I really wish we could have got Watts. Really rate him, cheap on the salary cap hit due to Melbourne, and would have happily paid GWS's 2018 second.
-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
Analysis Rank 'em 2017 Trade Period synopsis
- Thread starter citizen-erased
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- May 27, 2017
- 1,044
- 1,711
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Don't worry I still have the feeling of doom within me. If I say 'next dusty' I am thinking about the chopsticks
- May 27, 2017
- 1,044
- 1,711
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Yeah there has to be some behind the scenes reason for not chasing rocky. Some combo of age and salary maybe. The club came out very early against it.
- Aug 26, 2016
- 12,136
- 15,082
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Losers
1: Brisbane, took a massive hit on a recent pick 2.
2: Gold coast, pick 2 for Weller, hmmm.
3: Adelaide, got double fisted (without lube and no pillow to bite) on the Gibbs trade.
4: Dogs, stringer.
1: Brisbane, took a massive hit on a recent pick 2.
2: Gold coast, pick 2 for Weller, hmmm.
3: Adelaide, got double fisted (without lube and no pillow to bite) on the Gibbs trade.
4: Dogs, stringer.
- Aug 26, 2016
- 12,136
- 15,082
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Pretty hard to judge Collingwood, but chances are good we make the list after the wash up.
STK2020
Premiership Player
- Jul 6, 2014
- 4,159
- 7,420
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I think Collingwood needed to hang onto their top 10 pick , they did and will now add a class player ....win .
Focus for Collingwood will be adding hidden gem player/players through the rookie draft .
Tell that to the AFL .
If we think the gifted pick 19 to land Ablett had a whiff about it , imagine the lengths they'll go to in keeping Lynch on the Gold Coast .
That makes no sense at all.
- Banned
- #186
Adelaide - 6/10
Brisbane - 5/10
Carlton - 8/10
Collingwood - 2/10
Essendon - 9/10
Fremantle - 8/10
Geelong - 7/10
Gold Coast - 4/10
GWS - 5/10
Hawthorn - 5/10
Melbourne - 7/10
North Melbourne - 5/10
Port Adelaide - 9/10
Richmond - 6/10
St. Kilda - 5/10
Sydney - 7/10
West Coast 7/10
Bulldogs - 6/10
Brisbane - 5/10
Carlton - 8/10
Collingwood - 2/10
Essendon - 9/10
Fremantle - 8/10
Geelong - 7/10
Gold Coast - 4/10
GWS - 5/10
Hawthorn - 5/10
Melbourne - 7/10
North Melbourne - 5/10
Port Adelaide - 9/10
Richmond - 6/10
St. Kilda - 5/10
Sydney - 7/10
West Coast 7/10
Bulldogs - 6/10
- Dec 7, 2014
- 3,697
- 9,096
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Philadelphia 76ers
- Banned
- #187
Sure it doesn't
I think it's safe to say our plan is to get more elite talent in, because there are questionable amounts of it on our list at present (especially with Paddy- who a lot of our rebuild would have centred around- struggling to stay on the park), in particular if they have class and speed, so we went after Fyfe initially and also went hard for Kelly, but neither of them were willing to leave their clubs (it certainly didn't help that each club got a $2mil boost to their salary caps this year, making it much easier to retain those they really wanted to keep) and after that it was a question of whether we thought anyone else was worth trading a top 8 pick for (a pick that could be a decent opportunity to grab some elite talent), or downgrading a top 8 pick for, and I guess we didn't see many or any who we thought were.
We also didn't have a 2nd rounder for this year to play with, which probably made it harder to go for those "lesser lights".
One thing we also wanted to add to was our tall defensive stocks, hence having a go at Tomlinson, but when that didn't happen, we went to what we presumably considered to be our next best option, which was Austin, who I think is a fine depth addition (all we potentially need for the moment), with the scope to be best 22 in time, if not immediately.
When you're sitting on a good draft hand and don't want to lose it and end up in the poor part of a weak draft, and are in no mad rush to shoot up the ladder (because you have such a young list, with very few vital pieces anywhere near retirement age), it can be better to not do much than to blow your wad on something that's not worth it, just to make it look like you're doing something.
So now we have what is expected to be a very competitive team, but the least experienced list in the comp, and we get to add two more from the top 8 of a ND to it and potentially one more from the top 10 next year, and we still have a truckload of cap space free to go after the Sloane/Gaff types who are due to come OOC in 12 months time.
- Aug 22, 2009
- 24,445
- 28,080
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Do you have stats on the experience of each list?
Not doubting your claim just be interested to see how you worked it out (or if there is an updated summary somewhere).
I don't have them or a link on hand, but apparently according to the site that covers that sort of stuff we moved to 2nd least experienced list after Riewoldt, Montagna and Dempster came off our books, and then were going to drop down to least experienced once Hodge joined Brisbane- although come to think of it I'm not sure how the loss of Rockliff affected that, so perhaps we're still 17th for experience. Haven't heard an update there.
The good thing for us though is that by the latter part of next season we could have 22 who have played 50 games on our list, so despite having a very inexperienced list overall, we might end up with as few as none in our team who have played less than 50 games, which is why we could easily remain very competitive.
I guess injuries mounting could be the thing that really affects us, as those outside the 22 will have very little experience between them.
Maggsy
Club Legend
- Jun 29, 2015
- 1,306
- 1,395
- AFL Club
- Adelaide
I can't believe everyone ranking Carlton's trade period the number 1,. And please don't think i'm just a scorned crows fan because of the Gibbs deal,.
Based on next season's ladder positions being the same (which now that they've lost Gibbs I think would be a good result) 2018 picks in brackets
In: 10 + 16 + (34) + 73
Out: (21) + (39) + 77 + Gibbs
I think when Carlton finish bottom 4 + and the crows finish top 4 (as expected) this trade will be alot more even than most people see it currently.
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: Lobbe
Out: 95
This is a bargain, but realistically... is he going to play? ahead of Kruezer?
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: 28 + (28) + 30
Out: 16 + 40
Yes 3 picks inside the top 30 are good,. but let's face it, it's much easier to find top end talent in the 1st than it is in the 2nd
Verdict : EVENS
In: Kennedy
Out: 28
In all games I've seen, he Kennedy has been pretty vanilla and unimpressive, maybe he kicks on this ends up a bargain, but maybe he doesnt.
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: Darcy Lang + 70
Out: 58 + (55)
An injury prone guy that again has never really impressed me, I'd lay money that he is not at the club when his current contract expires.
Verdict : LOSS
Overall:
In: 10, (28) , 30, (34), 70, 73 + Lobbe, Kennedy and Lang
Out: (21) + (39) + 40, (55), 58, 77, 95, + Gibbs.
I think they had a reasonable trade period, but in reality they ended up with 3 players that aren't exactly safe as houses, lost one of their best players over the past 15 years and shuffled their draft positions around,
Interestingly;
If you go by the AFL.com.au verdict these clubs had better trade periods: (and 2 others had the same score out of 10)
Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon, Fremantle, Geelong, GC, GWS, Melbourne, Port, Richmond, Sydney, West Coast, Bulldogs
That's 13 clubs with better scores!
and only 3 (Saints, North + Collingwood) had worse!
I disagree with a couple of those,. but to put them as the best overall is just WRONG.
Based on next season's ladder positions being the same (which now that they've lost Gibbs I think would be a good result) 2018 picks in brackets
In: 10 + 16 + (34) + 73
Out: (21) + (39) + 77 + Gibbs
I think when Carlton finish bottom 4 + and the crows finish top 4 (as expected) this trade will be alot more even than most people see it currently.
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: Lobbe
Out: 95
This is a bargain, but realistically... is he going to play? ahead of Kruezer?
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: 28 + (28) + 30
Out: 16 + 40
Yes 3 picks inside the top 30 are good,. but let's face it, it's much easier to find top end talent in the 1st than it is in the 2nd
Verdict : EVENS
In: Kennedy
Out: 28
In all games I've seen, he Kennedy has been pretty vanilla and unimpressive, maybe he kicks on this ends up a bargain, but maybe he doesnt.
Verdict : Slightly ahead
In: Darcy Lang + 70
Out: 58 + (55)
An injury prone guy that again has never really impressed me, I'd lay money that he is not at the club when his current contract expires.
Verdict : LOSS
Overall:
In: 10, (28) , 30, (34), 70, 73 + Lobbe, Kennedy and Lang
Out: (21) + (39) + 40, (55), 58, 77, 95, + Gibbs.
I think they had a reasonable trade period, but in reality they ended up with 3 players that aren't exactly safe as houses, lost one of their best players over the past 15 years and shuffled their draft positions around,
Interestingly;
If you go by the AFL.com.au verdict these clubs had better trade periods: (and 2 others had the same score out of 10)
Adelaide, Brisbane, Essendon, Fremantle, Geelong, GC, GWS, Melbourne, Port, Richmond, Sydney, West Coast, Bulldogs
That's 13 clubs with better scores!
and only 3 (Saints, North + Collingwood) had worse!
I disagree with a couple of those,. but to put them as the best overall is just WRONG.
Bigfooty logic. Young players or draft picks greater than quality players.
That said Carlton did execute a growth strategy very well for a rebuilding team.
Have you heard of a win-win.
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Banned
- #194
There are some ridiculous examples of statistical analysis.
I don't understand how a club can do nothing and lose, before the draft picks have been chosen, and analysed.
It's just taken for granted that all these trades are going to be wins, but I can assure you folks, they won't.
I don't understand how a club can do nothing and lose, before the draft picks have been chosen, and analysed.
It's just taken for granted that all these trades are going to be wins, but I can assure you folks, they won't.
We're talking North?
North may have found themselves with little to trade. Ziebell or Cunnington would have had value, but you don't want to trade them.
You must be a little disappointed that Goldsteins currency has gone backwards. North may have been keen on trading him, but no interest.
Players Swallow, Hansen & Thomas also had value a couple of years back but now are all but on the outer.
Maybe simply a case of not being prepared to move on the senior players, given the young still need their support.
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Banned
- #196
If a club doesn't trade then it's only applicable rating is N/A (not applicable)
Question: If North had traded exactly as Melbourne, Geelong or Port, would you deem that we had a good trade period?
Not necessarily as you have to be in motion just to remain where you are.
Standing still can actually be going backwards, but that may not be the case here.
I just feel that North didn't have much to work with.
The young talls haven't shown enough to create value and then you have the more senior players you didn't want to let go and remember that this draft isn't exactly mind-blowing to force trades to get into it. I think that's why the whole period was relatively quiet. Clubs just didn't care for second or third rounders.
Snake_Baker
The one true King of the North
- Apr 24, 2013
- 81,024
- 153,169
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Essendon Lawn Bowls Club
- Banned
- #198
It's a little bit different with us. Most of our prime talent has aged, retired or moved on for little value to see out their careers elsewhere.
We are also strongly targeting a very specific type of player that no other club went close to trading aside from the two players that wanted a particular destination for family reasons, Gibbs & Ablett (both too old for us anyway).
We don't want to trade them, we want to keep them. They are the core of our next push.
The players on our list need to be viewed in light of the draft picks we have grabbed, due to our middle ladder and mid top 8 finishing range over the past 6 or 7 years.
Since 2010 Norths 1st round picks have been: 17, 18, 15, 8, 16, 21 and 12. These are hardly the picks to land elite midfield players. These are generally the picks where the better flankers and KPD players are picked up and I am reasonably happy with our outcome. We have very good young KPP's and flanker types on our list, it's the elite mids, as publicly admitted by our club, that we are chasing. How many of these types realistically showed up in the trade period? Basically none. However, this shouldn't qualify as a failure, as North are now doing the next best thing, going to the draft.
BTW, in regards to the question I posed to you along the lines of "If North had traded exactly as Melbourne, Geelong or Port or even Essendon, would you deem that we had a good trade period?"
The answer is an emphatic NO. It would have been a diabolical outcome for us as far as becoming a genuine flag contender is concerned.
With these points in mind, have North really "failed" the trade period?
Last edited:
It's hard to imagine that North would have been able to do much more than to throw the kitchen sink at Kelly and Dusty, who were the types that would have made a real difference to them. Reckon they gave it their all there, so no shame on missing out, especially as neither left for another club.
Last edited:
- Oct 21, 2015
- 2,709
- 5,464
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Denver Nuggets, Golden Knights
If you come near on last and you fail to make any moves to make your team better then yeah it's a definite failure.
Similar threads
- Locked
