List Mgmt. 2016 Free Agency/Trades/Draft thread Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,736
Likes
19,778
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
No, it's a sunk cost. Here's a non-blender related example:

2015: Menzel + Milera + Hampton come into the side for $X. That $X could have been spent to buy something else, now it's a sunk cost.
2016: Hartlett comes into the side for $X. That $X could have been spent to buy something else, now it's a sunk cost.

Two separate decisions made at different points of time with different alternatives to choose between. An opportunity cost would require a reality where Hartlett is available in 2015, like this:

2015: Menzel + Milera + Hampton come into the side for $X. We choose not to sign Hartlett for $X. Hartlett becomes the opportunity cost.

That way, if Hartlett has an amazing 2016 (haha he didn't), we can THEN say that M+M+H was a trade failure. Because of opportunity costs. Because we, at the same point in time, made a bad decision.
Bit of both.. the 2015 players are a "sunk cost". Hartlett would be "opportunity cost".
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Iron

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
May 26, 2014
Posts
6,737
Likes
14,135
AFL Club
Adelaide
Last years choices are sunk costs, choices for this year are about opportunity costs.
They happen the minute after you've made them but yes that's correct. Your blender example, and how it relates to whether or not Hartlett's acquisition makes M+M+H's acquisition a failure, not so much.

Again, and lastly, we're just disagreeing on Hartlett's value, and whether or not our trades last year would retrospectively become failures. The rest is just fluff. Just wanted to make sure you focus on the point I was making, not about whether or not Hartlett is a 1,200 watt blender.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,736
Likes
19,778
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
It it, as long as that's why they were brought in took start with. We can't expect everyone in our list to be a first 22 player - some will need to be depth by definition.
Note - I'm not saying they were brought in for depth - just that your argument that at least three need to be best 22 is rubbish.
Given the price we paid, we need at least 3 of the 5 to be better than just "depth". They have to become best 22.

It is not good enough for us to lose the best player in the competition (likely to win this year's Brownlow), plus 2x 2nd round draft picks, to come up with nothing more than "improved depth". That would be a disastrous result.
 

1970crow

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jun 7, 2011
Posts
26,724
Likes
27,450
Location
alice springs
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think that would be fair. Plenty on here underating Hartlett who could be a very good player in the right environment. Doubt Power would do that trade with us though.
Hartlett is a good player, but is an underachiever on a long and overpriced contract. 3 strikes for mine.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
36,568
Likes
36,819
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Jury is, quite fairly, still out on the players traded in last year.

However it needs to be recognised that, as of right now, they are what their record said they were.

Need to be given 1 more year before a final assessment imo
I agree.

I just hope that all 3 are given a solid chance in the NAB to prove themselves. At the peak of their abilities, imo all 3 - Menzel, Hampton and Milera are starting 18 players and improve our team strength overall.
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
36,568
Likes
36,819
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Hartlett is a good player, but is an underachiever on a long and overpriced contract. 3 strikes for mine.
Port definitely want a first rounder for him, I dont think he is worth that especially given we need an elite midfielder which is where our first rounder should go towards if we were to trade it out.
 

arrowman

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jul 27, 2004
Posts
9,716
Likes
8,654
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
I'm fine with all that IF we land an A grader. I don't think Hartlett is that.
I tend to agree. Maybe - maybe - the club has a different view, and maybe they see/know things that we don't (about how and why he has performed / not performed the way he has) - but I would see him as a risk.

As for "if" we land an A-grader - I'm afraid that this trade period will pan out like many before - we don't land an A-grader and BF posters melt because they think we should have. Because trade rumours had us in line for Player X, and clearly because that didn't happen, we must have screwed up or not gone hard enough. But you can't just snap your fingers and make a trade happen.
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,736
Likes
19,778
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
I agree.

I just hope that all 3 are given a solid chance in the NAB to prove themselves. At the peak of their abilities, imo all 3 - Menzel, Hampton and Milera are starting 18 players and improve our team strength overall.
If all 3 can become starting 18 players, then the 2015 trading period will be a great success.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bicks

Premium Platinum
Joined
Jun 10, 2009
Posts
29,532
Likes
41,220
Location
Victorian Central Highlands
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
Gaping chasm?

They're massively on the downhill and getting JOM is another nail in the coffin. Guy straight up cant get on the park.

Jarman isnt AFL standard, and most people know it. I hope we dont pick him TBH.
I'm calling garbage on that statement, whilst I wouldn't advocate "over spending" for Ben Jarman just because he would be our first father/son the lad's only real deficiency is pace other than that he ticks almost all AFL standard boxes to my eye. Elite foot skills on both sides and Grade A football I.Q. more than counter his lack of top end pace.

If we can draft him with our 3rd or a later pick he could turn out to be a real steal....all of that resting on him selecting Adelaide as his preferred team.
 

Paladin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Posts
8,793
Likes
13,583
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
No.. it's a failure if none of them are able to establish themselves in our best 22, for a number of years. Anything less than 3 (of 5) best 22 players from that trading period and it has to be regarded as a failure. Right now, Seedsman is the only one who has come close to establishing himself - and he's fallen out of favour in the second half of the season (albeit not helped by injuries).

It is not enough for these players to be providing "depth".
Lol how can you say Seedsman has fallen out of favour. Do you live under a rock?
 

Vader

Sith Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2005
Posts
39,736
Likes
19,778
Location
Canberra
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Norwood, Adelaide Crows
Lol how can you say Seedsman has fallen out of favour. Do you live under a rock?
Sent back to the SANFL in R18. Only came back into the team as a result of Henderson injuring his achilles. From memory he wasn't named in the starting 18 in any of his last 3x AFL games.

The logical conclusion is that he'd fallen to 3rd in the Mackay/Henderson/Seedsman battle, and had become a fringe player just outside the best 22.
 

Sanders

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 1, 2012
Posts
25,438
Likes
32,836
AFL Club
Adelaide
I think that would be fair. Plenty on here underating Hartlett who could be a very good player in the right environment. Doubt Power would do that trade with us though.
I doubt they would too, but as I've said before the elephant in the room is why on earth do they want to do it?

Can't be list balance only 12 months ago they made him VC and gave him 5 years

They insist it's not relational with teammates

They insist it's not cap related

So why the hell are they trading a supposed cornerstone?

Makes no sense, except it will make perfect sense once it's becomes known which lie they're telling in denying why
 
Last edited:

Danger in Texas

DID I STUTTER?
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Posts
21,447
Likes
12,621
Location
Pluto
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Reds, Lakers, East Side, Knights
Okay, so a trade just popped into my head that could happen re: Lyons. I'm not sure if I'm happy with it or not, but it seems realistic. Let's assume Jarryd wants to go to Saints or North.

Adelaide get: 11, 29/10, 28
North/Saints get: Lyons, 15

Would we be happy with that?

Edit: Just realised Saints traded their 2nd last year, so the Saints option probably won't happen
 

GROTTO

Hall of Famer
Joined
Jul 5, 2013
Posts
36,568
Likes
36,819
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Okay, so a trade just popped into my head that could happen re: Lyons. I'm not sure if I'm happy with it or not, but it seems realistic. Let's assume Jarryd wants to go to Saints or North.

Adelaide get: 11, 29/10, 28
North/Saints get: Lyons, 15

Would we be happy with that?

Edit: Just realised Saints traded their 2nd last year, so the Saints option probably won't happen
What is 29/10 ?
 

Elite Crow

Premium Platinum
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Posts
48,446
Likes
63,157
Location
adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Sent back to the SANFL in R18. Only came back into the team as a result of Henderson injuring his achilles. From memory he wasn't named in the starting 18 in any of his last 3x AFL games.

The logical conclusion is that he'd fallen to 3rd in the Mackay/Henderson/Seedsman battle, and had become a fringe player just outside the best 22.
Man you speak some utter nonsense.

Wasn't Seedsman coming back from injury in round 18?

The starting 18 means nothing, you've ignored many times when Mackay has been named on the bench.

He has had no continuity in the second half of the season due to injury, you can't possibly deduce he's out of favour.
 

Paladin

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 4, 2008
Posts
8,793
Likes
13,583
Location
Adelaide
AFL Club
Adelaide
Sent back to the SANFL in R18. Only came back into the team as a result of Henderson injuring his achilles. From memory he wasn't named in the starting 18 in any of his last 3x AFL games.

The logical conclusion is that he'd fallen to 3rd in the Mackay/Henderson/Seedsman battle, and had become a fringe player just outside the best 22.
He has been injured you simpleton!

Nothing at all logical about it :p
 
Joined
Aug 20, 2015
Posts
1,043
Likes
3,257
AFL Club
Adelaide
Sent back to the SANFL in R18. Only came back into the team as a result of Henderson injuring his achilles. From memory he wasn't named in the starting 18 in any of his last 3x AFL games.

The logical conclusion is that he'd fallen to 3rd in the Mackay/Henderson/Seedsman battle, and had become a fringe player just outside the best 22.
He played in Round 17 after two weeks off with a hamstring/one week in the SANFL. He was then dropped to make way for Brown and Laird.

After another week in the SANFL he came straight back into the team and was named on the Wing in both Round 19 and Round 20.

Round 17:

OUT Mackay, Seedsman
IN Brown, Laid

Round 19:

IN Mackay, Seedsman
OUT Seedsman (Achilles), Walker (Ankle)

It's *possible* that he only came into the team because Henderson injured his achilles, but it is entirely possible that he would have come back in at his expense anyway. There is no evidence that allows one to jump to the conclusion that he had fallen to 3rd in the Mackay/Henderson/Seedsman battle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom