aim this trade and trade period was to add extra players in this area, as realistically going forward all we’ve got for young talented mids are Dow, Fisher and SPS, and the latter two aren’t guaranteed to be playing as permanent midfielders.

Adding Walsh, Setterfield and Stocker does far more for us than a (hypothetical) Top 4 Pick in a weaker draft pool.

No team is ever 'set for young talent'
That is one of the dumbest things I've seen said on BF.

That and you're counting your already held draft picks like Walsh and your recruits like Setterfield as part of the 'transaction'.

Absolutely deluded.

 

[DangerSloane]

Realistically?

I'd suggest this viewpoint is simplistic rather than realistic, given how much of the trade you seem to have ignored.

What if Stocker becomes a gun? If he does, do you really think we'll give a s**t we downgraded a future pick to get him through the door?

What if the player we select with Adelaide's pick becomes a gun?

What if we trade the pick for an established gun?

What if the player Adelaide selects next year doesn't develop as they hope?

There is a hell of a lot more to this trade, than just the finishing positions of both clubs in 2019.

And then all of those things in reverse are equally as likely.
You're correct when you say that you cant just put a number on it.

Its a "lets see in 5 years" type scenario.

It was a big bold move from the Blues given the position they're in. They obviously think they're further along than anyone else does.

 

[slashin_velvet]

And then all of those things in reverse are equally as likely.
You're correct when you say that you cant just put a number on it.

Its a "lets see in 5 years" type scenario.

It was a big bold move from the Blues given the position they're in. They obviously think they're further along than anyone else does.

Or that you're further behind than you think....or both.

See the saints video:
A: "we need to find a team who thinks they'll finish higher than they will"
B: "Adelaide"

 

[La Dispute]

No team is ever 'set for young talent'
That is one of the dumbest things I've seen said on BF.

That and you're counting your already held draft picks like Walsh and your recruits like Setterfield as part of the 'transaction'.

Absolutely deluded.

If you look at the aims of our rebuild it was to

1. Hit the draft hard in the early stages of the reset, and then
2. Trade in for established players once we’ve drafted in what we believed to be foundations of our team going forward

Naturally there would be some crossover, which is why we’ve gone after attainable players to supplement early draft selections who are still young players themselves (Plowman, Marchbank, Kennedy, Setterfield, McGovern). You’ve taken my explanation that we’re ‘set for young talent’ far too literally - of course we will continue to add young players to the squad, but this particular trade reveals we’re going to halt stockpiling early picks after this draft. (Or we believe Adelaide are on the decline, which I can’t see being the case)

I’m also not sure why you’re equating highlighting our obvious prioritisation of our midfield, bringing in Walsh, Setterfield and Stocker with the specifics of the trade itself? Naturally the players a club brings in are going to reflect the needs of the squad - we wanted another topline mid, and believe we’ve got one in Stocker.

 

[Suma Magic]

Or that you're further behind than you think....or both.

See the saints video:
A: "we need to find a team who thinks they'll finish higher than they will"
B: "Adelaide"

I don’t remember them saying higher than they will. Just a team who thinks they will finish high.

 

[Suma Magic]

It’s a hard one to project.

One way would be to consider if the trade was done 100 times, how many times would each club likely win? Difficult to say.

But based on:

pick 19
and
future of team that is 8th favourite (potentially 11)

for

Future of team that is 17th favourite (potentially 2)

I think if you ran this scenario 100 times that the crows might win 60 times. That’s just a guess though.

There is probably a way to actually estimate it based on history of picks and a historical distribution of the finishing positions of the teams who were the 8th and 17th favourites going into the season.

 

[La Dispute]

It’s a hard one to project.

One way would be to consider if the trade was done 100 times, how many times would each club likely win? Difficult to say.

But based on:

pick 19
and
future of team that is 8th favourite (potentially 11)

for

Future of team that is 17th favourite (potentially 2)

I think if you ran this scenario 100 times that the crows might win 60 times. That’s just a guess though.

There is probably a way to actually estimate it based on history of picks and a historical distribution of the finishing positions of the teams who were the 8th and 17th favourites going into the season.

That’s purely on the metrics of the trade though. It’s hard to properly evaluate if you remove it from context and disregard the success or failure of Stocker.

If it ends up being Stocker(19) and (11) for 2 then on points Adelaide come out on top (on points) but it completely removes the utility of Stocker and creates a fixed evaluation on 2 and 11.

If you want to determine a winner you’d need to look at it in 2025.

Pick 2 night end up being the 5th best player in the draft, Pick 11 might be the 4th best player in the draft and Stocker might be the 9th best in his draft. It’s all projection and hypothesis at this stage.

 

[Toadvine]

Or that you're further behind than you think....or both.

See the saints video:
A: "we need to find a team who thinks they'll finish higher than they will"
B: "Adelaide"

He actually said "we need a team who thinks they are going to go well next year"
Gubby Allen responds by saying "well that's Adelaide"

 

[Suma Magic]

That’s purely on the metrics of the trade though. It’s hard to properly evaluate if you remove it from context and disregard the success or failure of Stocker.

If it ends up being Stocker(19) and (11) for 2 then on points Adelaide come out on top (on points) but it completely removes the utility of Stocker and creates a fixed evaluation on 2 and 11.

If you want to determine a winner you’d need to look at it in 2025.

Pick 2 night end up being the 5th best player in the draft, Pick 11 might be the 4th best player in the draft and Stocker might be the 9th best in his draft. It’s all projection and hypothesis at this stage.

Yeah I'm just talking about how to scientifically project the likelihood of a winner at this point.

I think the best way would be to get the standard distributions for the 17th and 8th favourite teams in terms of where they actually finish. And obviously pick 19.

Then the distributions for each draft pick 1-19.

Then combine them and run heaps of simulations.

So simulations might be:

19 (gun) and 10 (dud)
for
5 (dud)

19 (average) and 14 (average
for
3 (above average)

If you did this 10,000 times you would know who the likely winner is and the distribution of potential results (based on history).

Although obviously even if this said that Carlton had a 30% chance of winning the trade, they still may end up winning big.

I wonder if any teams do this in their draft and trading due diligence. I think it would be a useful tool to help inform decision-making.

 

[La Dispute]

Yeah I'm just talking about how to scientifically project the likelihood of a winner at this point.

I think the best way would be to get the standard distributions for the 17th and 8th favourite teams in terms of where they actually finish. And obviously pick 19.

Then the distributions for each draft pick 1-19.

Then combine them and run heaps of simulations.

So simulations might be:

19 (gun) and 10 (dud)
for
5 (dud)

19 (average) and 14 (average
for
3 (above average)

If you did this 10,000 times you would know who the likely winner is and the distribution of potential results (based on history).

Although obviously even if this said that Carlton had a 30% chance of winning the trade, they still may end up winning big.

I wonder if any teams do this in their draft and trading due diligence. I think it would be a useful tool to help inform decision-making.

Plus you’d then need to evaluate the quality of each draft, and also look at the possibility of each player being a bust entirely, which is a greater factor for us given our picks are (and are likely to be) later. We do have twice the assets though, so we could be big winners if the player Adelaide selects turns out to be average.