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

[Proper Gander]

If Clarry Oliver left for North next year would everyone be OK about it? I doubt it very much. But if Jetta asked to go home for family reasons I think most would be grateful

Supporters are going to go aggro when a player moves in any circumstances - I'm not surprised that the Crows supporters are down on lever, but I think the AFC's public handling of the issue left something to be desired (namely: avoiding interviews with Tex on the matter).

 

[Topkent]

Supporters are going to go aggro when a player moves in any circumstances - I'm not surprised that the Crows supporters are down on lever, but I think the AFC's public handling of the issue left something to be desired (namely: avoiding interviews with Tex on the matter).

But then everyone crys out that the AFL is full of boring clichéd individuals and Tex actually says how he feels and he's smashed for it. Good on him and lever I reckon

 

[Russian Demon]

But then everyone crys out that the AFL is full of boring clichéd individuals and Tex actually says how he feels and he's smashed for it. Good on him and lever I reckon

I hate Tex because we are on opposite sides.

But its obvious there are media/AFL sanctioned reasons and there are dpg reasons.

Ill be bold and perhaps bigoted and say if Lever werent white leaving for family would be praised, regardless if he were being paid significantly more or significantly less

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

Ill be bold and perhaps bigoted and say if Lever werent white leaving for family would be praised, regardless if he were being paid significantly more or significantly less

Lol based on what evidence?

 

[saj_21]

I saw a "transcript" of jacksons interviewing on radio yesterday.....he said with the picks that went out and the ones that came back in we effectively paid pick 5 for Lever

I also liked his comments on Watts

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Dont like that pick 5 comment - that paints a pretty rosy picture of us overpaying.

I understand the reasoning behind the comment, but reality is we gave up two good picks with a good recent drafting history for Lever - got one okay pick back and declare that means we gave up the equivalent of pick 5...

If we dont like the draft or needed to overpay to get the deal done, fine.

But spinning it is an amateur look IMO to go with every other amateur thing we've done this off season.

 

[DemonTim]

Dont like that pick 5 comment - that paints a pretty rosy picture of us overpaying.

I understand the reasoning behind the comment, but reality is we gave up two good picks with a good recent drafting history for Lever - got one okay pick back and declare that means we gave up the equivalent of pick 5...

If we dont like the draft or needed to overpay to get the deal done, fine.

But spinning it is an amateur look IMO to go with every other amateur thing we've done this off season.

He was just saying what the points value was. Saying we paid pick 5 isn’t an overvaluing of lever. If we had pick 5 and drafted lever people would be ecstatic.

 

[Topkent]

Dont like that pick 5 comment - that paints a pretty rosy picture of us overpaying.

I understand the reasoning behind the comment, but reality is we gave up two good picks with a good recent drafting history for Lever - got one okay pick back and declare that means we gave up the equivalent of pick 5...

If we dont like the draft or needed to overpay to get the deal done, fine.

But spinning it is an amateur look IMO to go with every other amateur thing we've done this off season.

I think you are incredibly over rating pick 10 and next year's first. Let's say at pick 10 this year we think the best available is an inside midfielder. I've also heard Terry Wallace say next year's super draft isn't the whole draft. It's picks 1-7 would have been top 3 for sure this year and then after that it's pretty normal.

Also people need to give up on the notion of Watts having value, he was only wanted seriously by 1 club. Matthew Kennedy, Steven Motlop, Tom Rockliff and Devon Smith were all more treasured. We could have maybe done some more shuffling to get a pick in the 20s but the club didn't want him anymore. It's kind of annoying that people on Bigfooty think they know better than Jackson Mahoney Goodwin and Nathan Jones when it comes to Watts value.

 

[Russian Demon]

Lol based on what evidence?

Nothing concrete. I suppose its more the careful language and attitude used when discussing non caucasian players, even if in the event someone may be a straight up violent criminal. Mental health/addiction seems to be treated similarly.

But youre right, i made a sweeping statement based on the fact i can think of half a dozen white players get smashed for a lack of loyalty, but not a single non white player get treated the same way.

I retract.

 

[Ando727]

Nothing concrete. I suppose its more the careful language and attitude used when discussing non caucasian players, even if in the event someone may be a straight up violent criminal. Mental health/addiction seems to be treated similarly.

But youre right, i made a sweeping statement based on the fact i can think of half a dozen white players get smashed for a lack of loyalty, but not a single non white player get treated the same way.

I retract.

I didn't think it was an outrageous statement. There is an acceptance that indigenous players have very strong family ties due to the extended family model they have. People don't question that, and don't criticise it - which I think is good. But non-indigenous players are often accused of being either disingenuous or as mummy's boys if they want to go home for the same reasons. It's often seen as a manipulation - when in fact they could have exactly the same family reasons for returning home. I do think there's always the chance of manipulation, but I don't think we should assume that anybody who is chronically homesick is faking it. We should give everybody the same presumption of authenticity. Personally, I believe Harley Balic wanted (needed) to go home every bit as much as Charlie Cameron.

 

[Demon bhoy]

Dont like that pick 5 comment - that paints a pretty rosy picture of us overpaying.

I understand the reasoning behind the comment, but reality is we gave up two good picks with a good recent drafting history for Lever - got one okay pick back and declare that means we gave up the equivalent of pick 5...

If we dont like the draft or needed to overpay to get the deal done, fine.

But spinning it is an amateur look IMO to go with every other amateur thing we've done this off season.

If the points are added together the equivalent is pick 5, which for a 21 year old AA squad member is fantastic value, I'll take Lever over an unknown everyday of the week.

I do agree the Watts thing could have been handled a wee bit better, but what else could be described as amateurish? From the outside looking in it seems there has been a plan in place over the last 4 years to first get as many high end kids in as possible let them develop together and then add at positions of need from other clubs ie just like Hawthorn, fingers crossed it's half as successful.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

He was just saying what the points value was. Saying we paid pick 5 isn’t an overvaluing of lever. If we had pick 5 and drafted lever people would be ecstatic.

Dont agree mate - he was using the points value to justify giving up two first rounders

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I think you are incredibly over rating pick 10 and next year's first. Let's say at pick 10 this year we think the best available is an inside midfielder. I've also heard Terry Wallace say next year's super draft isn't the whole draft. It's picks 1-7 would have been top 3 for sure this year and then after that it's pretty normal.

Also people need to give up on the notion of Watts having value, he was only wanted seriously by 1 club. Matthew Kennedy, Steven Motlop, Tom Rockliff and Devon Smith were all more treasured. We could have maybe done some more shuffling to get a pick in the 20s but the club didn't want him anymore. It's kind of annoying that people on Bigfooty think they know better than Jackson Mahoney Goodwin and Nathan Jones when it comes to Watts value.

Mate - why are you bringing up Watts?

I dont think its a terrible deal - but we did overpay.

My issue is justifying overpaying with the net points value - it doesnt acknowledge that we could well have two good players (or two s**t players) instead of one.

 

[LeverPuller]

Mod note - Jack Watts Rule in effect. Take it to the dedicated thread.

 

[Demon 16]

Dont agree mate - he was using the points value to justify giving up two first rounders

I think you're overrating draft picks.

I like that we just got the deal done quickly (particularly given Adelaide appeared comfortable dragging Levers name trough the mud in the interim).

If there is an issue for concern, it's that we were in a strong position to get a better deal but didn't - the actual deal is good.

Pick 10 was always going to have to be used, and next years first will hopefully be around 12-15.

The only way this will be a bad deal is if we finish in the bottom 4 or 5 next year.

 

[DemonTim]

Dont agree mate - he was using the points value to justify giving up two first rounders

Huh? How do you not agree?

 

[Demon 16]

Huh? How do you not agree?

I won't put words into TPMs keyboard, but the only thing I can deduce is that he thinks we were in a strong position to work n even more favourable deal, but seemed to play Mr nice guy.

If he thinks we shouldn't have done the deal, then I will strongly disagree.

There are also potential peripheral/future benefits of being known as an easy team to deal with or get quick deals done with.

Like I said, the actual deal is good for us imo.

 

[Gysberts2Bate]

I think you're overrating draft picks.

I like that we just got the deal done quickly (particularly given Adelaide appeared comfortable dragging Levers name trough the mud in the interim).

If there is an issue for concern, it's that we were in a strong position to get a better deal but didn't - the actual deal is good.

Pick 10 was always going to have to be used, and next years first will hopefully be around 12-15.

The only way this will be a bad deal is if we finish in the bottom 4 or 5 next year.

This is a great post. Especially the bit about Adelaide treating Lever like s**t - as soon as he nominated us we took on a duty of care and that means looking out for player welfare even if it comes at a slight added cost. We acted like the bigger party, he got to us sooner, and will have a better attitude toward the trade and us as a new home because of it, and that has huge intangible benefit since IMO

 

[Cannon82]

This is a great post. Especially the bit about Adelaide treating Lever like s**t - as soon as he nominated us we took on a duty of care and that means looking out for player welfare even if it comes at a slight added cost. We acted like the bigger party, he got to us sooner, and will have a better attitude toward the trade and us as a new home because of it, and that has huge intangible benefit since IMO

Come on, man. Lever would have been on holiday somewhere or lounging around in Melbourne. It's not like he was locked up on Manus Island until a trade was done. I agree it would have been some relief to him that it got done early, but if a week at the trade period is causing a player psychological damage, then we probably don't want that guy at the club.

I thought the main point of getting deals done early was giving the club time to focus on other deals. We only had the Watts and Balic deals to go through, and there doesn't appear to have been any overly complex or drawn out negotiations there. If there was something else in the works, it fell through and the club was quiet about it.

So us paying Adelaide overs to get the deal done sooner doesn't appear to have benefited us at all. If we get Rory Laird for a second rounder next season, I'll change my tune, but otherwise, the "duty of care" to the player is weak. If you think that was the case for Lever, then we had a "duty of care" to keep Watts around because that was what he wanted.

 

[Topkent]

Mate - why are you bringing up Watts?

I dont think its a terrible deal - but we did overpay.

My issue is justifying overpaying with the net points value - it doesnt acknowledge that we could well have two good players (or two s**t players) instead of one.

Haha I got mated

I brought him up because the people critiquing our off season have lumped those 2 together as a package. I do agree the points argument is a little invalid because saying 5 3rd rounders = pick 1 is like the old trade 3 spuds for a gun. I also think if the club was happy to pay that price then they would have had their reasons. Like I said maybe they think the player available at pick 10 this year has the ceiling of Balic and we were quite happy to move it on. The crows were pretty happy to move 2 from this year as well for a 29 year old.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

Huh? How do you not agree?

Because its a flawed way of looking at the trade IMO

 

[RandB]

Come on, man. Lever would have been on holiday somewhere or lounging around in Melbourne. It's not like he was locked up on Manus Island until a trade was done. I agree it would have been some relief to him that it got done early, but if a week at the trade period is causing a player psychological damage, then we probably don't want that guy at the club.

I thought the main point of getting deals done early was giving the club time to focus on other deals. We only had the Watts and Balic deals to go through, and there doesn't appear to have been any overly complex or drawn out negotiations there. If there was something else in the works, it fell through and the club was quiet about it.

So us paying Adelaide overs to get the deal done sooner doesn't appear to have benefited us at all. If we get Rory Laird for a second rounder next season, I'll change my tune, but otherwise, the "duty of care" to the player is weak. If you think that was the case for Lever, then we had a "duty of care" to keep Watts around because that was what he wanted.

Agree.

Simple communication between the club and player manager is all it would have taken. Due dilligence at the trade table.

A smart club always keeps its options open. Adelaide were in a delicate position and we needlessly jumped the gun.

In future, clubs will automatically play hardball with us (irrespective of circumstances) as we're building a reputation for rollovers.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I won't put words into TPMs keyboard, but the only thing I can deduce is that he thinks we were in a strong position to work n even more favourable deal, but seemed to play Mr nice guy.

If he thinks we shouldn't have done the deal, then I will strongly disagree.

There are also potential peripheral/future benefits of being known as an easy team to deal with or get quick deals done with.

Like I said, the actual deal is good for us imo.

Mmm kind of - my main issue is the spinning of the trade down to a theoretical pick 5 value.

I'd rather we acknowledge what we are paying rather then trivialize what we gave up - does that make sense?

 

[DemonTim]

Because its a flawed way of looking at the trade IMO

I don’t think it necessarily is, most clubs and the media are referring tot trades by their point value now. It’s the new way to look at it.

Even without that. Success rates on draft picks are lower than established players.

 

[ThePuppetMaster]

I don’t think it necessarily is, most clubs and the media are referring tot trades by their point value now. It’s the new way to look at it.

Even without that. Success rates on draft picks are lower than established players.

The media just want more things to make a comparison to.

Its another tool for clubs, absolutely - but when we're giving something up I hope the discussion is more than ... oh its just pick 5