2017 Trade and FA thread

[jackess]

It depends on whether the club see more potential/upside in players like Hopper and Kennedy than this years crop eg. Fogarty/Rayner/Stephenson etc. as you said all speculative. I would not be totally against it if we gave away pick 1-3 for Hopper and Kennedy.

I'd take less upside of Hopper was willing to sign a long term contract.

 

[chopperduck]

Being able to grab a 20yo former top 10 pick would be a great get. Just to help fast track our midfield depth. I would totally look at doing it. Would be wanting genuine on ballers though. We need true midfield depth.

 

[briztoon]

Weren't Hopper and Kennedy 2015 draftees?

Same draft as Keays and Mathieson.

They're not bridging the talent gap that we have in the 20 to 24 age bracket.

If I am giving up pick one for a young player, I really want him to be looking like a future star.

I know every draft pick is speculative, but so is trading for Hopper & Kennedy at this stage.

If I am looking long term at the list, I would be waiting to fill out the list until 2019 through trades.

 

[briztoon]

Put it this way, would you trade McCluggage for Hopper?

 

[jackess]

Put it this way, would you trade McCluggage for Hopper?

Would you trade Jack Watts for Trent Cotchin? Or Cale Morton or Jarrad Grant for Josh Selwood?

Early picks aren't always a certainty to be decent footballers. Especially for us when they tend not to hang around for too long. Remembering we'll still have at least 1 other first round pick (most likely).

 

[briztoon]

Would you trade Jack Watts for Trent Cotchin? Or Cale Morton or Jarrad Grant for Josh Selwood?

Early picks aren't always a certainty to be decent footballers. Especially for us when they tend not to hang around for too long. Remembering we'll still have at least 1 other first round pick (most likely).

Yup, well aware of that. But I'd rather take the chance of drafting a potential star with an early pick.

I'm not counting on the Port Pick just yet. But I'd love it to fall inside the top 10 and not have to match a bid on Connor Ballenden with it.

 

[Squizz89]

Covering old ground but if there was even the slightest chance a highly regarded young player wanted to come here I'm giving up our first pick every day of the week (referring to players of the Hopper calibre here).

Remember we are the Brisbane lions here for a sec and our complete ****house record of keeping high end talent which was still a problem even when we were decent.

It's for this very reason I think people are insane to even contemplate turning down Ballenden if he gets bid in the top 10 and he's ranked as a player in the top 10, whether Schache signs or not.

Do we really have the option of turning down a top 10 ranked player given our retention issues regardless of the position he plays, or the cover we already have in that position? IMO, no.

 

[jackess]

Covering old ground but if there was even the slightest chance a highly regarded young player wanted to come here I'm giving up our first pick every day of the week (referring to players of the Hopper calibre here).

Remember we are the Brisbane lions here for a sec and our complete ****house record of keeping high end talent which was still a problem even when we were decent.

It's for this very reason I think people are insane to even contemplate turning down Ballenden if he gets bid in the top 10 and he's ranked as a player in the top 10, whether Schache signs or not.

Do we really have the option of turning down a top 10 ranked player given our retention issues regardless of the position he plays, or the cover we already have in that position? IMO, no.

What if we don't rank him in the top 10?

 

[Squizz89]

What if we don't rank him in the top 10?

Then yes we pass. As I said if we rate him a top 10 pick we use the pick.

My main point was that people seem to think we should/shouldn't overlook him based on what Schache does. What happens if one of those KPP's decide to leave next contract? Can't see Conor putting his hand up willingly at that stage to come back when/if we overlooked him originally.

 

[briztoon]

Then yes we pass. As I said if we rate him a top 10 pick we use the pick.

My main point was that people seem to think we should/shouldn't overlook him based on what Schache does. What happens if one of those KPP's decide to leave next contract? Can't see Conor putting his hand up willingly at that stage to come back when/if we overlooked him originally.

I haven't seen a single poster mention that. Specifically based on what Schache does.

Myself and a couple of others have floated the idea on passing on Ballenden to draft for list fit/needs. But there are some "ifs" and "buts" and certain scenarios in play here.

If Ballenden stamps himself as a genuine top 5 talent, and is bid on after our first pick, I am matching the bid every day of the week. But I am not matching the bid if I believe there is a player who better suits our needs at our pick.

 

[Squizz89]

I haven't seen a single poster mention that. Specifically based on what Schache does.

Myself and a couple of others have floated the idea on passing on Ballenden to draft for list fit/needs. But there are some "ifs" and "buts" and certain scenarios in play here.

If Ballenden stamps himself as a genuine top 5 talent, and is bid on after our first pick, I am matching the bid every day of the week. But I am not matching the bid if I believe there is a player who better suits our needs at our pick.

Sorry maybe I misunderstood what people were saying earlier but yeah my point is given our struggles with retention if we believe Ballenden is ranked around where a bid comes in then yeah we match no matter our list needs, which I guess I read it wrong originally and no one is actually arguing that.

 

[Dalions]

It depends on whether the club see more potential/upside in players like Hopper and Kennedy than this years crop eg. Fogarty/Rayner/Stephenson etc. as you said all speculative. I would not be totally against it if we gave away pick 1-3 for Hopper and Kennedy.

Lets throw in Himmelberg as well. Then u got a deal.

 

[POBT]

Weren't Hopper and Kennedy 2015 draftees?

Same draft as Keays and Mathieson.

They're not bridging the talent gap that we have in the 20 to 24 age bracket.

Given Hopper and Kennedy are both 20, they actually do.

 

[briztoon]

Given Hopper and Kennedy are both 20, they actually do.

Same age as Hipwood, Schache, Keays, Mathieson, Skinner and William. Same 2015 draft coincidentally.

Just went through the list, we've got quite a lot of players in that 21 to 25 age group*, it's just that they're pretty ordinary and were traded in players, or they're our 2013 draftees who's development appeared to have stalled under Leppa, and they're just starting to show signs now. Obviously we don't have as many players from the 2014 draft because we traded our high end picks, or 2010 & 2011.

The issue really isn't the age, or age spread, of our players, the real issue is that we just lack quality depth in one age bracket. Trading for Hopper and Kennedy isn't going to fix this, as they're going to join the players I listed above from the 2015 draft, as developing third year players next season. And it's speculative at best that we could get both for 1 draft pick.

*yes I'm moving the goal posts by one year, because we're not short of talented 20 year olds.

 

[xplo]

Same age as Hipwood, Schache, Keays, Mathieson, Skinner and William. Same 2015 draft coincidentally.

Just went through the list, we've got quite a lot of players in that 21 to 25 age group*, it's just that they're pretty ordinary and were traded in players, or they're our 2013 draftees who's development appeared to have stalled under Leppa, and they're just starting to show signs now. Obviously we don't have as many players from the 2014 draft because we traded our high end picks, or 2010 & 2011.

The issue really isn't the age, or age spread, of our players, the real issue is that we just lack quality depth in one age bracket. Trading for Hopper and Kennedy isn't going to fix this, as they're going to join the players I listed above from the 2015 draft, as developing third year players next season. And it's speculative at best that we could get both for 1 draft pick.

*yes I'm moving the goal posts by one year, because we're not short of talented 20 year olds.

I think you're getting too tied to the mathematical idea of age/talent distribution. It is a useful tool, but not an end in itself.

The standard bell curve of performance puts the average player in underperforming till they're 23, hitting their prime for 5 years, then tailing off gradually.

Mathematically, you want to have a lot of those prime period guys to do well.

But if you get a Simon Black, Ollie Wines, or Joel Selwood that hit their prime at 20-21 and stay there for 10 years, that isn't a problem to be list managed around to make the maths look good.

I think people advocating a Hopper type believe he'll be an immediate B+ -> A midfielder for 10 years. It's not the norm, but it's not crazy either.

That means he's playing like a 24yo but doing it for longer than the real 24yos.

You may not agree he's that good - that's fair enough. But the maths of performance always outrank the calendar ages.

 

[acuguy]

I see us being almost non existent at the trade table this year. I wouldn't think we will have significant turn over in our list this year. I think stability and high draft picks will be our focus.

I think we have shown that we have the building blocks for a really competitive team this year and a finals bound team in 2018-2019, that campaign will still be on the back of Martin, Zorko, Rockliff and Beams but with a hell of a lot more support coming from the rest of the club.

I am keen on bringing in someone like Paul Puopolo in a coaching/playing role. It would be good to have an absolute elite trainer and elite team footballer on our list as an example to our younger players. I also believe that he would for a 1 or 2 yrs set the standard for defensive pressure. Would be happy to offload a pick between after 30 for him for the impact he could have on the professionalism of the list.

 

[M Malice]

Put it this way, would you trade McCluggage for Hopper?

NO!

I have not done the research but it seems that the strike rate of getting an elite talent in the higher regions of the draft is getting better and better each year. Clubs throw a lot of resources ($$$ and man hours) into scouting and assessing upcoming draft candidates, they look at virtually everything eg. on field, motivation, psychological profile, training attitudes, family support etc.

Would you trade McCluggage for Josh Kelly?

 

[POBT]

Same age as Hipwood, Schache, Keays, Mathieson, Skinner and William. Same 2015 draft coincidentally.

Just went through the list, we've got quite a lot of players in that 21 to 25 age group*, it's just that they're pretty ordinary and were traded in players, or they're our 2013 draftees who's development appeared to have stalled under Leppa, and they're just starting to show signs now. Obviously we don't have as many players from the 2014 draft because we traded our high end picks, or 2010 & 2011.

The issue really isn't the age, or age spread, of our players, the real issue is that we just lack quality depth in one age bracket. Trading for Hopper and Kennedy isn't going to fix this, as they're going to join the players I listed above from the 2015 draft, as developing third year players next season. And it's speculative at best that we could get both for 1 draft pick.

*yes I'm moving the goal posts by one year, because we're not short of talented 20 year olds.

If you are worried about the 21-25yo age bracket, how is drafting an 18yo strategically any smarter than trading for a 20yo of a similar quality? Surely there's more risk associated with the 18yo. Maybe there's more reward too but that's a massive unknown. Yes, there is risk associated with trading for a 20yo but I don't believe it is as risky.

As xplo mentioned, if you end up with a B+/A grade midfielder with a top 5 pick, you can be quite satisfied. Surely trading for the same standard player, 2 years further along in his development, makes sense.

 

[Jivlain]

If you are worried about the 21-25yo age bracket, how is drafting an 18yo strategically any smarter than trading for a 20yo of a similar quality? Surely there's more risk associated with the 18yo. Maybe there's more reward too but that's a massive unknown. Yes, there is risk associated with trading for a 20yo but I don't believe it is as risky.

As xplo mentioned, if you end up with a B+/A grade midfielder with a top 5 pick, you can be quite satisfied. Surely trading for the same standard player, 2 years further along in his development, makes sense.

The trouble is, of course, the logic is the same for the other side - if they've got a B+/A grade quality 20yo midfielder then they'd rather keep him rather than trade for an unknown 18yo. So - assuming they don't request out (and that bit has hurt us) they're going to want overs to cover the risk they take. TANSTAAFL.

 

[POBT]

The trouble is, of course, the logic is the same for the other side - if they've got a B+/A grade quality 20yo midfielder then they'd rather keep him rather than trade for an unknown 18yo. So - assuming they don't request out (and that bit has hurt us) they're going to want overs to cover the risk they take. TANSTAAFL.

I think the premise always has to be that the player has made up his mind that he wants or is prepared to leave. It obviously then adds weight if the player is off contract.

What makes GWS unique in some respects is that they've shown they are prepared to maintain a supply line of potentially elite 18yos, even if they lose the occasional quality 20/21yo. They have shown they like playing at the top end of the draft most years.

 

[13Beast]

...if you get a Simon Black, Ollie Wines, or Joel Selwood that hit their prime at 20-21 and stay there for 10 years.

That sir, is a Hugh McLuggage

 

[briztoon]

If you are worried about the 21-25yo age bracket, how is drafting an 18yo strategically any smarter than trading for a 20yo of a similar quality? Surely there's more risk associated with the 18yo. Maybe there's more reward too but that's a massive unknown. Yes, there is risk associated with trading for a 20yo but I don't believe it is as risky.

As xplo mentioned, if you end up with a B+/A grade midfielder with a top 5 pick, you can be quite satisfied. Surely trading for the same standard player, 2 years further along in his development, makes sense.

I'm not worried. I'm arguing against trading our 2017 top end first rounder for an older player just to balance out the talent to age ratio. If it looks like our Port pick will be used to match a bid on Ballenden, I would consider trading that pick for a player such as Hopper, and using our second and third round picks to match the points.

As far as I am concerned, our next team contending for the tittle will be built on our 2013 draft class and subsequent drafts. Unless Beams, Rockliff etc can extend their careers well in to their early/mid 30's, I do not see them being around for it.

If we've have drafted very well, with very few misses, and have managed to keep all the kids, I would consider trading our 2019 first round pick for a player to support our developing team.

 

[POBT]

I'm not worried. I'm arguing against trading our 2017 top end first rounder for an older player just to balance out the talent to age ratio. If it looks like our Port pick will be used to match a bid on Ballenden, I would consider trading that pick for a player such as Hopper, and using our second and third round picks to match the points.

As far as I am concerned, our next team contending for the tittle will be built on our 2013 draft class and subsequent drafts. Unless Beams, Rockliff etc can extend their careers well in to their early/mid 30's, I do not see them being around for it.

If we've have drafted very well, with very few misses, and have managed to keep all the kids, I would consider trading our 2019 first round pick for a player to support our developing team.

I think you brought up the age brackets. I'm not saying that we do it to balance the list. I'm saying we do it because it makes sense.

All things being equal in terms of talent, temperament etc, I'd rather pay the same price for a 20yo with 2 years of development and 20 odd senior games behind them than an 18yo draftee.

 

[briztoon]

I think you brought up the age brackets. I'm not saying that we do it to balance the list. I'm saying we do it because it makes sense.

All things being equal in terms of talent, temperament etc, I'd rather pay the same price for a 20yo with 2 years of development and 20 odd senior games behind them than an 18yo draftee.

I thought this was just a rehash of the same discussion that has been going on for the last 12 months, where a specific talentless age gap was identified. Last year it was the 20 to 24 year olds the were missing genuine talent. It's just aged one year since last year. Other poster/s had mentioned drafting a player/s to fill the gap between our young draftees and our older elite mids, I just mentioned the actual age gap.

I completely understand the argument for trading for a player with 2 years development already put in to him. It would add depth to our midfield and extra support for our mature players, and fast track our climb up the ladder. I'm just skeptical that Hopper will be as good as say Ollie Wines or any of the real elite inside mids, and there is an equal chance that we miss out on that elite player who will be the player who helps win us that championship. I just see it as a move that sacrifices the long term future for the benefit of the short term future.

 

[POBT]

It is a different argument as to whether Hopper is the right player. I personally think he is and believe he's right on track to become an A grade inside mid. I'd be rapt to get a similar player in this year's draft.

In terms of sacrificing the long term for the short term, signing a bloke who has 10 years of senior footy ahead is hardly short sighted.