2017 trade hypothetical thread

[SterlingArcher]

Got rid of a lot of experience around 2011/2012.

It was a disaster, maybe, but I dont think that was the actual reason Melbourne stunk at that time. It was more due to poor selections at the draft and poor coaching/development.

Calrton didnt go about it that way, but arguably are in the same position. That's all my point was, that the dark years can come from many sources. Trading out Bryce Gibbs will not set Carlton back like some posters are saying.

We would have comfortably won the spoon without him this year.

 

[DangerSloane]

We would have comfortably won the spoon without him this year.

And....what difference would that have made?
I dont agree personally anyhow, but isnt that the point? You're not making it anywhere with him or without him, so why not get some gun kids in the door who might be dominant when you are in the hunt.

This whole "trying not to finish last" as a strategy doesnt really help anyone.

 

[boncer34]

Trading out Bryce Gibbs will not set Carlton back like some posters are saying.

Of course not but saying Melbourne almost made the finals this year so it all worked out fine is silly.

 

[DangerSloane]

Would Carlton accept a first and a young midfielder like Rory Atkins?
I dont know if that fits the need, but if its midfield depth that you're worried about then at least getting a midfielder back could help plug the hole (even though obviously Gibbs > Atkins)

 

[DangerSloane]

Of course not but saying Melbourne almost made the finals this year so it all worked out fine is silly.

What I meant was their turnaround was quicker than expected, and quicker than Carlton.
Losing the older players was a short term pain for a longer term gain. They dont have anyone of quality retiring in the next few years either so should be able to give finals a crack for at least a few years to come.

 

[saintscott]

Would Carlton accept a first and a young midfielder like Rory Atkins?
I dont know if that fits the need, but if its midfield depth that you're worried about then at least getting a midfielder back could help plug the hole (even though obviously Gibbs > Atkins)

That seems fair value

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Would Carlton accept a first and a young midfielder like Rory Atkins?
I dont know if that fits the need, but if its midfield depth that you're worried about then at least getting a midfielder back could help plug the hole (even though obviously Gibbs > Atkins)

Depends what that first is? Big difference between 10 & 16.

 

[DangerSloane]

Depends what that first is? Big difference between 10 & 16.

Well I'd say it would be either, with a workaround with later picks...
I'm not sure there is a huge difference between 10 and 16. Go back and have a look at the past 10 drafts.

 

[Smalls0304]

Does anyone except Carlton fans actually think Gibbs is worth more than a first round pick?

I think you're mixing up Gibbs' worth and what we are asking. At 29 Gibbs is probably worth a pick 10-15 alone but because he is contracted for 2 more years, we are extremely short of midfield depth and our desire to keep him, we are asking for overs. Its up to the crows to decide if they are willing to pay overs for somebody who will significantly improve your side. If he was uncontracted i would agree with you. Its the same as Sloane being worth significantly more to Adelaide than he would be on the market. If Sloane left you would want the world in return because of how vital he is to your team.

 

[ItsAllAboutMe]

Well I'd say it would be either, with a workaround with later picks...
I'm not sure there is a huge difference between 10 and 16. Go back and have a look at the past 10 drafts.

Interesting comparison, i would say pick 10 is fairly conclusively the better pick but is a long way from being a guarantee.

2007 - Pick 10 Dangerfield, 16 Matt Lobbe
2008 - 10, Phil Davis 16 Ryan Shoenmakers
2009 - 10 Jake Melksham, 16 Jasper Pittard
2010 - 10 Daniel Gorringe, 16 Shaun Atley
2011 - 10 Liam Sumner, 16 Tom Sherridan - even
2012 - 10 Joe Daniher, Jackson Thurlow
2013 - 10 Nathan Freeman, 16 Dancy Lang
2014 - 10 Darcy Moore, 16 Sam Durdin
2015 - 10 Harry Mckary, 16 Harrison Himmelberg
2016 - 10 Jack Bowes, 16 Todd Marshall

 

[DangerSloane]

Interesting comparison, i would say pick 10 is fairly conclusively the better pick but is a long way from being a guarantee.

2007 - Pick 10 Dangerfield, 16 Matt Lobbe
2008 - 10, Phil Davis 16 Ryan Shoenmakers
2009 - 10 Jake Melksham, 16 Jasper Pittard
2010 - 10 Daniel Gorringe, 16 Shaun Atley
2011 - 10 Liam Sumner, 16 Tom Sherridan
2012 - 10 Joe Daniher, Jackson Thurlow
2013 - 10 Nathan Freeman, 16 Dancy Lang
2014 - 10 Darcy Moore, 16 Sam Durdin
2015 - 10 Harry Mckary, 16 Harrison Himmelberg
2016 - 10 Jack Bowes, 16 Todd Marshall

Too early to tell on the last 2 but thats pretty even.

Sheridan has played 68 games and 39 games in the last 3 seasons.
Sumner has played 32 games and 20 in the last 3 seasons.
Gotta say Sheridan is ahead there, especially considering his team has been above Sumners every season.

 

[Stitch]

Interesting comparison, i would say pick 10 is fairly conclusively the better pick but is a long way from being a guarantee.

2007 - Pick 10 Dangerfield, 16 Matt Lobbe
2008 - 10, Phil Davis 16 Ryan Shoenmakers
2009 - 10 Jake Melksham, 16 Jasper Pittard
2010 - 10 Daniel Gorringe, 16 Shaun Atley
2011 - 10 Liam Sumner, 16 Tom Sherridan - even
2012 - 10 Joe Daniher, Jackson Thurlow
2013 - 10 Nathan Freeman, 16 Dancy Lang
2014 - 10 Darcy Moore, 16 Sam Durdin
2015 - 10 Harry Mckary, 16 Harrison Himmelberg
2016 - 10 Jack Bowes, 16 Todd Marshall

If you're going to make a comparison you have to remember that prior to trading future picks, later first round picks were mainly used by top 4 teams that would be drafting for needs, so pick 16 isn't necessarily the best player available. If you dangled 3 + 16 in front of Saints they'd give you 7 + 8.

Dangerfield is a once in a generation type. Davis is above average, Melksham average at best, Gorringe and Sumner are duds, Daniher and Moore were F/S so they were untouchable, Freeman yet to play, McKay and Bowes are too young to tell. Drafts are a lottery.

 

[DangerSloane]

If you're going to make a comparison you have to remember that prior to trading future picks, later first round picks were mainly used by top 4 teams that would be drafting for needs, so pick 16 isn't necessarily the best player available. If you dangled 3 + 16 in front of Saints they'd give you 7 + 8.

Dangerfield is a once in a generation type. Davis is above average, Melksham average at best, Gorringe and Sumner are duds, Daniher and Moore were F/S so they were untouchable, Freeman yet to play, McKay and Bowes are too young to tell. Drafts are a lottery.

Absolutely. Which was kinda my point that 10 is better than 16 but absolutely no guarantee.
If carlton were angling to get a guy with their 2nd selection (at 10 or 16) and the guy was estimated to go at 23 then there would probably be no difference.
Like when Adelaide swapped with geelong to go down the order in the first round knowing they wanted Lever.

It would all depend on Carlton's strategy and targets.

It seems like the rumours just wont go away about this one. Both sides denying, so where are they coming from?

 

[DangerSloane]

We would have comfortably won the spoon without him this year.

In reality that doesnt mean anything to you.
Last or 16th...really isnt much difference for where you're at right now. Young list gaining experience and knowledge.

 

[SterlingArcher]

In reality that doesnt mean anything to you.
Last or 16th...really isnt much difference for where you're at right now. Young list gaining experience and knowledge.

It means a ****load to the club and fans, no doubt about it.

Being competitive alone from 2015 (4-18 65%) to 2016 (7-15 80%) and 2017 (6-16 78%) has made a huge difference, no doubt about it. It helps convince players to come because there is hope, can attract and retain staff etc.

Guaranteed we would have struggled to win 3 games in 2017 without Gibbs, the evidence is all there from his impact in wins and close losses, and we would be back to square 1.

 

[SterlingArcher]

It would all depend on Carlton's strategy and targets.

It seems like the rumours just wont go away about this one. Both sides denying, so where are they coming from?

Don't know. It may be the clubs are preparing to trade Gibbs amicably for a fair price both ways. I don't mind if it's just a first rounder, it'd be in the ballpark of being very fair. But all we're saying is that if SOS decides to not trade Gibbs unless it's a monster deal (i.e. 2 first rounders), we can see the benefit of keeping him for leadership and keeping us off the absolute bottom. If he does trade him for a fair deal, then it's a fair deal and no skin off my nose.

Our strategy is almost definitely to bolster our future midfield (pick 3, Kennedy - to go with Cripps, SPS, Cuningham, Docherty/Curnow rotating from defence/forward, Pickett and Polson who are both very raw at AFL level - pretty thin right now) and we want to protect that midfield as much as possible in the short term from being forced to fight - leave that to Gibbs, Murphy, E.Curnow, Thomas, Kerridge.

 

[SterlingArcher]

Interesting comparison, i would say pick 10 is fairly conclusively the better pick but is a long way from being a guarantee.

2007 - Pick 10 Dangerfield, 16 Matt Lobbe
2008 - 10, Phil Davis 16 Ryan Shoenmakers
2009 - 10 Jake Melksham, 16 Jasper Pittard
2010 - 10 Daniel Gorringe, 16 Shaun Atley
2011 - 10 Liam Sumner, 16 Tom Sherridan - even
2012 - 10 Joe Daniher, Jackson Thurlow
2013 - 10 Nathan Freeman, 16 Dancy Lang
2014 - 10 Darcy Moore, 16 Sam Durdin
2015 - 10 Harry Mckary, 16 Harrison Himmelberg
2016 - 10 Jack Bowes, 16 Todd Marshall

But then you have to look at the players available at 11-15 that wouldn't be there at 16 but hopefully a good recruiter might have got at 10 instead of Sumner, Melksham etc. That's the benefit of 10 over 16 - you have 6 more additional players to pick from.

 

[SterlingArcher]

And....what difference would that have made?
I dont agree personally anyhow, but isnt that the point? You're not making it anywhere with him or without him, so why not get some gun kids in the door who might be dominant when you are in the hunt.

This whole "trying not to finish last" as a strategy doesnt really help anyone.

1) You don't agree, you'd be wrong

2) As in my previous post - makes a hell of a difference showing improvement from 2 years ago

3) Get 'some' gun kids - but we're only getting pick 16 in a shallow draft apparently (+ Wigg who seems alright but is an uncontracted 21-yo 0 gamer - we can get him for a DFA or pick 60-70 likely, don't have to give up our 2nd best midfielder for him ). Pick 10, yeah closer. But as Adelaide fans keep repeating that we seemingly need 'some gun kids' and have 'no talent to teach' - we've put a fair bit of draft, trade, development and management resources into Docherty, Cripps, Marchbank, Pickett, Plowman, SPS, Curnow, McKay, Weitering, Cuningham, Boekhorst (woops ) + lesser value later selections like Silvagni, Fisher, Williamson, Polson, Macreadie who still look promising. We'd be hoping there is 14 of our next tilt at least. Add pick 3, Kennedy, next years first rounder which likely will be top 6-7, and you start to get the picture that selling Gibbs at his lowest value for a late first rounder doesn't exactly take us from the base to the top. "Gibbs won't play in a premiership, what difference does he make" well yeah but then apparently Melbourne missing finals about 7 years after brutally cutting their senior players is evidence that cutting senior players works so Idk

 

[DangerSloane]

1) You don't agree, you'd be wrong

2) As in my previous post - makes a hell of a difference showing improvement from 2 years ago

3) Get 'some' gun kids - but we're only getting pick 16 in a shallow draft apparently (+ Wigg who seems alright but is an uncontracted 21-yo 0 gamer - we can get him for a DFA or pick 60-70 likely, don't have to give up our 2nd best midfielder for him ). Pick 10, yeah closer. But as Adelaide fans keep repeating that we seemingly need 'some gun kids' and have 'no talent to teach' - we've put a fair bit of draft, trade, development and management resources into Docherty, Cripps, Marchbank, Pickett, Plowman, SPS, Curnow, McKay, Weitering, Cuningham, Boekhorst (woops ) + lesser value later selections like Silvagni, Fisher, Williamson, Polson, Macreadie who still look promising. We'd be hoping there is 14 of our next tilt at least. Add pick 3, Kennedy, next years first rounder which likely will be top 6-7, and you start to get the picture that selling Gibbs at his lowest value for a late first rounder doesn't exactly take us from the base to the top. "Gibbs won't play in a premiership, what difference does he make" well yeah but then apparently Melbourne missing finals about 7 years after brutally cutting their senior players is evidence that cutting senior players works so Idk

You were going really well until you said Gibbs at his lowest value.
His lowest value is you keeping him for another 3-4 years, or getting nothing as a UFA at the end of 19.

The difference with Melbourne is that their youngsters and development sucked. I'd argue that would've happened even if they kept their senior players, remembering their senior players weren't very good either. I don't think Carlton have that problem, the kids they've got mostly look pretty decent (except Boekhorst). I just find it a bit weird you've gone that route with a number of players, but with gibbs you're sticking strong to the fact that you need to keep him.

 

[DangerSloane]

But then you have to look at the players available at 11-15 that wouldn't be there at 16 but hopefully a good recruiter might have got at 10 instead of Sumner, Melksham etc. That's the benefit of 10 over 16 - you have 6 more additional players to pick from.

Thats true, but you cant assume that every list guy picking at 10 has stuffed it and not picked a good one.
I mean Danger was the best out of his draft and we got him at 10.

The chances are higher of getting the player you want, but not necessarily any guarantee of a better player.

Someone made the point earlier that its often top teams at their first pick trying to fill a gap and therefore not always best available.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Sorry to interrupt the Gibbs talk...

Saw a version of this on Twitter and thought it looked alright:

Saints lose: pick 7, pick 8
Saints gain: pick 2, pick 21

Suns lose: pick 2, pick 21
Suns gain: Weller, pick 8

Freo lose: Weller
Freo gain: pick 7

 

[DangerSloane]

Sorry to interrupt the Gibbs talk...

Saw a version of this on Twitter and thought it looked alright:

Saints lose: pick 7, pick 8
Saints gain: pick 2, pick 21

Suns lose: pick 2, pick 21
Suns gain: Weller, pick 8

Freo lose: Weller
Freo gain: pick 7

You'd have to ask the fans of each of the teams, but looks alright in principal...

 

[JG22]

Sorry to interrupt the Gibbs talk...

Saw a version of this on Twitter and thought it looked alright:

Saints lose: pick 7, pick 8
Saints gain: pick 2, pick 21

Suns lose: pick 2, pick 21
Suns gain: Weller, pick 8

Freo lose: Weller
Freo gain: pick 7

Unders for Weller, worth a pick in the top 2.

 

[Miguel Sanchez]

Unders for Weller, worth a pick in the top 2.

Youve forgotten to change your team from the Saints, Ross.

 

[JG22]

I think its a pretty realistic option to be honest.

But not sure GC want to go down that path.