2017 Trade and FA thread

[briztoon]

I'd say that we are devoid of up-and-coming midfield talent. We have Rocky, Zorko, Beams. In 3 or 4 years, they're all gone. That's where we need midfielders. Clug, Berry and Mathieson all hopefuls, but there's no guarantee there, and it isn't exactly a long list. That said, we've finally got some good KPPs for the first time in the better part of a decade.

So we're going to have discussion on semantics now?

Ben Keays is give you what the ... death stares at the moment.

Where do people see Cox playing the bulk of his minutes long term?

Yes we have a shortage of young developing midfield talent. And yes we need more. But that wasn't what I was disagreeing with.

 

[chopperduck]

I'd say that we are devoid of up-and-coming midfield talent. We have Rocky, Zorko, Beams. In 3 or 4 years, they're all gone. That's where we need midfielders. Clug, Berry and Mathieson all hopefuls, but there's no guarantee there, and it isn't exactly a long list. That said, we've finally got some good KPPs for the first time in the better part of a decade.

Agree entirely. We need a really big injection of midfield talent over the next 2 drafts. Hopefully Hugh and Berry pay off, otherwise we are counting on Matho and Keays. Few likely types there, but i cant see any of them hitting Beams' level. Hugh is quality, but probably a more outside finishing type. He is the type of player we want circling the packs and waiting on the outside rather then the bloke going in to get it.

We need some top end mids, if we have 2 top 10 picks this year i use both on mids and hope Ballenden comes after. Im after 2 of Rayner, Fogarty, Worpel.

 

[Dalions]

Agree entirely. We need a really big injection of midfield talent over the next 2 drafts. Hopefully Hugh and Berry pay off, otherwise we are counting on Matho and Keays. Few likely types there, but i cant see any of them hitting Beams' level. Hugh is quality, but probably a more outside finishing type. He is the type of player we want circling the packs and waiting on the outside rather then the bloke going in to get it.

We need some top end mids, if we have 2 top 10 picks this year i use both on mids and hope Ballenden comes after. Im after 2 of Rayner, Fogarty, Worpel.

I think if we re-sign Schache and have 2 top ten picks we have to take 2 top end mids.
If we were forced to have to use Ports pick (which some have suggested we may not have to). Then i would probably pass on Ballenden, unless if we can trade our way into another top 10 pick. (not sure where that would come from). Other than an extremely well compensated pick for Rocky.
But if we dont have to use Ports pick that would be great. Then we are only having to give up a pick in the early 20's.

 

[briztoon]

Agree entirely. We need a really big injection of midfield talent over the next 2 drafts. Hopefully Hugh and Berry pay off, otherwise we are counting on Matho and Keays. Few likely types there, but i cant see any of them hitting Beams' level. Hugh is quality, but probably a more outside finishing type. He is the type of player we want circling the packs and waiting on the outside rather then the bloke going in to get it.

We need some top end mids, if we have 2 top 10 picks this year i use both on mids and hope Ballenden comes after. Im after 2 of Rayner, Fogarty, Worpel.

I'd certainly be adding Luke Davies-Uniacke to that trio. Probably more in contention for our first pick than Worpel, who I feel should be available around Ports pick. Rayner and Fogarty have to show they have the tank to play extend midfield minutes from all reports, but most do not see that being an issue for either player.

If it does look like both our first round picks will be used to draft non academy players, I wouldn't be against Lochie O'Brien being our first selection if he was regarded as the best available player at our first pick, or even second pick if he slid that far.

 

[spotthedog1]

So we're going to have discussion on semantics now?

Ben Keays is give you what the ... death stares at the moment.

Where do people see Cox playing the bulk of his minutes long term?

Yes we have a shortage of young developing midfield talent. And yes we need more. But that wasn't what I was disagreeing with.

That's not Semantics...

devoid
adjective

1. entirely lacking or free from.

THIS is semantics.

-----

I was actually agreeing with you in part. We aren't devoid of talent. We're devoid of specific types of talent, which is currently causing a rather large problem for us.

On Keays - I don't consider him a midfielder. So far, I consider him a "hopefully, possibly, maybe" for a few years time, and at the moment the club seem to consider him a small forward. On Cox - halfback, maybe a wing if he develops well. I think he's a few years off being a regular in the 22 yet. Assuming he makes the grade.

Jackess - would you have preferred I said we are devoid of "proven" young midfield talent? Or simply that we have a dearth of young midfield talent. Exaggeration aside, my point stands. We are entirely lacking and free from midfield talent who we know will make the grade and still be playing in 5 years time. I'm hopefully on Clug/Berry/Matho. I'm not convinced of any of them.

And if you're going to ask what constitutes a "proven" young talent, I would suggest that both Hipwood and Andrews have shown enough to be confident that they are long-term AFL standard. I wouldn't say that for any of our young mids. Interestingly, and perhaps where others will disagree, I can't yet say that about Schache. I'm still quite hopeful, but I haven't seen enough to justify it.

 

[carnthemlions]

That's not Semantics...

THIS is semantics.

-----

I was actually agreeing with you in part. We aren't devoid of talent. We're devoid of specific types of talent, which is currently causing a rather large problem for us.

On Keays - I don't consider him a midfielder. So far, I consider him a "hopefully, possibly, maybe" for a few years time, and at the moment the club seem to consider him a small forward. On Cox - halfback, maybe a wing if he develops well. I think he's a few years off being a regular in the 22 yet. Assuming he makes the grade.

Jackess - would you have preferred I said we are devoid of "proven" young midfield talent? Or simply that we have a dearth of young midfield talent. Exaggeration aside, my point stands. We are entirely lacking and free from midfield talent who we know will make the grade and still be playing in 5 years time. I'm hopefully on Clug/Berry/Matho. I'm not convinced of any of them.

And if you're going to ask what constitutes a "proven" young talent, I would suggest that both Hipwood and Andrews have shown enough to be confident that they are long-term AFL standard. I wouldn't say that for any of our young mids. Interestingly, and perhaps where others will disagree, I can't yet say that about Schache. I'm still quite hopeful, but I haven't seen enough to justify it.

Why do you not consider Keays a midfielder? He's following what's really a pretty standard development path for young midfielders who aren't up to playing their preferred position in the AFL from day 1/have too many players in front of them.

 

[jackess]

That's not Semantics...

THIS is semantics.

-----

I was actually agreeing with you in part. We aren't devoid of talent. We're devoid of specific types of talent, which is currently causing a rather large problem for us.

On Keays - I don't consider him a midfielder. So far, I consider him a "hopefully, possibly, maybe" for a few years time, and at the moment the club seem to consider him a small forward. On Cox - halfback, maybe a wing if he develops well. I think he's a few years off being a regular in the 22 yet. Assuming he makes the grade.

Jackess - would you have preferred I said we are devoid of "proven" young midfield talent? Or simply that we have a dearth of young midfield talent. Exaggeration aside, my point stands. We are entirely lacking and free from midfield talent who we know will make the grade and still be playing in 5 years time. I'm hopefully on Clug/Berry/Matho. I'm not convinced of any of them.

And if you're going to ask what constitutes a "proven" young talent, I would suggest that both Hipwood and Andrews have shown enough to be confident that they are long-term AFL standard. I wouldn't say that for any of our young mids. Interestingly, and perhaps where others will disagree, I can't yet say that about Schache. I'm still quite hopeful, but I haven't seen enough to justify it.

Yep

 

[carnthemlions]

If there's one thing we really lack, it's a quality winger. Hard not to look at the likes of Macrae, Kelly, Scully etc. and wonder what sort of a difference they might make feeding off Beams, Rockliff, and Zorko. That's where losing Hanley (or at least the fit version of him anyway) hurts. Maybe we should have a go at turning Paparone into Scully-lite.

 

[briztoon]

That's not Semantics...

THIS is semantics.

-----

I was actually agreeing with you in part. We aren't devoid of talent. We're devoid of specific types of talent, which is currently causing a rather large problem for us.

On Keays - I don't consider him a midfielder. So far, I consider him a "hopefully, possibly, maybe" for a few years time, and at the moment the club seem to consider him a small forward. On Cox - halfback, maybe a wing if he develops well. I think he's a few years off being a regular in the 22 yet. Assuming he makes the grade.

Jackess - would you have preferred I said we are devoid of "proven" young midfield talent? Or simply that we have a dearth of young midfield talent. Exaggeration aside, my point stands. We are entirely lacking and free from midfield talent who we know will make the grade and still be playing in 5 years time. I'm hopefully on Clug/Berry/Matho. I'm not convinced of any of them.

And if you're going to ask what constitutes a "proven" young talent, I would suggest that both Hipwood and Andrews have shown enough to be confident that they are long-term AFL standard. I wouldn't say that for any of our young mids. Interestingly, and perhaps where others will disagree, I can't yet say that about Schache. I'm still quite hopeful, but I haven't seen enough to justify it.

lol I almost used the exact same word in my post, but deleted it and used shortage.

 

[Kevvo]

If there's one thing we really lack, it's a quality winger. Hard not to look at the likes of Macrae, Kelly, Scully etc. and wonder what sort of a difference they might make feeding off Beams, Rockliff, and Zorko. That's where losing Hanley (or at least the fit version of him anyway) hurts. Maybe we should have a go at turning Paparone into Scully-lite.

I'm pretty keen on that idea. He's probably our best (if not only) candidate for someone with the natural inclination and running power to work into holes in F50 and D50 zones. Especially while our KPPs are young, more marking would be mana from heaven.

 

[snooplions]

If there's one thing we really lack, it's a quality winger. Hard not to look at the likes of Macrae, Kelly, Scully etc. and wonder what sort of a difference they might make feeding off Beams, Rockliff, and Zorko. That's where losing Hanley (or at least the fit version of him anyway) hurts. Maybe we should have a go at turning Paparone into Scully-lite.

I think Cutler could do well on the wing.

 

[SizeMatters]

Still think we lack a genuine small pressure forward that can bob up for a goal or two and also a lockdown small defender. We have lacked genuine talent in those positions for almost a decade IMO and in the modern game those players have become extremely important. Feel like we have been behind the 8 ball with recognising this. But you can usually find a player with the traits needed to succeed in those roles into the 2nd and 3rd round of each draft. Would still take midfielders with our better picks for the next few drafts.

So wouldn't be against bringing in already established players to fill these voids. Not sure who is out of contract though.

 

[lionshine]

I would not say we are devoid of talent, we certainly lack depth.

My view is to wait until the end of the season to see where Ballenden, and our other academy prospects are rated, and where we finish on the ladder before we look at what out of contract players are available. I am reluctant to give up a top 5 draft pick in a trade.

Nor did I

 

[carnthemlions]

I think Cutler could do well on the wing.

I don't know if he's the kind of endurance animal that I'm talking about (not that every side has elite runners on the wing).

I'm pretty keen on that idea. He's probably our best (if not only) candidate for someone with the natural inclination and running power to work into holes in F50 and D50 zones. Especially while our KPPs are young, more marking would be mana from heaven.

Probably doesn't have the kind of creative/penetrating kick that you'd want, but I can't see many other players on our list who have the ability to run as hard both ways as he can. We've tried Robertson in that sort of role in the past, but he's not great at finding space and is looking serviceable in defence.

 

[Kevvo]

I don't know if he's the kind of endurance animal that I'm talking about (not that every side has elite runners on the wing).

Probably doesn't have the kind of creative/penetrating kick that you'd want, but I can't see many other players on our list who have the ability to run as hard both ways as he can. We've tried Robertson in that sort of role in the past, but he's not great at finding space and is looking serviceable in defence.

He's not, but he's got the ground coverage to run off an opponent and be involved a couple of times in a chain of possession. To my eye, that's the best thing about Scully's game. To be clear, I'm with you in thinking Scully-lite rather than Scully mk2, but I think that could work pretty well in tandem with our more damaging kicks (which we have a few of IMO).

 

[Milux]

Still think we lack a genuine small pressure forward that can bob up for a goal or two and also a lockdown small defender. We have lacked genuine talent in those positions for almost a decade IMO and in the modern game those players have become extremely important. Feel like we have been behind the 8 ball with recognising this. But you can usually find a player with the traits needed to succeed in those roles into the 2nd and 3rd round of each draft. Would still take midfielders with our better picks for the next few drafts.

So wouldn't be against bringing in already established players to fill these voids. Not sure who is out of contract though.

Fantasia?

 

[Carlos Danger]

I think if we re-sign Schache and have 2 top ten picks we have to take 2 top end mids.
If we were forced to have to use Ports pick (which some have suggested we may not have to). Then i would probably pass on Ballenden, unless if we can trade our way into another top 10 pick. (not sure where that would come from). Other than an extremely well compensated pick for Rocky.
But if we dont have to use Ports pick that would be great. Then we are only having to give up a pick in the early 20's.

Can't pass on ballenden that's all sorts of crazy.

Don't pass on top end academy talent just out of desperation to use a pick on a midfielder. That pick could be a bust, get homesick, anything could happen. If the club rates him as top 10 then we have to pay that value - we still get discount on it.

Ballenden could be a forward, ruck defender he could be anything. People say don't play too many talls but that logic is based on most teams don't have more than 1 or 2 decent talls. If theyre good enough they will work together, it would be a good problem to have anyway.

Most likely there will be good enough mids at our 2nd pick to help build depth. the key to everything is spending the first pick wisely.

 

[briztoon]

I think if we re-sign Schache and have 2 top ten picks we have to take 2 top end mids.
If we were forced to have to use Ports pick (which some have suggested we may not have to). Then i would probably pass on Ballenden, unless if we can trade our way into another top 10 pick. (not sure where that would come from). Other than an extremely well compensated pick for Rocky.
But if we dont have to use Ports pick that would be great. Then we are only having to give up a pick in the early 20's.

Not quite. We still have to match with points, so likely both our 2nd and 3rd picks.

At this stage we face four scenarios.

Scenario one, Ballenden is a top rated prospect and we have to chose to match a bid using Ports pick, or not match. (I'm going to ignore the possibility that we may have to use our first pick to match a bid on Ballenden) We walk away from the draft with our first pick, Ballenden or a second pick, and who ever we draft with our 2nd, 3rd (Collingwood's pick) and 5th round picks. 5 players.

Scenario two, Ballenden is a top rated pick and we do not have to use Ports pick, but rather our second and third round picks. We walk away with our first and second pick, Ballenden and our fifth round pick. 4 players.

Scenario three, Ballenden is not a top rated pick, and we walk away with our first and second picks, Ballenden who we match with either our second round pick OR third round pick depending on where he is rated, and player with the other pick, and fifth round pick. 5 players.

Scenario four, Ballenden is not a top rated pick, and we walk away with our first and second picks, our second round pick, our third round pick, and our fifth round pick. We do not match a bid on Ballenden. 5 players.

 

[Ruse]

So we're going to have discussion on semantics now?

Where do people see Cox playing the bulk of his minutes long term?

NEAFL

 

[briztoon]

Can't pass on ballenden that's all sorts of crazy.

Don't pass on top end academy talent just out of desperation to use a pick on a midfielder. That pick could be a bust, get homesick, anything could happen. If the club rates him as top 10 then we have to pay that value - we still get discount on it.

Ballenden could be a forward, ruck defender he could be anything. People say don't play too many talls but that logic is based on most teams don't have more than 1 or 2 decent talls. If theyre good enough they will work together, it would be a good problem to have anyway.

Most likely there will be good enough mids at our 2nd pick to help build depth. the key to everything is spending the first pick wisely.

Ballenden could just as easily be a bust. Just because he is an academy talent doesn't make his selection a necessity. If he is top 5 talent, and we finished 3rd bottom and have already drafted one top player, I am sure we will match a bid on Ballenden. But if Ballenden is rated right around Ports pick, and is bid on the pick before Ports, there would be a serious discussion to be had whether an academy talent out weighs list needs/balance.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Ballenden could just as easily be a bust. Just because he is an academy talent doesn't make his selection a necessity. If he is top 5 talent, and we finished 3rd bottom and have already drafted one top player, I am sure we will match a bid on Ballenden. But if Ballenden is rated right around Ports pick, and is bid on the pick before Ports, there would be a serious discussion to be had whether an academy talent out weighs list needs/balance.

Pretty sure we can't use traded "future" picks to bid on Academy players. Or am I misremembering?

 

[dlanod]

Pretty sure we can't use traded "future" picks to bid on Academy players. Or am I misremembering?

My understanding was that it was optional and up to us.

There's not been any AFL-published word on this though.

 

[M Malice]

The midfield load on Rockliff, D.Beams and Zorko is just too much ATM, we have a scarcity of talent in the 22-25 midfield age bracket. To balance our age profile going forward we need to get a player or ideally 2 in that age bracket into the club, or a year or so younger if they are elite level mids. We also need outside pacy runners and a small forward with elite pressure capabilities. I would be going hard at the likes of Pittard, Johaniisen, Hopper, Kennedy, Parish to name a few.

With Zorko (28), Rockliff (27), D.Beams (27), Robinson (27), Christensen (25) I am of the opinion that it is not out of the realms of possibility that 3 or 4 of them could still be around when we are in contention for a top 4 berth. Players are playing really good football till the ages of 32-34 these days giving these blokes potentially 5-6 years of footy left if they stay clear of major injuries.

 

[Dalions]

Players are playing really good football till the ages of 32-34 these days giving these blokes potentially 5-6 years of footy left if they stay clear of major injuries.

Not if we burn them out in the meantime.
They need some desperate midfield help and a couple of quality 22-24 yr olds would help immensely.
This a good reason as to why we can not run out games at the moment because these guys are spending too much time in there and no time to rest.
This was no more evident, than on the weekend against the doggies.

 

[M Malice]

Not if we burn them out in the meantime.
They need some desperate midfield help and a couple of quality 22-24 yr olds would help immensely.
This a good reason as to why we can not run out games at the moment because these guys are spending too much time in there and no time to rest.
This was no more evident, than on the weekend against the doggies.

my thoughts precisely D.