List Mgmt. 2016 List Management: Contracts, Trading, Drafting, Academy

[Jaffa Fan]

gold

$US1246.50 per ounce.

 

[coniglio_number1]

I could see us trading out collingwoods pick if it ends up top 5 for a 2017 first and second.

 

[eth-dog]

So, apparently we're keen on Jono Patton. Would a deal like:

Patton + pick ~15 (Geelong) for pick 2/3 interest you? I'm not overly keen on going without a first round pick, but I think that trade may suit both parties.

 

[Jaffa Fan]

So, apparently we're keen on Jono Patton. Would a deal like:

Patton + pick ~15 (Geelong) for pick 2/3 interest you? I'm not overly keen on going without a first round pick, but I think that trade may suit both parties.

No thanks.

 

[eth-dog]

No thanks.

Fair enough, what are your concerns?

 

[dlanod]

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/trade-hypotheticals-opposition-posters-post-here.1130081/

 

[Jaffa Fan]

Fair enough, what are your concerns?

I'd rather keep Jon given he wants to stay than start over with someone else.

 

[coniglio_number1]

#standbythegeneral

 

[Colonial]

So, apparently we're keen on Jono Patton. Would a deal like:

Patton + pick ~15 (Geelong) for pick 2/3 interest you? I'm not overly keen on going without a first round pick, but I think that trade may suit both parties.

Thats ok. We arent overly keen on letting the General go.

Why after persevering with him with injuries would we then dump him?
Plus he loves it up here

 

[Giant Strides]

I could see us trading out collingwoods pick if it ends up top 5 for a 2017 first and second.

I agree WRT trading Collingwood's pick out, except that IIRC from the future trading rules, clubs can't trade out a first & second (or indeed any other) round in the same year, but could trade the second (or other) round this year & first round next year. I would think that Collingwood, Melbourne & Geelong who all traded their 2016 first round picks would be likely to want to get back into the 2016 draft, and thus be open to such a trade. We traded favourably (IMO) to Melbourne in 2015, and they've reconstructed well, so might do us a favourable deal. Collingwood are probably not so well disposed towards us, but might be desperate if they end up finishing poorly this year.

 

[Giant Strides]

I kind of see it as a win-win. We need depth and you blokes need elite talent, having very good players running around in the magoos while also having to reduce the list size over the next few years.

Agree with the point about really high end talent and list reduction, but we've really got that talent there already. I do agree that on the surface your proposal is a win-win. Certainly a win for Carlton in that it speeds your reconstruction. It's a win for GWS if the #1 pick proves to be a long term star for us. But if he goes home, it wouldn't be, so that's a risk that we're taking, which is not as big if we just focus on NSW talent.

As well, I'm seeing your own argument working against you here. You're arguing to The Sheik on the Carlton board that #1 draft pick has too much mystique but doesn't always work for a club, and more lesser first round picks is often better (or at least spreads the risk) - I just see that the same argument applies for GWS.

We've got a third round pick we could hand over as well to help with points. As long as you blokes have enough to draft the blokes you want from the academy, and can also use pick 1 on whomever you guys want.

Yes, that's true. It will depend on who the club see as 'need', 'want' or just 'like'. But as you see with the analysis, we would compromise exactly which NSW kids we could take. That's certainly not a problem if we really rated and wanted a kid who we needed #1 to get.

The other big variable is you might be looking to forgo trading for pick 1 and instead use some of your surplus picks this year to trade for future picks next year (to pay for academy players in 18).

Yep, that's my point - if we don't take pick #1 this year under your proposal we would have the same points (approximately) next year, equivalent to roughly picks 8 & 9 ready for the 2017 academy class. I think that GWS will take this strategy to be honest.

 

[Malifice]

As well, I'm seeing your own argument working against you here. You're arguing to The Sheik on the Carlton board that #1 draft pick has too much mystique but doesn't always work for a club, and more lesser first round picks is often better (or at least spreads the risk) - I just see that the same argument applies for GWS.

But you already have a cluster of low picks - your academy selections. You're looking to have around four in the top twenty picks including two in the top five picks of the draft this year. Those boys are coming regardless I would imagine (unless you get a crazy early bid for one of the later picks that you dont want to match).

You're going to have to pay for them. If they go as currently predicted (a lot of water to go under the bridge just yet) thats going to wipe out your 1st round picks this year (matching bids at picks 3, 4, 9 and 19 - even with the Academy discount - will push your next 'live' pick into the 30's).

When it comes to the player in question leaving, thats an advantage of pick 1. You guys can do your research on your target and speak to him (frankly) about if he would be happy up north.

Yep, that's my point - if we don't take pick #1 this year under your proposal we would have the same points (approximately) next year, equivalent to roughly picks 8 & 9 ready for the 2017 academy class. I think that GWS will take this strategy to be honest.

If your current academy crop (this year) go anywhere near where they're predicted to go at present (and you match those bids), its going to use up all your picks this year (based on a forecast of you holding 5 from the Pies, 12 of your own, 15 from Geelong and 28 from Freo for CM as ballparks).

If you want your academy boys and points for 2017 you'll need to trade a few wantaway players or players surplus to your needs for future picks. Tomlinson is a name that came up last year (and nearly crossed over to us) and there are rumors or options/ possibilities around Marchbank and maybe even someone like Patton or Whitfield.

 

[Giant Strides]

You're going to have to pay for them. If they go as currently predicted (a lot of water to go under the bridge just yet) thats going to wipe out your 1st round picks this year (matching bids at picks 3, 4, 9 and 19 - even with the Academy discount - will push your next 'live' pick into the 30's).

If you want your academy boys and points for 2017 you'll need to trade a few wantaway players or players surplus to your needs for future picks. Tomlinson is a name that came up last year (and nearly crossed over to us) and there are rumors or options/ possibilities around Marchbank and maybe even someone like Patton or Whitfield.

Have to disagree with you here. See my post #215 - I analysed the numbers based on your power rankings. Holding the current picks and only trading out Tomlinson & Marchbank - which is the same result as in your proposed Carlton trade - GWS can keep just under 3000 points for future picks and take our top 4 ranked NSW kids in 2016. Just no #1 draft pick. And I don't think we should want to take a fifth player. Maybe as a rookie selection, but not national draft.

Bottom line - your proposal is valid and I expect that GWS would examine if it's worthwhile to go that strategy. But in the end I think that GWS will do the same as last year and stick with academy selections, no more than 4 (unless we lose more kids than expected), and roll some picks into 2017.

Probably that's enough from me on this topic; it's a long way out and a lot of signings or not to analyse before we get too serious about trade hypotheticals.

 

[Malifice]

Have to disagree with you here. See my post #215 - I analysed the numbers based on your power rankings. Holding the current picks and only trading out Tomlinson & Marchbank - which is the same result as in your proposed Carlton trade - GWS can keep just under 3000 points for future picks and take our top 4 ranked NSW kids in 2016. Just no #1 draft pick. And I don't think we should want to take a fifth player. Maybe as a rookie selection, but not national draft.

Bottom line - your proposal is valid and I expect that GWS would examine if it's worthwhile to go that strategy. But in the end I think that GWS will do the same as last year and stick with academy selections, no more than 4 (unless we lose more kids than expected), and roll some picks into 2017.

Probably that's enough from me on this topic; it's a long way out and a lot of signings or not to analyse before we get too serious about trade hypotheticals.

The problem with saving 3000 points for 2017, is it doesnt work that way. You cant carry points/ picks over to 2017. The academy selections push picks back this round, and then if you pass on those later picks (which you blokes will) thats it. If you want extra points for 17, youll need to trade something out this year for picks in 2017. Which I agree is also a valid strategy. Uncontracted players leaving get you less that market value however. Im not sure that Marchbank and Tomlinson leaving on their own (assuming a trade for future picks in 17) would net you blokes 3000 points (two top ten picks) in 2017 though. You'd need to lost a Patton or Whitfield or similar for that kind of value.

Agree its a long way out, and a lot of things could change between now and the end of the year (academy selections will shift, first rounders from Pies, us, Cats, Freo and you blokes need to be sorted etc).

Intresting hypothetical from a list management perspective though.

 

[Giant Strides]

The problem with saving 3000 points for 2017, is it doesn't work that way. You cant carry points/ picks over to 2017.

Yes, I know that. In post #215 I said ' Trade some of those into future first & second round picks before the draft of course, but essentially the cost of the 4 academy kids still leaves 2996 pts in future picks.' I just didn't bother repeating everything I said earlier, but paraphrased it.

 

[Giant Pete]

Tomlinson not in the best from the NEAFL game. I think he's gone at the end of the year.

 

[Big Stinky Monk]

Really wishing we took Freo's future first rounder about now ...

 

[Giant Strides]

Really wishing we took Freo's future first rounder about now ...

Console yourself with the thought that if we'd taken it, Sunshine would be playing for them, and they might not be quite so crap this year, and their first rounder wouldn't be as attractive!

 

[Big Stinky Monk]

Console yourself with the thought that if we'd taken it, Sunshine would be playing for them, and they might not be quite so crap this year, and their first rounder wouldn't be as attractive!

I doubt he'd be making much difference. After our board was inundated a few months back by freo supporters lecturing us on how bad our culture is because we expected a contract to be honoured, i am finding it very amusing reading all of the theories on why things have turned bad for them.

 

[Parolee]

I doubt he'd be making much difference. After our board was inundated a few months back by freo supporters lecturing us on how bad our culture is because we expected a contract to be honoured, i am finding it very amusing reading all of the theories on why things have turned bad for them.

Still think they'll beat us though

 

[dlanod]

Still think they'll beat us though

They couldn't beat Carlton. And they come over here for the first time. We should get our first win against them this year if both continue their current form.

 

[Parolee]

They couldn't beat Carlton. And they come over here for the first time. We should get our first win against them this year if both continue their current form.

Don't we play them in 2 weeks over there?

 

[dlanod]

Don't we play them in 2 weeks over there?

Yeah, no way am I pencilling that one in given how badly we travel to WA but the return game I'd be more confident in already.

 

[Parolee]

Yeah, no way am I pencilling that one in given how badly we travel to WA but the return game I'd be more confident in already.

Maybe we have $5 Domino's pizzas and not Mrs Coniglio's pasta this time and we get closer to a win?

 

[Giant Strides]

I doubt he'd be making much difference. After our board was inundated a few months back by freo supporters lecturing us on how bad our culture is because we expected a contract to be honoured, i am finding it very amusing reading all of the theories on why things have turned bad for them.

Certainly agree with the latter thought. On the former, apart from the game against the Bulldogs, which was genuinely a bad game, and despite them having a number of problems across the park, they've actually been quite close at times in the remaining games, and part of their losses has been their poor goalkicking (and I think the loss of confidence that comes with getting into the F50 and screwing it up repeatedly). Sunshine, on song, was a very good kick for goal, so I think he would have given them enough to have won a couple of games (certainly today). Hence they'd finish a few rungs higher up - but not saying they'd be top 4 material.