Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion Part II

[RudyBlue]

Again on Trigg hinting we will get some experience, maybe SOS is a smart gambler. Maybe he knows the laws of probability suggest he is unlikely to ace the draft again like he has two years running.

Laws of probability would say SOS' perceived success in previous drafts have absolutely no influence on his chances in this draft

 

[HARKER]

Not getting stuck on numbers at all - getting concerned that it seems media beat-ups are able to inflate the trade market beyond what is realistic.
Rayner could be the next Dustin Martin, or the next Jack Watts. That's not our problem though.
Carlton: It's Pick 1 or we walk away and let Josh take his "chances" in the PSD...where we hold the first pick.

GWS Option 1: OK, we'll take the best kid in the draft.
GWS Option 2: We're calling your bluff...which isn't a bluff...shit, there goes Kelly.

Draft Picks and players are not equal in value. Ever. Immediate known impact versus risk and potential. But there is no scenario where SOS caves and gives up more than Pick 1 for any player in the comp. There's no need.

It'd be like being the only bidder at an auction, meeting the reserve, and continuing the try and outbid yourself. Pointless.

I'll pick out the bolded and with confidence tell you that it doesn't work that way and especially so with your preferred trading partner.

You don't put a gun to anyones head because you hold the #1 or #2 in the PSD. Those days are gone.

 

[Blue__Balls]

The Swans are currently out of the 8 and with a tough draw, its a high possibility they have a top 10 pick this year. Which makes it more appealing.

Would certainly consider it - but what else needs to be sent their way to close the deal.

Our 2018 first rounder + ???
for
Pick 9 + their 2018 first rounder

 

[DangerousD]

Is 2 first rounders too much? yes if they are very low - maybe ok if they are late first rounders. So what is the difference if the second rounders are in the late teen early twenty's? Not much IMO. Especially if the deal is sweetened with a salary dump

It makes a big difference 2 x pick 20's is not very appealing and does not adequately compensate a club for a good player. Would you be happy if we accepted that for Doc, Cripps, Charlie if they were out of contract?

 

[DamianBis]

. If GWS dont accept then it is up to them to let him go into the PSD as an alternative where they receive no compensation. At least that is my understanding

Ahh the old "nick stevens" trick. How well did that work out for collingwood?

 

[Blue__Balls]

I'll pick out the bolded and with confidence tell you that it doesn't work that way and especially so with your preferred trading partner.

It is if you feel that your offer is fair. Pick 1 for one of the top 10 mids in the comp is about as close to fair as you're going to get.

You reckon GWS are going to quibble over a swap of later picks that they'll either not use, or use on Academy bids?

 

[DangerousD]

Would certainly consider it - but what else needs to be sent their way to close the deal.

Our 2018 first rounder + ???
for
Pick 9 + their 2018 first rounder

Maybe this is where the Tippet rumour comes in to play, you could be on to something.

 

[RudyBlue]

You're completely missing the point.

If we offer Pick 1, GWS have absolutely no leverage to demand anything else. Doesn't matter if Kelly's tears cure cancer, it's completely irrelevant.

Same analogy - if you're the only bidder at auction, you meet the reserve...why up your offer? Pointless and stupid and completely unnecessary, because the seller has no choice but to sell to you.

I getcha but GWS will want more than pick 1 and not giving them change could potentially harm future dealings.

I agree that we should start negotitions with pick 1~2 but surely GWS will request more and I doubt SOS would stoop to the PSD threat, it's just not done.

 

[HARKER]

It is if you feel that your offer is fair. Pick 1 for one of the top 10 mids in the comp is about as close to fair as you're going to get.

You reckon GWS are going to quibble over a swap of later picks that they'll either not use, or use on Academy bids?

We'll see, of course.

There are many ways to go about trading and especially so with GWS, given their current unique situation.
It will be a matter of what works for GWS and for what works for us.

We have picks.....we have players....we have the ability to take on 'salary dumps'
Maybe a combination of all three will get us what we want and why just stop at Kelly?

What it won't be though, is a threat coming forward from SOS.

 

[therubbernub]

I'll pick out the bolded and with confidence tell you that it doesn't work that way and especially so with your preferred trading partner.

You don't put a gun to anyones head because you hold the #1 or #2 in the PSD. Those days are gone.

The bottom line is no one can force sos to offer anything more than our #1 which is fairish. If GWS dont want to take that then it is GWS and the AFL system that is forcing Kelly to the PSD not SOS. Have we forgotten that Kelly is chasing the $'s that we are offering (reputedly) and no one can stand in the way of that. This year we have salary cap room and no second round pick- so that is what we offer- a high contract and what we have to offer. You cant pay what you dont have. It is not gaming the system it is just not overpaying

 

[RudyBlue]

We have picks.....we have players....we have the ability to take on 'salary dumps'
Maybe a combination of all three will get us what we want and why just stop at Kelly?

I'd like one Kelly and one Hopper pls

If we can get them to nominate us, boy oh boy wowee

 

[Blue__Balls]

We'll see, of course.

There are many ways to go about trading and especially so with GWS, given their current unique situation.
It will be a matter of what works for GWS and for what works for us.

We have picks.....we have players....we have the ability to take on 'salary dumps'
Maybe a combination of all three will get us what we want and why just stop at Kelly?

What it won't be though, is a threat coming forward from SOS.

SOS wouldn't need to make the threat. If we offer pick 1 and GWS turn up their nose, the media will be all over it like a rash. The articles will be flying out on PSD regulations and Nick Stevens and whatever else the journos can contrive is relevant. SOS will hold his ground and the pressure will mount and GWS will realise they're doing OK out of a Kelly for Pick 1 trade.

If they want something else as well, I'm sure we'll ask them what else they're going to give us too.

Picks 1 and 20 for Kelly and Smith? Sure, we'll be on board.
Picks 1 and 20 for Kelly alone? Not even worth discussing.

 

[HARKER]

I'd like one Kelly and one Hopper pls

If we can get them to nominate us, boy oh boy wowee

Hopper, Kelly & Griffen for our 1st, Murphy and us taking Griffens salary. Easy.

 

[katmanblue]

Ahh the old "nick stevens" trick. How well did that work out for collingwood?

They didnt have no1

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[katmanblue]

I getcha but GWS will want more than pick 1 and not giving them change could potentially harm future dealings.

I agree that we should start negotitions with pick 1~2 but surely GWS will request more and I doubt SOS would stoop to the PSD threat, it's just not done.

When buying a car do you pay sticker price? After all its what they want. Or do you negotiate?

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[BluesRule]

You know Greeneood is 26 next year don't you?

Yes. Thats why I think he will be a cheap trade. If we lose Murphy and Gibbs we need a more mature body in the middle and he has shown he can play there. Likely Adelaide are cap constrained so we could offer him $ and games to come across. Greenwood has a basketball background so not smashed as much as others his age. Think he would give us the same number of years as Kelly if all went well.

 

[BluesRule]

Greenwood is best 22 at the Crows, could be steak knives but he is not young.
Bailey Dale as well is a good player and I suspect will cost more than a third

Last year fringe trades by the Dogs were cheap, expect same again as they may not be able to match salary offers and have a lot of B grade depth. Honeychurch will be a cheap trade and I would hope Dale is too if we are bold.

1. Traded Joel Hamling, Pick 40 and Pick 63 to Fremantle for Picks 35, 43 and 61

2. Traded Nathan Hrovat, future Round 3 selection and future Round 4 selection to North Melbourne for Bulldogs’ future Round 3 selection and future Round 4 selection

3. Traded Koby Stevens, Pick 61 and future fourth round selection to St Kilda for Pick 50 and Saints’ future fifth round selection

They lost a premiership player in Joel Hamling, for #35 plus a pick downgrade to make it less.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Last year fringe trades by the Dogs were cheap, expect same again as they may not be able to match salary offers and have a lot of B grade depth. Honeychurch will be a cheap trade and I would hope Dale is too if we are bold.

1. Traded Joel Hamling, Pick 40 and Pick 63 to Fremantle for Picks 35, 43 and 61

2. Traded Nathan Hrovat, future Round 3 selection and future Round 4 selection to North Melbourne for Bulldogs’ future Round 3 selection and future Round 4 selection

3. Traded Koby Stevens, Pick 61 and future fourth round selection to St Kilda for Pick 50 and Saints’ future fifth round selection

They lost a premiership player in Joel Hamling, for #35 plus a pick downgrade to make it less.

Don't like Honeychurch as much this year, reckon we're loaded for undersized mids.

Dale more appropriate for us as a traditional sized mid who can hit the scoreboard. Was Pick 45 three years ago, has managed 26 games in three years - reckon a pick between 35 and 50 would get it done.

 

[therubbernub]

I getcha but GWS will want more than pick 1 and not giving them change could potentially harm future dealings.

I agree that we should start negotitions with pick 1~2 but surely GWS will request more and I doubt SOS would stoop to the PSD threat, it's just not done.

SOS: Josh we will offer you $X over Y years.
Josh: Sounds great. Thats 200k more than others have offered. I want to come to you guys
SOS: Ok I will talk to GWS and see if they are realistic about your worth
GWS: we want 2 low first round picks
SOS : We dont have that sorry
GWS: What do you have?
SOS: Just our first round pick.
GWS: Sorry Josh we cant do a deal they dont have the picks
Josh: Not my problem. I want the cash, you cant stand in my way. Take the deal , I think its fair
GWS: Sorry but our requirements are more than they have to offer.
josh: I think its fair. you leave me with no option. I will go to the PSD
GWS: wait a minute Joshy - arent Nth offering you a good deal? Why dont you take that?
Josh :Its 200k less than the blues GAGF

 

[therubbernub]

It makes a big difference 2 x pick 20's is not very appealing and does not adequately compensate a club for a good player. Would you be happy if we accepted that for Doc, Cripps, Charlie if they were out of contract?

Would 2 picks 17 and 18 make much difference. Both first rounders

 

[DangerousD]

Last year fringe trades by the Dogs were cheap, expect same again as they may not be able to match salary offers and have a lot of B grade depth. Honeychurch will be a cheap trade and I would hope Dale is too if we are bold.

1. Traded Joel Hamling, Pick 40 and Pick 63 to Fremantle for Picks 35, 43 and 61

2. Traded Nathan Hrovat, future Round 3 selection and future Round 4 selection to North Melbourne for Bulldogs’ future Round 3 selection and future Round 4 selection

3. Traded Koby Stevens, Pick 61 and future fourth round selection to St Kilda for Pick 50 and Saints’ future fifth round selection

They lost a premiership player in Joel Hamling, for #35 plus a pick downgrade to make it less.

SOLD

But can't see how a 26 year old will give the same amount as Kelly who will be 23. But wouldn't mind Greenwood.

 

[katmanblue]

SOS: Josh we will offer you $X over Y years.
Josh: Sounds great. Thats 200k more than others have offered. I want to come to you guys
SOS: Ok I will talk to GWS and see if they are realistic about your worth
GWS: we want 2 low first round picks
SOS : We dont have that sorry
GWS: What do you have?
SOS: Just our first round pick.
GWS: Sorry Josh we cant do a deal they dont have the picks
Josh: Not my problem. I want the cash, you cant stand in my way. Take the deal , I think its fair
GWS: Sorry but our requirements are more than they have to offer.
josh: I think its fair. you leave me with no option. I will go to the PSD
GWS: wait a minute Joshy - arent Nth offering you a good deal? Why dont you take that?
Josh :Its 200k less than the blues GAGF

Wait. There is no way we are offering that much, is there?

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[DangerousD]

Would 2 picks 17 and 18 make much difference. Both first rounders

No it wouldn't, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

 

[therubbernub]

Ahh the old "nick stevens" trick. How well did that work out for collingwood?

These days the players have enormous power. They have managers that know this. The idea is to offer a fair and reasonable offer thats all . No overs, perhaps unders, but in the realm of fair- "fairish". I dont think many would argue that a #1 pick isnt "fairish" IMO. Yep I get it. Josh is a known quantity and of very high standard. BUT HE WANTS TO LEAVE FOR MORE MONEY. Thats the end of it as far as I am concerned. Noone can argue with Josh or stand in his way as long as a "Fairish"offer has been made

 

[therubbernub]

No it wouldn't, I'm not sure where you are going with this.

Because all and sundry on here are fixated with the notion the 2 first rounders is what he is worth with change coming back our way. But My point is that not all first round picks are created equal. And if ours is #1 then surely that equates to a lot more than say a pick #7 (offered for treloar) plus the pies next years first round (at the time the pies were convinced that they would finish in the top 8 in 2016 making their offer for next year probably around #12)
If you want to be empirical about this then we can look at the AFL points system for guidance.
Pick 1 3000 points
pick 7 1644 points
pick 12 1268
Which values the theoretical Treloar trade at 2912 points and our theoretical offer at 3000 points