Analysis 2017 List Management Discussion Part II

[DangerousD]

With regard to kelly, I believe that what we offer Kelly has everything to do with where he goes and that what we offer as trade to GWS is up to us (there is no "should be" about it. 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

There is a reason why it very rarely happens imo. The AFL would be all over us if we didn't offer a fair deal for their baby. If we tried that scenario how do you think the AFL might view Levis FA compo or our application for funding for PP or financial assistance. It's all connected.

 

[DangerousD]

how i see events unfolding:

pick 2, 38, 56, 74

Cas to Richmond as FA - compo in pick 21



(lever to melbourne) pick 12 and change

Gibbs + 21 for 12 and 17

boekhorst + 56 for balic

12, 17, 38 for Josh kelly

sign delisted FAs to strengthen mids and fwds where possible

end result:
pick 2, Josh kelly, Balic, 2x Delisted Fas

out:
Gibbs, Cas, Boekhorst, 38, 56


Our list is paper thin in terms of depth and quality. How are we going to rectify that if we only bring in 3 quality players but still lose 2? Thats a net gain of 1 in a whole trade period. The reason why players a DFA is because they have deficiencies that deem them surplus to requirements, they might be good for a year or 2 but will still need replacing soon enough.

By your scenario we have no pics to replace

Jacksh
Buckley
Gorringe
Smedts
Palmer
Gallucii
Sheehan
Graham
Korcheck
Sumner


Essentially we trade Gibbs and Cas for kelly, while keeping pick 1-2. Id do it

 

[Azul]

There is a reason why it very rarely happens imo. The AFL would be all over us if we didn't offer a fair deal for their baby. If we tried that scenario how do you think the AFL might view Levis FA compo or our application for funding for PP or financial assistance. It's all connected.

Define 'fair'.

I would personally say 'screw you, pick 2 is off the table' and draft Davies-Uniacke, or whoever the current player of the month is. If GWS aren't satisfied with whatever picks we get for Gibbs, priority pick or Levi F/A then we walk away.

 

[katmanblue]

There is a reason why it very rarely happens imo. The AFL would be all over us if we didn't offer a fair deal for their baby. If we tried that scenario how do you think the AFL might view Levis FA compo or our application for funding for PP or financial assistance. It's all connected.

What if we tell them to give us good compensation, its going to gws anyway.

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[RudyBlue]

No way Adelaide will offer much more than their first rounder which is why we should hang on to him.

Yep we need to accept that Adelaide won't offer any more than last year. Something like a 1st and a pick upgrade, or a 1st and steak knives like Greenwood is the best we're going to get.

I feel SOS will only pull the trigger on a Gibbs trade if it opens up further trades that provide a net improvement of the midfield.

 

[katmanblue]

Yep we need to accept that Adelaide won't offer any more than last year. Something like a 1st and a pick upgrade, or a 1st and steak knives like Greenwood is the best we're going to get.

I feel SOS will only pull the trigger on a Gibbs trade if it opens up further trades that provide a net improvement of the midfield.

Sure but there is a big difference between 18 and 10.

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[ShanDog]

....or just pull it off like a band aid.

You don't remove the bandaid if you're still covered in filth.

 

[Blue__Balls]

I somewhat agree with lots here but at the same time disagree on a few too.
You can't possibly say with any certainty that Saad will be better than who we get at 38, of course it's possible but it isn't a sure thing and i still don't see him as cream in any side.

On Redpath again, if he's moving the there is a few other clubs which suit him better than us but my biggest issue with getting him is, that we are going in to games too tall. Mckay, Curnow, Jack is three and anymore then is detrimental to the team. If we are going after Balic which i would like then we have no other ways of getting Dale or a mid squeezed from the Dogs. So I'm still passing on Redpath.

Im a fan of trading next years 1st but unsure in what capacity. If we want two 1st round picks from it then we have to offer an incentive like you suggested but I'm hoping it's not the Dees as i see them improving. Possibly Saints or the Eagles.

As for getting out of the rebuild, if Cas and Gibbs leave as many expect, even with additions of Whitfield or Hopper or Smith, i still see us in the bottom 6. Next year is still a part of the 66 game rebuild but hopefully we can add enough to offer plenty of excitement for fans and prospective new players.

As for Whitfield, Hopper, Smith, Kelly, Greene. If we finish last or second last and have Gibbs or anyone else leave, how do you think that effects the clubs ability to lure these guys? For us to get any of them we will have to pay a pretty $$$$$

All good - we'll have different opinions on plenty and more than happy to delve a bit deeper.

Saad could well be a bit of a fizzer. The knock on him is probably durability, not in the sense that he gets injured a lot but that minor injuries seem to impact him more than they do other players. However a player of his type would be a massive weapon for our backline. We're already looking fantastic at intercepting, what we struggle with is transition play because teams are now working out that if they man up and push us wide we don't have a plan B. Saad doesn't have to get 25 touches a game to be effective for us - if he can break the lines 5 times a game we're looking much more dangerous, and the threat of his pace makes us more versatile and forces opposition coaches to be more wary of a run through the middle which opens up other opportunities on the wings. I'd prefer a younger kid like Jayden Hunt from Melbourne, but Saad appears to be available and wouldn't cost much. Sounds like anything outside the Top 30 is going to be pretty touch and go this year, so Pick 38 is a good deal. That being said - I'd be happy enough getting Dale for that if we could, and then grabbing Penrith late in the draft in the hopes he can become that pacy half back.

Redpath - he may well have other suitors, but we'd be able to offer him a decent salary for two years, and he'll have opportunity. Not sure McKay will play 22 games next year, so if our forward line alternates between Redpath/McKay/Silvagni with Curnow up the ground, and Redpath/Curnow/Silvagni when McKay is managed, that works well from a development perspective.

Had a look at a few other teams for the 2-for-1 trade. Sydney could be worth a look, especially if they don't get too deep in finals. Richmond another, they already have two late firsts this year (theirs and Geelong's). As you said, St Kilda could be a chance given they have the two picks this year. In terms of what we potentially get back:

Sydney - Not likely to drop away next year, more chance of improvement if anything - Pick 14 (2017) and Pick 15 (2018)
Richmond (A) - Assuming Dusty goes, they probably regress next year - Pick 16 (2017) and Pick 10 (2018)
Richmond (B) - Assuming Dusty stays, they're likely to be thereabouts again - Pick 16 (2017) and Pick 16 (2018)
St Kilda - They'd expect to climb next year, but with no Roo they'd be worried about sliding - Pick 9 (2017) and Pick 11 (2018)

I think the Sydney and Richmond returns are too low for us to consider, and St Kilda will be scared off by the chances of them doing a Hawthorn and sliding way down due to a loss of experience. Melbourne are in the right spot this year, and will be confident of improving next year.

Could well be bottom 6, but I'd expect somewhere between 10th and 14th, and within 2-3 games of the 8 with a healthier percentage. The 66 game rebuild is a bit unclear - some assume that it includes the 2018 draft and that we won't rise til 2019, but it could just as easily be interpreted that by Round 23 2019 we expect to be a proper threat again. Given our ridiculous hit rate in the last two drafts, I think it's more likely we're a little head of schedule, so if we go hard at recruitment this year we should be OK to take the foot off the draft pedal a bit in 2018 (and by that I mean take the standard 3-4 selections and target some free agents).

On the elite talent - we've got the dollars to attract these players if that's what they want, but the club has given every indication that it wants players who will play for their teammates and the jumper rather than mercenaries. We'll offer fair contracts and work to bring over anyone who wants to accept those terms.

 

[therubbernub]

There is a reason why it very rarely happens imo. The AFL would be all over us if we didn't offer a fair deal for their baby. If we tried that scenario how do you think the AFL might view Levis FA compo or our application for funding for PP or financial assistance. It's all connected.

for me its all about leverage when asking for trade compensation. When you have a CONTRACTED player the leverage is all with the club. In our case that is Gibbs. The leverage is with us, and if any other club wants his services then they have to pay overs. When the player is UNCONTRACTED ( and wants to leave) then the leverage is with the player not the club, and the club has to accept unders ( or thereabouts) Its the difference between a buyers and sellers market. Happens every day of the week in all markets whether its realestate, stock market, forex , bbond market, fruit and vegetable market.
The AFL have been told in no uncertain terms that the player contract system is unlawful and a restriction of trade in its current form. But it is a gentlemens agreement between clubs, managers, players and the AFL that allows some of these non enforcable AFL laws to maintain control of the competition- even though they are legally non binding. So the AFL are not going to stick their neck out to arbitrate -if at the end of the day the uncontracted player is disadvantaged. The bottom line is that player welfare and renumeration top virtually any other consideration . If you doubt this then you havent been paying attention to the cricket CBA. In my book a low first round pick can hardly be argued as unfair/inadequate by GWS. It may not be what they hope or wanted , but it certainly is in the realms of fair ie it is not "obviously unfair" In which case I cant see that the AFL would want to get involved. If they did and SOS said OK but no thanks- we dont want to deal at that price of picks and the monetary offer is off the table, then Josh Kelly would be entirely in his rights to sue the AFL for the difference between our offer and the next best offer. I dont think the AFL want to go there. its opening up a can of worms. The AFLPA would probably fund the court case based on restriction of trade and if they won , this would hang like a sword of damocles over every player movement going forward.

 

[Bokonon_]

What's the situation with M.Kennedy ?
There's no doubting the class of Kelly but i feel at this stage of our rebuild the price will be to high and the timing not right .
If our 1st rounder on its own gets the job done fine otherwise we pass .
I'd rather take our 1st pick which could very well be no.1 to the draft and then aim for 2 of Hopper , Kennedy or Smith using picks acquired from Gibbs and Casboult .
Would also offer Murphy in negotiations who would give GWS an instant class hit whilst in the premiership window .

Hopper is almost certainly on the market. Poster ITK saying he doesn't want to stay.

Matt Kennedy no real clue. Himmelburg signed this morning and he liked his tweet, long bow but I'm not sure he would if he was out the door. Hope to keep him. Probably know shortly.

Devon Smith has been clear he wants to stay, coin could be an issue but only if Kelly stays. Word is he's on overs and next offer will be less. I think he's worth $700k and we'll find it without Kelly. I'm a huge fan and dont think we've seen the best of him yet except in patches with his knee troubles, and his best is superb.

Murphy is interesting Adrian Caruso suggested we were overloaded with talented kids last year and hence the Freo pair. Does fit our window but wonder if his leadership is still needed at the Blues? Would probably prefer Gibbs as an inside clearance player, but he'd have to want to come to Sydney. Leon's always liked adding mature players so could still work.
We have Taranto and Setterfield developing for the future anyway and the club is excited about Setterfield's potential.

 

[Blue__Balls]

You seem to be getting stuck on numbers rather than players.
You shouldn't worry about numbers but if you do, then:

1. This years number one won't be a Riewoldt, Hodge nor Weitering.
2. It may be closer to a Tom Scully, David Swallow or a Jack Watts.

What would we get with Kelly?
Just the sort of ready-to-go A-Grade mid we need whilst being a terrific character, with captaincy potential. No guesswork required.

Now, what do we get with any player in this draft we'd take?
That's all you have to look at and if you can justify anyone being a better bet than Kelly, for us.........I'm interested.

Seems pretty clear to me that we'll need more than just our first pick this year.

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.

Here's the conversation:

Kelly: I want to go to Carlton.
Carlton: Hey GWS, we'll give you Pick 1 for Kelly and Flynn.
GWS: No deal, we want Picks 1 and 20 for Kelly alone.
Carlton: Look, we'll take Flynn off the table and give you Pick 1 for Kelly.
GWS: Not happening, Picks 1 and 20.
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.

 

[DangerousD]

Define 'fair'.

I would personally say 'screw you, pick 2 is off the table' and draft Davies-Uniacke, or whoever the current player of the month is. If GWS aren't satisfied with whatever picks we get for Gibbs, priority pick or Levi F/A then we walk away.

I definitely think that 2X2nd rounders which was suggested is not fair, and a Gibbs pick plus a compo i don't see as fair either. Fair will be judged by the Giants and the AFL.

 

[1981]

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.
Nobody is perfect.
Maybe now is the time to trade in midfield talent. Both young and older. Let's bolster the midfield now.
Sure we will go to the draft but it won't be solely about the draft. Esp as its a poor draft.

 

[RudyBlue]

Why would we ever concede Pick 1 + change?

Because the probability of the deal being a success is in our favour, as long as the change isn't too heavy.

If you do a historical analysis of the draft, your odds of gettng someone as good as Kelly at age 22 and with his potential improvement are <100% at pick 1. The change is the price you pay for getting this sure bet.

Let's say we paid pick 1 and a swap of 2018 2nd rounders for Kelly. I've done the odds on pick 1 above, the difference in the probabilty of success between the start and end of the 2nd is not greatly significant.

Carlton : Kelly (gun), GWS 2018 2nd rounder (meh)
GWS: Pick 1 (good chance of being a gun), Carlton 2018 2nd rounder (slightly less meh)

 

[DangerousD]

What if we tell them to give us good compensation, its going to gws anyway.

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

Can happen easily, but that would work towards a fair deal, a poster suggested 2x 2nd rounders. If we tried that crap we will get donuts from the AFL for a long time.

 

[StandByyourMan]

You don't remove the bandaid if you're still covered in filth.

Well then he changes his hair style stat

 

[katmanblue]

Can happen easily, but that would work towards a fair deal, a poster suggested 2x 2nd rounders. If we tried that crap we will get donuts from the AFL for a long time.

So nothing would change

On SM-N920I using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[StandByyourMan]

How can you overpay when that's what you thought the deal was work at the time?
Somebody else might think you've overpaid but usually you pay what you pay to get the trade or buy you yearn
It's all relative

You got me

 

[therubbernub]

I definitely think that 2X2nd rounders which was suggested is not fair, and a Gibbs pick plus a compo i don't see as fair either. Fair will be judged by the Giants and the AFL.

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

 

[RudyBlue]

Sure but there is a big difference between 18 and 10.

Gibbs for pick 10 would be ideal. If we could convince both Hopper and Kelly to come to us, 1/2 and 10 would be more than fair compensation.

 

[DangerousD]

Sydney - Not likely to drop away next year, more chance of improvement if anything - Pick 14 (2017) and Pick 15 (2018)

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.

 

[therubbernub]

Because the probability of the deal being a success is in our favour, as long as the change isn't too heavy.

If you do a historical analysis of the draft, your odds of gettng someone as good as Kelly at age 22 and with his potential improvement are <100% at pick 1. The change is the price you pay for getting this sure bet.

Let's say we paid pick 1 and a swap of 2018 2nd rounders for Kelly. I've done the odds on pick 1 above, the difference in the probabilty of success between the start and end of the 2nd is not greatly significant.

Carlton : Kelly (gun), GWS 2018 2nd rounder (meh)
GWS: Pick 1 (good chance of being a gun), Carlton 2018 2nd rounder (slightly less meh)

Yes but in money ball its all about paying good value not necessarily market value

 

[DangerousD]

for me its all about leverage when asking for trade compensation. When you have a CONTRACTED player the leverage is all with the club. In our case that is Gibbs. The leverage is with us, and if any other club wants his services then they have to pay overs. When the player is UNCONTRACTED ( and wants to leave) then the leverage is with the player not the club, and the club has to accept unders ( or thereabouts) Its the difference between a buyers and sellers market. Happens every day of the week in all markets whether its realestate, stock market, forex , bbond market, fruit and vegetable market.
The AFL have been told in no uncertain terms that the player contract system is unlawful and a restriction of trade in its current form. But it is a gentlemens agreement between clubs, managers, players and the AFL that allows some of these non enforcable AFL laws to maintain control of the competition- even though they are legally non binding. So the AFL are not going to stick their neck out to arbitrate -if at the end of the day the uncontracted player is disadvantaged. The bottom line is that player welfare and renumeration top virtually any other consideration . If you doubt this then you havent been paying attention to the cricket CBA. In my book a low first round pick can hardly be argued as unfair/inadequate by GWS. It may not be what they hope or wanted , but it certainly is in the realms of fair ie it is not "obviously unfair" In which case I cant see that the AFL would want to get involved. If they did and SOS said OK but no thanks- we dont want to deal at that price of picks and the monetary offer is off the table, then Josh Kelly would be entirely in his rights to sue the AFL for the difference between our offer and the next best offer. I dont think the AFL want to go there. its opening up a can of worms. The AFLPA would probably fund the court case based on restriction of trade and if they won , this would hang like a sword of damocles over every player movement going forward.

I agree with everything you say here and understand how it works. In saying that, nearly all trades for top players get done to a level which seems to satisfy both parties although one party may have wanted more.
The fact that you have to deal with the same clubs each year ensures that it is rare to try and screw someone over and that the AFL if they aren't happy with your club can make it very difficult to prosper across many different areas.

We can look at the past few years trades to give us a benchmark of what is fair value, with us having pick 1-2 i feel that is close to the mark with a sweetener added, thats my personal opinion. If the Giants want 2 pick 10's then i think that will happen too. But to suggest we can offer 2 second round picks or they can get stuffed is so far beyond fair that it's laughable.

 

[Blue__Balls]

Because the probability of the deal being a success is in our favour, as long as the change isn't too heavy.

If you do a historical analysis of the draft, your odds of gettng someone as good as Kelly at age 22 and with his potential improvement are <100% at pick 1. The change is the price you pay for getting this sure bet.

Let's say we paid pick 1 and a swap of 2018 2nd rounders for Kelly. I've done the odds on pick 1 above, the difference in the probabilty of success between the start and end of the 2nd is not greatly significant.

Carlton : Kelly (gun), GWS 2018 2nd rounder (meh)
GWS: Pick 1 (good chance of being a gun), Carlton 2018 2nd rounder (slightly less meh)

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.

 

[DangerousD]

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.
Nobody is perfect.
Maybe now is the time to trade in midfield talent. Both young and older. Let's bolster the midfield now.
Sure we will go to the draft but it won't be solely about the draft. Esp as its a poor draft.

Who's your target?
Dale from the dogs is out of contract.