List Mgmt. 2017 Trade and Free Agency Discussion - #Leverpulled and #Harleyrevved

[Devastating Boris]

The swans couldn't match Mitchell's asking price and hawthorn asked Mitchell and Lewis to take a cut to fit him in. They lost those two and Mitchell walks in.

 

[Golumless]

There is a belief here that if we give up two first rounders for Lever we'd want something back in return, with most mooting a second round pick.

If the Crows didn't want to give some picks back, are there any players from the Crows that could potentially be added to the deal along with Lever as sort of stakeknives? At the moment Dees need a backup ruck (please don't suggest Riley O'Brien), some outside run and maybe another pressure medium forward.

Yeah, I'd be comfortable with Lever + our 2nd (next years) -> 2 x 1sts.

Ruck wise, our depth chart is Sauce -> cliff -> O'Brien -> cliff -> abyss -> whatever is below the abyss -> our other options, so if it's not O'Brien (who I like, but question marks if the game has gone past his style) then look elsewhere... unless you like potatoes masquerading as ruckmen.

With outside run/small medium forward, the best bet might be just do go into the draft and get some. Both aren't positions you need much in terms of draft picks to get quality role players, and really that's all you need. For us though, our two tradeable options are really Seedsman and Menzel, which seeing they're already on average AFL wage, if not slightly above, is not exactly something I'd expect the Dees would be keen on.

After reading all that, all I came out with is that two firsts are very rarely traded, except for Treloar and the Pies got something like pick 21 back in that trade. Also it hasn't been a resounding success as far as playing finals goes, and a lot people thought they had paid quite highly for him.

Also Tom Mitchell played plenty of good games at AFL level for Sydney, not sure if you didn't watch many of their games or if you just missed him, but he had shown a fair bit with limited midfield minutes.

To be fair, I was just going from the time the futures rule came in, which was about 3-4 years ago. Considering 6+Griffin is pretty comparable to 2x firsts (seeing at that time Griffin was an out and out gun) it's about a one in two year occurrence. Currently, it's about a 50% thing, but equally finals is about coaches and structures more then players.

Mitchell I thought about, but decided against because he had only broken into Sydneys side as a permanent member the season he got traded, and whilst he oozed potential, he didn't have the runs on the board yet (that Boyd got away with due to the fascination of 200cm KPF/Forwards).

Pretty much everyone will admit Collingwood overpaid with the future pick for Treloar by assuming they'd finish higher than they did. Boyd was a contracted KPF recent pick 1 so a premium had to be payed, still only the equivalent of a 1st and second. Bennell, well 16 and 35 for Bennel and 22 hardly equates to a first and second rounder.
Seems to me his value is about a first and second rounder. The only odd one out is the Treloar trade, and Colonwood got screwed over thankfully. So no you most likely won't be getting 2 first rounders for an OOC player who nominates one club. No bidding wars there. Your club and mine are both reasonable at the trade table and a deal will be struck should he nominate us. 2 first round picks is not reasonable unless something substantial comes along with Lever. Jason Taylor will know how good next year's draft will be and should be loathe to give up a 2018 first. Oh and Tom Mitchell certainly did have runs on the board, moreso than Lever.

I'd agree Collingwood did overpay, however it's still worth mentioning as we're probably a decade off truly understanding what this current market is in terms of player movements with futures.

Even then, a 1st and an upgrade of a second for a couple of players whilst extremely talented, and extremely flawed is still a hefty price. Two bearing the risks of being one injury off retirement, and Bennell is well... something. By that, this deal would have to be more, and the either 1st + 2nd + steak knives, or 1st + 1st for an 2nd and Lever being what I'd say is likely (even with my bolstering).

At the same age, Lever is miles ahead of Mitchell (seeing Mitchell is just a depth option at this stage); even considering Mitchells last season at Sydney, Lever is still ahead seeing one had just established himself as a permanent member of a side, whilst the other was on the verge of an AA selection. Is it reversed now, one season after Mitchells trade? For sure.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Dees out: Pick 10, Salem
Dees in: Pick 36, Lever

Tigers out: Pick 17
Tigers in: Salem

Adelaide out: Lever, Pick 36
Adelaide in: Pick 10, Pick 17

 

[LeverPuller]

Yeah, I'd be comfortable with Lever + our 2nd (next years) -> 2 x 1sts.

Ruck wise, our depth chart is Sauce -> cliff -> O'Brien -> cliff -> abyss -> whatever is below the abyss -> our other options, so if it's not O'Brien (who I like, but question marks if the game has gone past his style) then look elsewhere... unless you like potatoes masquerading as ruckmen.

With outside run/small medium forward, the best bet might be just do go into the draft and get some. Both aren't positions you need much in terms of draft picks to get quality role players, and really that's all you need. For us though, our two tradeable options are really Seedsman and Menzel, which seeing they're already on average AFL wage, if not slightly above, is not exactly something I'd expect the Dees would be keen on.



To be fair, I was just going from the time the futures rule came in, which was about 3-4 years ago. Considering 6+Griffin is pretty comparable to 2x firsts (seeing at that time Griffin was an out and out gun) it's about a one in two year occurrence. Currently, it's about a 50% thing, but equally finals is about coaches and structures more then players.

Mitchell I thought about, but decided against because he had only broken into Sydneys side as a permanent member the season he got traded, and whilst he oozed potential, he didn't have the runs on the board yet (that Boyd got away with due to the fascination of 200cm KPF/Forwards).



I'd agree Collingwood did overpay, however it's still worth mentioning as we're probably a decade off truly understanding what this current market is in terms of player movements with futures.

Even then, a 1st and an upgrade of a second for a couple of players whilst extremely talented, and extremely flawed is still a hefty price. Two bearing the risks of being one injury off retirement, and Bennell is well... something. By that, this deal would have to be more, and the either 1st + 2nd + steak knives, or 1st + 1st for an 2nd and Lever being what I'd say is likely (even with my bolstering).

At the same age, Lever is miles ahead of Mitchell (seeing Mitchell is just a depth option at this stage); even considering Mitchells last season at Sydney, Lever is still ahead seeing one had just established himself as a permanent member of a side, whilst the other was on the verge of an AA selection. Is it reversed now, one season after Mitchells trade? For sure.

Closest comparison positionally is Carlisle who was pick 5 - 23 year old highly talented KPD who had a significant issue outstanding i.e. ASADA.

Is the jump from 10 to a low top 5 pick worth a whole other first rounder? That's the question.

Personally think it will be 10+27 though.

 

[F_therest]

Closest comparison positionally is Carlisle who was pick 5 - 23 year old highly talented KPD who had a significant issue outstanding i.e. ASADA.

Is the jump from 10 to a low top 5 pick worth a whole other first rounder? That's the question.

Personally think it will be 10+27 though.

Would you guys be happy to trade pick 10 & 27 for Lever?

I think the basis of a deal looks good between the three clubs, with maybe some lower end pick swaps to sweeten the deal.

Adelaide - LOSE: Lever, pick 17 | GAIN: Gibbs, pick 10
Melbourne - LOSE: picks 10 & 27 | GAIN: Lever
Carlton - LOSE: Gibbs | GAIN: picks 17 & 27

 

[Crusty Demon]

Dees out: Pick 10, Salem
Dees in: Pick 36, Lever

Tigers out: Pick 17
Tigers in: Salem

Adelaide out: Lever, Pick 36
Adelaide in: Pick 10, Pick 17

There is no way we are trading Salem. Watts, maybe, but we won't be trading Salem..

 

[Russian Demon]

I'm a bit torn.

Im reluctant to trade players at the bottom of their value. But in reality, if they come good, then we won't want to trade them (i.e. Nibbler).

So the only players we would want to trade are players underperforming who we can't get the best out of. In the past we've offloaded a lot of players to clubs who think they just need to wash the Melbourne off (Fitz, Toumpas, Blease ect)...... most of the time they end up crap and we get a low pick in return.

In reality though, if someone is worth a first, there aren't many reasons to trade them out while our depth is so rubbish. Trading out quality is a privilege of the rich (in depth)

 

[schmuttt]

Would you guys be happy to trade pick 10 & 27 for Lever?

I think the basis of a deal looks good between the three clubs, with maybe some lower end pick swaps to sweeten the deal.

Adelaide - LOSE: Lever, pick 17 | GAIN: Gibbs, pick 10
Melbourne - LOSE: picks 10 & 27 | GAIN: Lever
Carlton - LOSE: Gibbs | GAIN: picks 17 & 27

I'd do that for sure.

 

[Topkent]

I'd do that for sure.

That deal values Gibbs more than Lever. Adelaide would need some more picks or something else.

 

[F_therest]

That deal values Gibbs more than Lever. Adelaide would need some more picks or something else.

Nah it values Lever at 10 & 27, Gibbs at 17 & 27.

 

[Topkent]

Nah it values Lever at 10 & 27, Gibbs at 17 & 27.

It's probably the best deal I've seen so far. Still think crows might need a second or third from one of us as well.

 

[Russian Demon]

Would you guys be happy to trade pick 10 & 27 for Lever?

I think the basis of a deal looks good between the three clubs, with maybe some lower end pick swaps to sweeten the deal.

Adelaide - LOSE: Lever, pick 17 | GAIN: Gibbs, pick 10
Melbourne - LOSE: picks 10 & 27 | GAIN: Lever
Carlton - LOSE: Gibbs | GAIN: picks 17 & 27

Done

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Would you guys be happy to trade pick 10 & 27 for Lever?

I think the basis of a deal looks good between the three clubs, with maybe some lower end pick swaps to sweeten the deal.

Adelaide - LOSE: Lever, pick 17 | GAIN: Gibbs, pick 10
Melbourne - LOSE: picks 10 & 27 | GAIN: Lever
Carlton - LOSE: Gibbs | GAIN: picks 17 & 27

Adelaide is getting routed there

 

[Russian Demon]

Adelaide is getting routed there

Well, i guess it depends how you measure it.

They didn't value Lever enough to offer him close to the coin he's worth to others. He's also uncontracted, and he's pretty much said he wants to leave.

Gibbs is old, but he's contracted and he's a gun.

In my opinion (and I'm laded and biased) Lever is worth a first and an earlyish second due to his circumstances. If he wanted to stay or was contracted he'd be worth 2 x 1sts. Adelaide won't like this deal, but its still within the realm of reason.

 

[Demon 16]

I just hope we can land Lever without significantly compromising our draft position next year. That's what we should be working towards.

We should be trying to get away with a first and second round pick this year (weaker draft, take a couple of fleet footed later picks, plus we have some rookies to upgrade).

Then go into next years draft and try to improve our position as best we can to get a couple of good young prospects in.

I think we should be able to manage it with Adelaide. They are up against it if Lever indeed nominates us after their finals.

 

[Topkent]

I just hope we can land Lever without significantly compromising our draft position next year. That's what we should be working towards.

We should be trying to get away with a first and second round pick this year (weaker draft, take a couple of fleet footed later picks, plus we have some rookies to upgrade).

Then go into next years draft and try to improve our position as best we can to get a couple of good young prospects in.

I think we should be able to manage it with Adelaide. They are up against it if Lever indeed nominates us after their finals.

Best thing for us would be that Adelaide wins the flag and they spend the off season smashing piss and let Lever just walk to us.

 

[Chrispiesssss]

Would pick 30 be sufficient for Watts?

 

[KickLongTackleHard]

Devon Smith would be a good get. Hard to see happening if we are preoccupied trying to get Lever done

 

[Russian Demon]

Would pick 30 be sufficient for Watts?

If he wanted our or we were pushing probably. Otherwise probably 20-30.

 

[Russian Demon]

Devon Smith would be a good get. Hard to see happening if we are preoccupied trying to get Lever done

Does he have outside speed and class?

 

[Sando22]

I personally don't see the point in trading Watts, the ship has sailed.
I don't want us to either because I like what he brings when fit and on song.
Think too much has been made of his post injury form and people are quick to forget how well he played in numerous positions for the first 13 weeks on the back of a pretty good year last year also.
Is worth more to us than we'd be able to get on the trade table and you just know he'd tear us a new one every time we played him if he changes clubs!

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Well, i guess it depends how you measure it.

They didn't value Lever enough to offer him close to the coin he's worth to others. He's also uncontracted, and he's pretty much said he wants to leave.

Gibbs is old, but he's contracted and he's a gun.

In my opinion (and I'm laded and biased) Lever is worth a first and an earlyish second due to his circumstances. If he wanted to stay or was contracted he'd be worth 2 x 1sts. Adelaide won't like this deal, but its still within the realm of reason.

Lever isn't moving bc of money. There's only $100k difference between our highest offer and Adelaide's. He wants to come back to Melbourne.

 

[Russian Demon]

Lever isn't moving bc of money. There's only $100k difference between our highest offer and Adelaide's. He wants to come back to Melbourne.

Really? Where do you get that mail?

 

[CWaffles]

Haha where do people come up with this s**t, we would be asking for lever and their first for Clayton.

 

[schmuttt]

View attachment 418283

Haha where do people come up with this s**t, we would be asking for lever and their first for Clayton.

LOL

Please link the page.