List Mgmt. 2018 Draft thread.

[swoop42]

This trade and draft period has justified Hine's trade dealings last year IMO and I see some people continue to make the assumption that either a) we should have been able to get Murray for nothing or that b) Sydney should have just damn well accepted whatever we offered.

Sorry but that's not how trade negotiations work and the simple reality is if we had of exchanged a 3rd round pick for Murray last year then I doubt much fuss would have been made.

As it is we kept our 2018 3rd round pick, received another from Sydney with the net result being these 2 picks combined were only worth around 20 points less than our eventual 2nd round selection.

Hine isn't stupid, he knew we had a promising F/S and academy player available to us in 2018, we could take advantage of the situation and in doing this deal he correctly predicted Kelly would be bid on and become our 2018 2nd round selection so we have effectively received Murray as a bonus to Kelly at selection 29 for mine with the cost at worst being the inability to make a 3rd round selection in 2018.

We were able to exploit the bidding system once again for Beams and made maximum use of our selection 18 and I'm not sure how anyone can feel we overpaid for him as we still walked away with our academy player in Quaynor at pick 13 so we have made a 1st round selection this year.

Once again the judgement of Hine/Guy was spot on and Beams has only ended up costing our 2019 1st round selection and nothing more.

Better price than what Adelaide paid for Gibbs.

 

[35Daicos]

So can we actually select Marlion Pickett through this pre season SPP anyway? Thought you could only add players who have previously been on an AFL list. Pretty sure he hasn't been on one.

He could maybe be added via the mid season rookie draft next season if we still have the Murray list spot open at that stage.

Only via the mid-season draft I'd have thought.

The rules on this still don't seem clear, but Richmond are likely to have Sydney Stack training with them, with a view to picking him up under the new rookie rules. He's never been on an AFL list (like Pickett) but if he qualifies then we should be able to take Pickett, if we want him. That's if Murray gets banned and he can be replaced on our Rookie List by another player.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-26/tigers-seek-draft-lifeline-for-overlooked-wa-star

RICHMOND is hoping to offer talented WA teenager Sydney Stack an AFL lifeline, with the Tigers inviting him to train at Punt Road.

The Tigers submitted a request to the AFL over the weekend and is waiting for League approval.

If given the green light, Stack will arrive at Tigerland on December 1, and can train with Richmond during the pre-season supplemental selection period until March 15.

He could then join Richmond's list under the new rookie rules.

 

[loki04]

For every one of those trades you could equally cite a Wellingham for P18, or a Dawes & P61 for P20 & P47, or Beams & P67 for P5, P25 & Crisp, or a Seedsman for P32, or Howe for Kennedy. It's swings and round-abouts and hardly shocking that not every deal is skewed toward the Pies.

Not really no.

Wellingham and Dawes both held trade currency coming off good season as premiers in 10, good 2011 seasons and then (Dawes down season played as ruck fwd) and Wellers playing well still 2012. The fact that after the trades they fell away is neither here nor there to trade price which was about par.

Beams at the time many considered that deal poo, it's in hindsight thanks to steak knives Crisp becoming quite a solid good player that it looks good. The pies wanted 2 firsts (or a 1st and equivalent Aish) for Beams but settled for a lesser offer. So technically we caved.

Seedsman for a pick 32 pretty close to bang on.

Howe for Kennedy yes we won that, but they were happy to do that as Jason Taylor was a fan of BK and rated him a first round talent prior to drafting.

 

[35Daicos]

So can we actually select Marlion Pickett through this pre season SPP anyway? Thought you could only add players who have previously been on an AFL list. Pretty sure he hasn't been on one.

He could maybe be added via the mid season rookie draft next season if we still have the Murray list spot open at that stage.

Only via the mid-season draft I'd have thought.

The rules on this still don't seem clear, but Richmond are likely to have Sydney Stack training with them, with a view to picking him up under the new rookie rules. He's never been on an AFL list (like Pickett) but if he qualifies then we should be able to take Pickett, if we want him. That's if/when Murray gets banned and if he can be replaced on our Rookie List by another player.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2018-11-26/tigers-seek-draft-lifeline-for-overlooked-wa-star

RICHMOND is hoping to offer talented WA teenager Sydney Stack an AFL lifeline, with the Tigers inviting him to train at Punt Road.

The Tigers submitted a request to the AFL over the weekend and is waiting for League approval.

If given the green light, Stack will arrive at Tigerland on December 1, and can train with Richmond during the pre-season supplemental selection period until March 15.

He could then join Richmond's list under the new rookie rules.

 

[jackcass]

Not really no.

Yeah, really.

Wellingham and Dawes both held trade currency coming off good season as premiers in 10, good 2011 seasons and then (Dawes down season played as ruck fwd) and Wellers playing well still 2012. The fact that after the trades they fell away is neither here nor there to trade price which was about par.

Of course, you can make a case for 1st round picks for a couple of role players. These guys were a couple of my favorites but Dawes had pretty good years 2010 & 2011, a shocking season in 2012. Next to no currency. Wellingham was always hot and cold, when hot he was very very good, just happened all too infrequently. Hindsight only enhances how far those deals were skewed in our favor. I'd happily keep Grundy and Broomy over those 2.

Beams at the time many considered that deal poo, it's in hindsight thanks to steak knives Crisp becoming quite a solid good player that it looks good. The pies wanted 2 firsts (or a 1st and equivalent Aish) for Beams but settled for a lesser offer. So technically we caved.

Many didn't and perhaps those that did based their conclusions on a limited knowledge of Crisp (without even factoring in that the P47 helped secure Greenwood from memory). Hindsight only reinforces that Hine got this right. I'd happily take P5 and Crisp over P5 and Aish.

Howe for Kennedy yes we won that, but they were happy to do that as Jason Taylor was a fan of BK and rated him a first round talent prior to drafting.

As I say, swings and round-abouts and as I've frequently said, you can't fully weight the cost until you have the full picture.

 

[35Daicos]

Only via the mid-season draft I'd have thought.

The big doubt would have to be whether or not we could simply remove Murray (if he's banned) from the list and add another player (between December 1 and March 15) under the new rookie rules. I'd say it's very doubtful, and we might have to wait until the mid-season draft. Other clubs that are preparing to add players from Dec. 1 have left spots on their rookie list so they can do just that.

 

[Crazy Tails]

The big doubt would have to be whether or not we could simply remove Murray (if he's banned) from the list and add another player (between December 1 and March 15) under the new rookie rules. I'd say it's very doubtful, and we might have to wait until the mid-season draft. Other clubs that are preparing to add players from Dec. 1 have left spots on their rookie list so they can do just that.

I note the info you posted re: Sydney Stack and I agree it is very confusing. I was of the opinion that the SPP was only for ex-listed AFL players before I saw that article on Stack on the the AFL site; so who knows?

As for replacing Murray I'm not sure why we couldn't. If he is found guilty and de-registered then he will be removed from our list and therefore will free up a rookie list spot. I think it would be strange for us not to be able to fill that spot via SPP or mid season rookie. I know clubs have left spots free but we would have a free spot too if Murray's contract is able to be torn up. I suppose we will just have to wait and see.

 

[35Daicos]

I note the info you posted re: Sydney Stack and I agree it is very confusing. I was of the opinion that the SPP was only for ex-listed AFL players before I saw that article on Stack on the the AFL site; so who knows?

As for replacing Murray I'm not sure why we couldn't. If he is found guilty and de-registered then he will be removed from our list and therefore will free up a rookie list spot. I think it would be strange for us not to be able to fill that spot via SPP or mid season rookie. I know clubs have left spots free but we would have a free spot too if Murray's contract is able to be torn up. I suppose we will just have to wait and see.

At the very least we could replace Murray via the mid-season draft, and of course it would be ideal if we could do it earlier than that. This article on the AFL website from a week ago is pretty hard to understand, because while it talks about "Previously-listed footballers who spent a season or more out of the game" being able to be signed by clubs under the SSP rules it did seem to suggest players who had missed out on being drafted might still be a chance through this.

It's very confusing. Richmond are apparently committed to taking Mav Weller - he's only just come off the Saints list so how can that be?! What happens with the Tigers and Sydney Stack will be worth watching, because if he can be snapped up the likes of Marlion Pickett must also be available.

 

[Albert Parker]

Not really no.

Wellingham and Dawes both held trade currency coming off good season as premiers in 10, good 2011 seasons and then (Dawes down season played as ruck fwd) and Wellers playing well still 2012. The fact that after the trades they fell away is neither here nor there to trade price which was about par.

Beams at the time many considered that deal poo, it's in hindsight thanks to steak knives Crisp becoming quite a solid good player that it looks good. The pies wanted 2 firsts (or a 1st and equivalent Aish) for Beams but settled for a lesser offer. So technically we caved.

Seedsman for a pick 32 pretty close to bang on.

Howe for Kennedy yes we won that, but they were happy to do that as Jason Taylor was a fan of BK and rated him a first round talent prior to drafting.

In reality, it is only in hindsight that you can clearly judge any trade. Where do those picks end up falling? What does Crisp end up becoming?

So Wellingham for a 1st round draft pick isn't a clear win for us? Particularly when we selected Grundy with it.

Kennedy was a bust for Melbourne. Couldn't kick with his good foot, let alone his non-preferred. Clear win again.

Dawes - again, a relative bust for Melbourne.

Varcoe/Lumumba/Clark - Pies win.

Seedsman probably fair given his age, but he wasn't a regular best 22 selection for us, so an OK outcome.

Beams going out. None of us wanted it, but the trade currency was no win for Brisbane because they were desperate.
DeGoey, Crisp who has played every game since and Greenwood. Not sure they really wanted to let Crisp go, but they did. Did they cave?
They got one player and we had 3 players running around each week for us this season, on of which was in the AA squad.
Just because you ask for something (1st + Aish) doesn't mean it is fair value. Typically you meet somewhere in the middle.

Worth considering also that not all 1st rounders are the same. De Goey at 5 is clearly worth more than Ely Smith (pick 19) for Brisbane this year. Both 1st round picks. Talent is more speculative beyond the first half dozen. That's what made the Treloar deal considerably more expensive.

 

[ThePhantom777]

Emma Quayle liked my comment .. Haha

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Emma Quayle liked my comment .. HahaView attachment 588822

She’s always been a good judge










Then again, no body is perfect

 

[Scodog10]

I suspect that the club may have somewhat agreed with you concerning trading, hence Hine losing the reins. It's a new Guy in charge. Time to let go of the past trades that you view as errors. It's the equivalent of calling our kicking from defence poor and using Frost, Brown and Marley to justify a claim of us being poor users from defence.

This is the killer of any point defending past errors. Hine lost the role of list manager because he was doing a poor job of balancing the salary cap, trade negotiations and heading our recruiting department. We need to be thankful they had the good sense to only demote him and not sack him altogether.

It may well have cost us Lynch depending on who you ask as to why he chose Richmond, but the crescendo was the deal on Murray which cost us whoever we had in line at pick 63 prompting us to trade it out. IMO, it’s no coincidence we got on the blower within seconds of Gown going off the board a couple of picks beforehand. If the deal on Murray goes down without involving 38 then we don’t orchestrate the 2 for 1 deal with Geelong and retain a selection in the 50’s.

Unfortunately there still remains a contingent of Collingwood supporters maintaining a Carltonesque stubbornness toward owning those errors that I can only hope doesn’t pervade the club internally. Look no further than their attitude towards the draft night trade for Stocker v the attitudes of some re the Murray deal. In both cases it’s clear who took on all the risk and therefore overpaid. As you pointed out though Sr36 it’s probably time to let go of past mistakes.

 

[partypie]

The big doubt would have to be whether or not we could simply remove Murray (if he's banned) from the list and add another player (between December 1 and March 15) under the new rookie rules. I'd say it's very doubtful, and we might have to wait until the mid-season draft. Other clubs that are preparing to add players from Dec. 1 have left spots on their rookie list so they can do just that.

The new rookie arrangements also allow for a player who is ruled out for the season prior to round 1 to be effectively replaced with a rookie list signing.

Given the circumstances I can't see how Murray being delisted if/when he is banned would be any different.

 

[35Daicos]

The new rookie arrangements also allow for a player who is ruled out for the season prior to round 1 to be effectively replaced with a rookie list signing.

Given the circumstances I can't see how Murray being delisted if/when he is banned would be any different.

That does make sense. Still, it would be nice to see these new rules clearly explained somewhere!!

 

[partypie]

That does make sense. Still, it would be nice to see these new rules clearly explained somewhere!!

This rule was clearly explained when it was first being discussed.

The issue regarding being able to leave yourself one player short after the drafts is what has been discussed lately - any player who has been at least a year removed from AFL football or has been overlooked in both drafts (whether they have been delisted or are an U18 prospect who hasn't yet played at AFL level) can be picked up in the preseason rookie recruiting period.

 

[Harry O]

This is the killer of any point defending past errors. Hine lost the role of list manager because he was doing a poor job of balancing the salary cap, trade negotiations and heading out recruiting department. We need to be thankful they had the good sense to only demote him and not sack him altogether.

It may well have cost us Lynch depending on who you ask as to why he chose Richmond, but the crescendo was the deal on Murray which cost us whoever we had in line at pick 63 prompting us to trade it out. IMO, it’s no coincidence we got on the blower within seconds of Gown going off the board a couple of picks beforehand. If the deal on Murray goes down without involving 38 then way we don’t orchestrate the 2 for 1 deal with Geelong and retain a selection in the 50’s.

Unfortunately there still remains a contingent of Collingwood supporters maintaining a Carltonesque stubbornness toward owning those errors that I can only hope doesn’t pervade the club internally. Look no further than their attitude towards the draft night trade for Stocker v the attitudes of some re the Murray deal. In both cases it’s clear who took on all the risk and therefore overpaid. As you pointed out though Sr36 it’s probably time to let go of past mistakes.

Trading down 1 to 15 is a bit different to 36 to 52

 

[35Daicos]

This rule was clearly explained when it was first being discussed.

The issue regarding being able to leave yourself one player short after the drafts is what has been discussed lately - any player who has been at least a year removed from AFL football or has been overlooked in both drafts (whether they have been delisted or are an U18 prospect who hasn't yet played at AFL level) can be picked up in the preseason rookie recruiting period.

As far as the ex-listed players are concerned I thought the new rule was for those who had been out of the AFL for at least a year. Like Mumford, Zac Clarke and co. Yet (the recently delisted) Mav Weller is about to be picked up by Richmond, after he withdrew his nomination from the 2018 National AFL Draft so the Tigers could claim him from December 1.

So it's not particularly clear to me what the rule says. I do (vaguely) remember reading a fair bit about it when it first came out, but I would like to see it spelled out clearly somewhere, because reading articles like this one doesn't really help.

 

[Quicky]

Treloar and late 2nd = 2 x firsts, Beams + 5th rounder = 2 x firsts, Murray and late 3rd 2018 = 2018 2nd rounder, 2019 4th = 4th 2018 and 5th 2019.

Every one of those trades was overs.

I know exactly how the points work, cheers. A 28 year old should of been secured for a first 2018 and 2nd 2019 (still can do the IQ points), we buckled and gave up the 2019 first rounder as well.

Now I am happy to have the players at our club but that doesn't mean I don't think we over paid to get it done.

Do you think the deals would have got done if we hadn't paid what we did? Would it have been better to walk away than pay the price we did?

 

[Quicky]

Yes applying principles of trust amongst the group is worth more than a few points in draft rankings.

Ultimately the trust must work both ways. Nobody is under any illusion that Murray is hanging by a thread his career in peril.

That said, the group knows we will honour our word and that keeps a feeling of genuine trust.

I agree with this 100% but it is more than that.

I think the thing some people are struggling with is allowing Murray to have natural justice. Many here want his head on a stick but he hasn't gone through due process yet. There are good reasons why they check B samples and it is because laboratories often make mistakes. There could have been a sample or laboratory error. Contamination of the sample can be common. There may have been inadequate QA/QC processes applied when he got tested. Chain of custody may have been messed up. These things happen more often than you'd imagine and any one of them could result in very serious consequences for Murray. His career is on the line here.

The club is correct to wait for the process to run it's course. It would be terribly unfair to do otherwise. Let alone the liability it would expose itself to if Murray is found to have done nothing wrong and we sacked him prematurely. Calls to "send a message" are very much a pitchfork mentality and would only illustrate incompetence by the club to me. We've managed this the only way we can.

If he gets found guilty we can deal with it then. I think mostly people are just frustrated it's cost us the ability to look at a replacement in the national or rookie draft which is understandable.

 

[TradeDraft]

Emma Quayle liked my comment .. HahaView attachment 588822

Thankfully Crows bid for Kelly a bit later then expected

 

[Saintly Viewed]

I agree with this 100% but it is more than that.

I think the thing some people are struggling with is allowing Murray to have natural justice. Many here want his head on a stick but he hasn't gone through due process yet. There are good reasons why they check B samples and it is because laboratories often make mistakes. There could have been a sample or laboratory error. Contamination of the sample can be common. There may have been inadequate QA/QC processes applied when he got tested. Chain of custody may have been messed up. These things happen more often than you'd imagine and any one of them could result in very serious consequences for Murray. His career is on the line here.

The club is correct to wait for the process to run it's course. It would be terribly unfair to do otherwise. Let alone the liability it would expose itself to if Murray is found to have done nothing wrong and we sacked him prematurely. Calls to "send a message" are very much a pitchfork mentality and would only illustrate incompetence by the club to me. We've managed this the only way we can.

If he gets found guilty we can deal with it then. I think mostly people are just frustrated it's cost us the ability to look at a replacement in the national or rookie draft which is understandable.

You’ve nailed it.
He, like all of us, deserves due process.

His career is in peril. Likely gone. His reputation shaken and destroyed, whatever the outcome.
If found guilty, as we’d assume, he’s lost so much.
We can afford to carry 45 players than 46.
And it’s also not unreasonable to believe he’s not the only league player with a nose sniffle.

 

[Scodog10]

Trading down 1 to 15 is a bit different to 36 to 52

It would be if the cards fall that way. They won’t and at any rate the risk factor doesn’t change with Collingwood and Carlton on those deals...

 

[bunyips_77]

I think we drafted really well this year. I've only looked at the short vision of the players but they all look composed and have good vision. Atu looks fast.
Only issue I have is trading in beams and trading out high draft picks (again, but this time an older player).
I guess we are in the premiership window and it could pay off big time if he stays fit.

 

[partypie]

As far as the ex-listed players are concerned I thought the new rule was for those who had been out of the AFL for at least a year. Like Mumford, Zac Clarke and co. Yet (the recently delisted) Mav Weller is about to be picked up by Richmond, after he withdrew his nomination from the 2018 National AFL Draft so the Tigers could claim him from December 1.

So it's not particularly clear to me what the rule says. I do (vaguely) remember reading a fair bit about it when it first came out, but I would like to see it spelled out clearly somewhere, because reading articles like this one doesn't really help.

This is the clearest explanation you will find:

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-04/afl-brings-in-midseason-rookie-draft-for-2019-

In summary any player who has been on an AFL list previously (and has been subsequently delisted) or any player who has has previously nominated for the draft but has been overlooked (ie. undrafted U18 prospects in the current draft year or state league players who missed out in their draft year) can be picked up as a rookie in the supplemental selection period.

It's pretty simple really - I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from.

The issue with players who have previously been at an AFL club and are permitted to return to that club after a year or more away from football at AFL level (at the discretion of the AFL committee) is a separate rule that has been in place for a while.

 

[35Daicos]

This is the clearest explanation you will find:

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2018-10-04/afl-brings-in-midseason-rookie-draft-for-2019-

In summary any player who has been on an AFL list previously (and has been subsequently delisted) or any player who has has previously nominated for the draft but has been overlooked (ie. undrafted U18 prospects in the current draft year or state league players who missed out in their draft year) can be picked up as a rookie in the supplemental selection period.

It's pretty simple really - I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from.

The issue with players who have previously been at an AFL club and are permitted to return to that club after a year or more away from football at AFL level (at the discretion of the AFL committee) is a separate rule that has been in place for a while.

Thanks for that. I had forgotten about that article, even though I read it a few times when it first came out. It does seem to explain things quite clearly, yet I'm pretty sure the AFL came out only a week or two ago and clarified the rules as the clubs at that stage still weren't sure what they were dealing with. Plenty of seemingly intelligent BigFooty posters seem to have been confused as well regarding the rules. I think the fact that the AFL website article from a week ago said "Previously-listed footballers who spent a season or more out of the game no longer have to go through a nerve-wracking draft experience to find an AFL home again as a Category A Rookie. They can instead sign with a club in the pre-season supplemental selection period (SSP) between December 1 and March 15, after all the drafts are over" didn't really help things. It then goes on to talk about the likes of Mumford, Zac Clarke and others who haven't been on a list for at least a year. Ideally they would have at least mentioned in the article that the recently-delisted types could be signed up as well, because I'd say that only caused more confusion.

Anyway, well done on being one of those who was never confused about this situation.