List Mgmt. COLLINGWOOD Trade and F/A Discussion 2022-->

[Anzacday]

Key dates attached so we know what’s going on when.

• Friday 30 September at 9.00am

• AFL Restricted Free Agency and Unrestricted Free Agency Period commences

Monday 03 October at 9.00am

• AFL Trade Period commences – Players & Selections

Friday 07 October at 5.00pm

• Close of AFL Restricted Free Agency Offer and Unrestricted Free Agency Period.

Monday 10 October

• AFL Draft Nominations open (9am)
• AFL Restricted Free Agency Matching Offer 3 Day Period Ends (5pm)

Wednesday 12 October at 7.30pm

• AFL Trade Period closes – players and selections

Thursday 03 November at 9.00am

• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) commences

Wednesday 09 November at 5.00pm

• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (1) closes

Friday 11 November at 9.00am

• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) commences

Tuesday 15 November by 5.00pm

• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (2) closes
• AFL Trade Period closes – selections only

Monday 21 November by 3.00pm

• AFL Draft Nominations close

Monday 28 November at 7.10pm

• 2022 AFL Draft Round One (Venue TBC)
• Father/Son, Academy & NGA and Players Bidding opens.

Tuesday 29 November

• AFL Trade Period – selections only (5.45pm to 6.30pm)
• 2022 AFL National Draft Round two until completion (7pm)
• Rookie Upgrade Period opens (10pm)
• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) commences (10pm)
• Rookie Upgrade Period closes (11pm)
• AFL Delisted Player Free Agency Period (3) closes (11pm)

Wednesday 30 November

• AFL Pre-Season Draft (3pm, online)
• AFL Rookie Draft (3.20pm, online)

Thursday 01 December by 4.00pm

• Final AFL Club List Lodgement

 

[adammania9]

You don't even have a case - leaning on disposal efficiency, and 0.1 goals more per game plus some F50 stats for Jackson when he played 65 - 70% of his game time forward is hilarious.

Seriously pass around some of what you're smoking mate because it must be good s**t.

p.s. This is all in the context of your assertion that Jackson is considerably better now than Grundy was back then, which he most certainly wasn't no matter how you try to twist the stat's around to make your case.

Grundy wasn’t fielding such significant offers which would have cost 2 first round picks at the same age. That’s for sure

Nice of you to cherry-pick the closest stat you could, rather than talk about the significantly better centre clearances or disposal efficiency for example

 

[KinderSmock]

The afl officials are only there between 9am and 5pm. That obviously doesn't stop clubs from negotiating their way to a final deal overnight though ready for submitting the next morning.

They're calling each other at very obscure hours to organise deals and discuss players. This is their equivalent of tax time, Christmas or exams. The 24 hours before the deadline day is basically an all-nighter for some teams who work extensively to organise everything. It's not just the trade that has to be done; there's paperwork, negotiations with players, organising accomodation, etc.

 

[tranquilli lace]

Coincidently, Tom's brain achieved net zero years ago.

 

[Mollythedolly]

All that does is support my case tbh

Jackson ahead in goals, contested marks, effective disposals/disposal efficiency, marks inside 50, clangers, centre clearances, inside 50's and intercepts. Practically every key metric has Jackson ahead.

You can have Grundy's superior turnover rates and hitouts to opposition advantage

LOL, how desperate are you to badmouth Grundy.

Jackson has more effective disposals because he handballs about 60% of his possessions, Grundy less than 1/2. Jackson also had an average 3.5 effective kicks per game. Grundy 4.6.

He has more marks I50 because he plays predominantly as a forward.

Ditto his goals and for a guy playing predominantly as a KPF, is the 0.1 goals a game average difference something to recommend him or an indictment on his forward craft? That's +1 goals every 10 games.

Grundy has more disposals, more marks, more clearances, over twice as many hitouts, more score involvements.

Grundy's hitout win % in 2015 was 40.7%, Jackon 33.2%. Grundy's hitouts to advantage were 32.9%, Jackson 28.8%.

Your claim doesn't even pass the optics test.

 

[Prexm]

Yea and it looks like now we're going to be stuck with them whilst trading a future 3rd round in a deeper draft where we've already given away our second. The only upside of trading out of our 2nd and 3rd rounds next year is that it means we can't do something stupid like trading away our future first which I wouldn't put past our list management team.

What's the bet we'll end up being stuck with these picks and passing on them on draft night due to lack of list spots.

The only team that would be interested in 50 and 51 combined would be Essendon with pick 42. The other option could be Brisbane with one of them and our earlier 3rd rounder for the McStay compo pick. Not many options.

 

[unplugged]

Trade dominos appear to be Logue/Tucker to North and then Jackson to Fremantle. Then Grundy to Melbourne.

 

[JuniorB]

We've done quite well with cheap players who have never before had a shot at AFL footy - like Noble, Johnson, Cox and Mihochek - and players close to the end of their AFL career - like Roughead. I guess Lipinski and Cameron came cheap from other clubs, although Cameron had never been given a game at senior level by Sydney. Cameron showed in the second half of the season why Sydney was prepared to let him go cheaply.

Frampton may prove to be an inspired draftee, but he comes to us with deficiencies which seem to contradict the reason for getting him - he does not seem like someone who is going to negate a big forward and free up our other intercept players.

Cheap players can paper over cracks, but we really need a class big forward and defender, and they won't come cheaply.

We're still fixing the salary cap, so in the short term, carefully selected "cheap" players can play a role.
The really classy KPFs & KPDs would cost big bucks in money & trade currency, unless we draft them and develop them.
Of course, the latter will always be a bit of a lottery.
I think GW made a comment in relation to Grundy, referring to the long term, so what might seem like baby steps, could in reality be preparation for something big.
We wait with bated breath!

 

[Matt_352]

I suppose it'd be too much to ask for this:

Bedford + 27 for 19
Grundy + 16 for 13 + 19 :/

 

[adammania9]

LOL, how desperate are you to badmouth Grundy.

He has more effective disposals because he handballs about 60% of his possessions, Grundy less than 1/2. Jackson also had an average 3.5 effective kicks per game. Grundy 4.6.

He has more marks I50 because he plays predominantly as a forward.

Ditto his goals and for a guy playing predominantly as a KPF, is the 0.1 goals a game average difference something to recommend him or an indictment on his forward craft? That's +1 goals every 10 games.

Grundy has more disposals, more marks, more clearances, over twice as many hitouts, more score involvements.

Grundy's hitout win % in 2015 was 40.7%, Jackon 33.2%. Grundy's hitouts to advantage were 32.9%, Jackson 28.8%.

Your claim doesn't even pass the optics test.

More disposals? More ineffective disposals you mean. Far more clangers. Young Grundy was an awful user of the football. Well done to Jackson for using the handball efficiently, as opposed to Grundy opting to kick inefficiently. Jackson a far cleaner and more polished footballer. This is why Fremantle and West Coast are arm wrestling for his services at big coin

 

[Lifelong Pie]

I suppose it'd be too much to ask for this:

Bedford + 27 for 19
Grundy + 16 for 13 + 19 :/

With our negotiators at work we would be more likely to end up with just 19

 

[Everybody Panic]

You guys arguing over dumb s**t. Grundy was a really promising ruck who turned elite and then fell off. Time will tell if he makes it back (i doubt it). Jackson is a really promising ruck who has performed at the biggest stage and could turn elite moving forward. Time will tell (I think he will be a top 5 ruck in the next few years). Their value is so far apart and has no relation to each other. It's like arguing that Tom Mitchell and Tim Taranto

14

Tim Taranto

Age

26

Ht

188cm

Wt

87kg

Pos.

Mid

Career

Season

Last 5

D

22.3

5star

K

12.8

5star

HB

9.5

5star

M

3.6

4star

T

5.6

5star

CL

4.1

5star

D

17.0

4star

K

12.0

5star

HB

5.0

3star

M

1.5

2star

T

3.0

4star

CL

5.5

5star

D

15.6

4star

K

7.6

3star

HB

8.0

5star

M

1.8

2star

T

4.0

5star

CL

2.2

4star

should be compared.

 

[Matt_352]

With our negotiators at work we would be more likely to end up with just 19

Heck I'd take 19 over 27 lol just trying for a bit more haha. I can see us copping just 27 going off our track record

 

[Lifelong Pie]

Heck I'd take 19 over 27 lol just trying for a bit more haha. I can see us copping just 27 going off our track record

I meant if we gave up Grundy and 16

 

[Frankie23]

Considering our abundance of 3rd round picks this year, find it weird we would give our future third for Frampton.

Something definitely up, can see us trading up the board quite aggressively with our thirds to teams who need the points.

 

[Jen2310]

Considering our abundance of 3rd round picks this year, find it weird we would give our future third for Frampton.

Something definitely up, can see us trading up the board quite aggressively with our thirds to teams who need the points.

Crows dont have the list spots to use more picks this year than needed.

 

[MyManLynch]

Pick 27 just know it will be this.

To be used as part of Mitchell deal?

 

[Ballsontheline]

If we get 27 for Grundy how do we shift that into Brisbane's 15?

You won't. You're shifting that into Hawthorn for Mitchell

 

[unplugged]

You won't. You're shifting that into Hawthorn for Mitchell

I'm at the point now where I wouldn't even care if we essentially traded Grundy for Mitchell.

I know most here won't feel the same way, however.

 

[Matt_352]

Grundy for 27 + Dees Future 3rd
Dees future 3rd for Frampton
27 for Mitchell

Means Grundy for Mitchell + Frampton and we keep our future 3rd?

 

[Ballsontheline]

Grundy for 27 + Dees Future 3rd
Dees future 3rd for Frampton
27 for Mitchell

Means Grundy for Mitchell + Frampton?

Pretty much spot on

 

[stormskye]

I'm at the point now where I wouldn't even care if we essentially traded Grundy for Mitchell.

I know most here won't feel the same way, however.

I’m with you. But in saying that in here, I feel like this

 

[ant22]

Considering our abundance of 3rd round picks this year, find it weird we would give our future third for Frampton.

Something definitely up, can see us trading up the board quite aggressively with our thirds to teams who need the points.

I wouldn’t be surprised if we tried to package something up for the lions first rounder

 

[Matt_352]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we tried to package something up for the lions first rounder

Hope we do

 

[partypie]

Grundy wasn’t fielding such significant offers which would have cost 2 first round picks at the same age. That’s for sure

Nice of you to cherry-pick the closest stat you could, rather than talk about the significantly better centre clearances or disposal efficiency for example

That's far more of a reflection of how heavily overrated Jackson is right now than Grundy was back then.

To be honest I don't think the competition knew what it had on its hands back when Grundy was developing and ruckmen who were also an influence in the contest that followed the tap (and then around the ground) were valued far less than they are now.

I also didn't cherry pick any stats, that's what you're doing with contested marks, marks inside F50, disposal efficiency and goals amongst other things which lend themselves better to a forward ruck like Jackson.

 

[partypie]

I wouldn’t be surprised if we tried to package something up for the lions first rounder

I'm still holding out hope this is our end game, three first round picks this year (if Grundy and Henry depart).

Might be a pipe dream at this point though...