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

[Bostonian]

So, to use a metaphore;

Because we are rich and you are not, we are going to sell a fairly new car at junker costs?
And why would we help Carlton? What have you guys done for us?

Actually you sold us a better car last year for a price almost the same as the money we have to buy a car this year in the second row of the used car lot.

We aren't going to pay more for a car that's worth less than the car we bought off you last year.

 

[Colonial]

Actually you sold us a better car last year for a price almost the same as the money we have to buy a car this year in the second row of the used car lot.

We aren't going to pay more for a car that's worth less than the car we bought off you last year.

Actually no

You bought multiple vehicles of a lesser variety.

1- as academy rules have changed we arent going to be so easy

2- Marchbank is a better car. I mean player.

 

[Bostonian]

Actually no

You bought multiple vehicles of a lesser variety.

1- as academy rules have changed we arent going to be so easy

2- Marchbank is a better car. I mean player.

Pick 28,77 and 95 secured the lesser lights of that trade.

There is no evidence Marchbank is a better player. Lower games total, later pick and more injury prone. Those are reasons why we wouldn't pay more for him than we paid for Plowman.

 

[Colonial]

Pick 28,77 and 95 secured the lesser lights of that trade.

There is no evidence Marchbank is a better player. Lower games total, later pick and more injury prone. Those are reasons why we wouldn't pay more for him than we paid for Plowman.

The only reason you got the deal last year was the old academy rules.

Wont be the same this year.

Itll be a pick in the mid teens

 

[Bokonon]

Pick 28,77 and 95 secured the lesser lights of that trade.

There is no evidence Marchbank is a better player. Lower games total, later pick and more injury prone. Those are reasons why we wouldn't pay more for him than we paid for Plowman.

The problem I have is your argument when reduced to the bare essentials, is we've got a better list, and that entitles you to a better deal.
What's the fundamental dufference between that and we've gotbmore toys than you and so we have to give you some?

 

[Bostonian]

The problem I have is your argument when reduced to the bare essentials, is we've got a better list, and that entitles you to a better deal.
What's the fundamental dufference between that and we've gotbmore toys than you and so we have to give you some?

No, I'm saying we aren't going to pay more for Marchbank than we did for Plowman as he's shown no more than Plowman had at the same stage and he's more injury prone. If Plowman was worth a late first rounder then paying an early second rounder for Marchbank is around his market value going on the previous trade between the clubs.

 

[Bostonian]

The only reason you got the deal last year was the old academy rules.

Wont be the same this year.

Itll be a pick in the mid teens

If we don't have a pick in the mid teens then it'll be an early second rounder most likely for our 2017 pick.

 

[Bokonon]

No, I'm saying we aren't going to pay more for Marchbank than we did for Plowman as he's shown no more than Plowman had at the same stage and he's more injury prone. If Plowman was worth a late first rounder then paying an early second rounder for Marchbank is around his market value going on the previous trade between the clubs.

Actually you did say that.
I think this has gone as far as it can. I will leave it to others

 

[Colonial]

If we don't have a pick in the mid teens then it'll be an early second rounder most likely for our 2017 pick.

If you dont i would find one as a 2nd rounder wont do it on its own and new rules mean we cant stockpile junk picks.

 

[Bostonian]

If you dont i would find one as a 2nd rounder wont do it on its own and new rules mean we cant stockpile junk picks.

If you think second round picks are junk picks then you're of a very different mindset to most fans.

 

[Colonial]

If you think second round picks are junk picks then you're of a very different mindset to most fans.

Rightly or wrongly they arent beneficial to us this year unlike last year.

And we arent going to accept one for a player we believe has worth. I cant see it.

 

[OrangeDuck]

BORING.

Where's the sensible talk?

 

[grouse mate]

Pick 28,77 and 95 secured the lesser lights of that trade.

There is no evidence Marchbank is a better player. Lower games total, later pick and more injury prone. Those are reasons why we wouldn't pay more for him than we paid for Plowman.

And the year before? Pick 7 for 2 players. If Carlton want to blow trade relations between clubs over Marchbank then go right ahead.

 

[dlanod]

Cant agree with 2017 second round, although I get you're argument. Anyone you draft next year would be more of a risk. If Caleb is fit, he is proven at AFL level and I know from our youngsters you never really know until then. That's my opinion, would be interesting to see Dianod's, I would defer to him and others on trade value.

Definitely hasn't held his value because of his injuries, despite his impressive play to finish last year. I'd have him in the 12-15 range, or equivalent. I'd be disappointed if we let him walk for Carlton's future second rounder, but not devastated if we got a future third rounder as well in there somewhere.

 

[Giant Strides]

The usual argy bargy about trade value, but I love ( ) when opposition fans tell you what your club will accept for a player. However, I reluctantly agree with the opposition views that CFC won't trade either 2016 or 2017 first round picks - at least not outright or substantially. No way IMO will Marchbank go for 2016 pick #5 - even with other players (& I don't think it would be Tommo or Jack Steele) involved as Carlton will have a view resulting from the Jaksch/Whiley trade. But, like Dlanod, I'd see Marchbank even under all circumstances as a late first round pick value (or equivalent in later pick points, which is still OK this year, although can't be too many picks).

So I think it will come down to what GWS' trading goals are across this year and next. For example, if Jarrod Brander is removed from the academy, I could see GWS being more determined to get Marshall (although personally I wouldn't). That might cause them to try to do a deal that while less overall value, gave them something useful. e.g. getting Carlton's #5 but giving back #7 and maybe getting a CFC later rounder that we'd see as under in value, but gave us a better chance at Marshall. Personally, I hope not, because I think that approach is fraught with danger. The other option is, as Ian W says, future picks. Can't see Carlton giving up round 1 (in case they do suck next year) but I don't think they'll be second last (and I expect neither GWS nor CFC expect that) so a later pick is under value. But, unfortunately, I can see GWS taking something like that because the future extra pick would be valuable for next year's academy crop even if undervaluing Marchbank's worth.

This year we were lucky that the first year of future trading saw some clubs be adventurous with their future first rounders - but with 2017 supposedly a bumper draft and lessons learnt from this year I think clubs will very much clamp down and only offer later picks. They'll be in play for the very good players, but can't say that Marchbank has reached that category yet. Unfortunately I think we will have to put up with Carlton crowing about what great value they got from this trade.

 

[GreaterWeStener]

No, I'm saying we aren't going to pay more for Marchbank than we did for Plowman as he's shown no more than Plowman had at the same stage and he's more injury prone. If Plowman was worth a late first rounder then paying an early second rounder for Marchbank is around his market value going on the previous trade between the clubs.

While I agree that Plowman's trade value prior trading exceeds that of Marchbank's current trade value, the actual facts aren't that GWS traded Plowman for, say, 2016 pick 17. GWS traded Plowman, Lamb, Sumner and Phillips for pick's 28, 77, 95 and Geelong's 2016 1st round pick. Two aspects of the deal I believe your interpretation ignores are:
1) at the time were Geelong expected to rise to 2nd in 2016, after missing the finals in 2015;
2) a significant part of the whole trade was moving Lamb's considerable salary from GWS's TPP.

Both of these aspects mean Carlton got a better deal than they otherwise would have than in the direct swap your argument implied happened.

The failing in the current trading system means its is highly likely that Marchbank will get to Carlton for an early 2nd round pick. The loophole that allows a draftee at the end of their first contract to, practically, dictate where they are traded to needs to be closed.

 

[Malifice]

If you dont i would find one as a 2nd rounder wont do it on its own and new rules mean we cant stockpile junk picks.

Only in GWS land is pick 20 a 'junk pick'.

 

[IanW]

Only in GWS land is pick 20 a 'junk pick'.

Well, certain fat and lazy clubs - hi Carlton ! - should have been aggressively sending us players in exchange for draft picks between 2012 and 2013.

Instead. they were busy overpaying for potatoes like Daisy, and not seeing how they could lose any games.

Regrettably for the rest of the league, the whole 'let them drown in Western Sydney and then grab the want-away survivors' plan royally ****ed up, and the core of our 2012 team - backed up by quality like Chad Cornes, Dean Brogan, Setanta oHailpin and Luke Power - not only stayed loyal but also got very very good.

Then fat and lazy clubs - hi Collingwood ! - realised we had developed talent, and started throwing multiple first round picks at us. And then there was the whole Tom Boyd trade, where we ended up with more cap room and more picks in exchange for a maybe-okay ruckman.

By now, we've got a list thats somewhere between pretty good and very good, and that means that the teams who ****ed up in 2012-3 need to pay for the holes in their lists, because we really dont need pick 20 this year.

We also dont need to do a salary dump, as we did that last year, and Tom $cully took a 500k pay cut.

If Carlton dont want to trade for Marchbank, thats okay. Plenty of other clubs need talent, and we can get him home to Melbourne in other ways.

 

[Andre the Giant]

Only in GWS land is pick 20 a 'junk pick'.

Well wouldn't you think that was relevant given you're dealing with GWS?

It's a tricky puzzle I know but I don't think it requires a summa cum laude from Oxford to figure it out.

 

[Bokonon]

The bit I dont get in the Marchbank trade is this:-

1.If we dont make a deal with Carlton he can refuse any deal we do with another club.
2. He can then nominate into the pre season draft rather than resign with us. Realistically now he's said he wants to go it is the preferred option to me.
3. He can refuse any offer in the draft he doesn't want to take
4. Although it's "not supposed" to happen would be silly if Carlton didn't assure his manager they will make an offer and pay say $500k a season.

How does he not end up at Carlton? Hardly a secret and happy for someone who understands the way it works better to correct me.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

The bit I dont get in the Marchbank trade is this:-

1.If we dont make a deal with Carlton he can refuse any deal we do with another club.
2. He can then nominate into the pre season draft rather than resign with us. Realistically now he's said he wants to go it is the preferred option to me.
3. He can refuse any offer in the draft he doesn't want to take
4. Although it's "not supposed" to happen would be silly if Carlton didn't assure his manager they will make an offer and pay say $500k a season.

How does he not end up at Carlton? Hardly a secret and happy for someone who understands the way it works better to correct me.

If he drops into the preseason draft I would think Essendon grab him

 

[grouse mate]

Essendon would take him, Brisbane need KP defenders, Freo need them as well, GC would probably take him too.

 

[Andre the Giant]

The bit I dont get in the Marchbank trade is this:-

1.If we dont make a deal with Carlton he can refuse any deal we do with another club.
2. He can then nominate into the pre season draft rather than resign with us. Realistically now he's said he wants to go it is the preferred option to me.
3. He can refuse any offer in the draft he doesn't want to take
4. Although it's "not supposed" to happen would be silly if Carlton didn't assure his manager they will make an offer and pay say $500k a season.

How does he not end up at Carlton? Hardly a secret and happy for someone who understands the way it works better to correct me.

A deal gets done because he is a priority for Carlton and we don't want to lose him for nothing. There will be back and forward and a little agro at times but eventually a deal will be done and we'll move forward.

 

[Beer n Skittles]

I know you guys are probably more focused on finals right now, but anyone want to take a guess on the number of empty list spots you'll enter the draft with?

Seems like it'll have a pretty important bearing on the Marchbank trade. If you go in with 5 spots to fill, and are keen to take 4 academy boys & a pick then the only thing Carlton have that you want would be pick 5 (since it should be before the first bid).

edit - or a 2017 draft pick I guess

 

[Bokonon]

If he drops into the preseason draft I would think Essendon grab him

Ok but he can refuse to go there as I understand it. That still means all Carlton have to do is then make an offer. I get it would take balls but he would know SOS and presumably trust there was a Carlton offer coming.