List Mgmt. 2018 Draft thread.

[neilk]

Got a nasty itch.

Have to admit what a great name Irving Mosquito.

(Irving Washington another fine Irving though he was also Washington Irving as form dictated by Captain Yossarian.)

Anyone who gets in a Catch 22 reference gets a like from me!

 

[sr36]

What is happening here?

The big mystery is why can some blood borne diseases be passed by Mosquito and not Hore and vice versa. Either way, for safety purposes, Hine has done well to avoid both. Although Hore did help to keeo our VFL boys up and about.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Anyone who gets in a Catch 22 reference gets a like from me!

Brilliant work Sir.

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.”

 

[sr36]

Brilliant work Sir.

Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.”

Take your cultured bookish crap to the Melbourne board. We're talking Hore.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Take your cultured bookish crap to the Melbourne board. We're talking Hore.

Nately’s hore?

 

[sr36]

Nately’s hore?

I said stop it.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

It's certainly something that bugs me! I do look at the player list pages on the club website every day (at least until they've finally updated it) just hoping to see that they've done something!! Fasolo has been shown on the Carlton senior list page for weeks, along with the other players they traded in. Someone should at least be able to remove him and the delisted players from our pages, and not make us wait until Xmas time or whenever they finally get it done. It really should be done better in this day and age.

Oh I love it, looking at the website everyday.

I do that too. Yep, every day pretty much.
I also do it to check if the official numbers come through for the new players.

1) it’s very amateurish in this day and age; not doing a basic update of new and existing players
2) the jumper numbers delay I’m ok with, because they often like to make that a special announcement so that’s fair.

 

[sr36]

Oh I love it, looking at the website everyday.

I do that too. Yep, every day pretty much.
I also do it to check if the official numbers come through for the new players.

1) it’s very amateurish in this day and age; not doing a basic update of new and existing players
2) the jumper numbers delay I’m ok with, because they often like to make that a special announcement so that’s fair.

And where are our daily Murphy height updates.

 

[cityslick1]

There’s a cultural thing with AFL clubs where they feel they’re clever by holding things back. When all they’re really doing is depriving / disrespecting their fans. Watch Walsh de-brief all the players before talking to the media, by instructing them to ‘tell them nothing... avoid as many questions as you can’ on the doco the club made awhile ago.

Still a long way off American sports and symptomatic of how raw we are in world sports, or the insecurities we have as a smaller nation.

There’s a famous story about a media guy from Perth visiting an NFL team on a fact finding excursion. They were v professional, rolled out the red carpet, access all areas, and even put his name up on the screen at half time and welcomed him in front of the crowd. Fast forward a week later and he turns up to Eagles pre season training all pumped and inspired to share his learnings. 2 mins in and as he walks onto the edge of the oval an assistant coach sees him and promptly addresses him with... “what are doing.. get off the f*cking ground d*ckhead... f*cking tool”.
Now reporters can also be d*cks looking for some limelight... but not utilizing your best avenue to fans, to keep them informed and engaged isn’t clever at all imo. It’s stupid. Why not be the first club to share things ASAP... sooner then any other, giving some insight that doesn’t impact our competitive advantage. Start with up to date heights and backstory... which we’re all talking about and guessing. Now that may even be something to brag about to opposing club offficials.

 

[Snoop Dog]

We will Find Out in about 3-5 Years

Though I read Knightmare thought on the Draft and he has us having the 2nd Worst Draft


http://www.espn.com.au/afl/story/_/id/25356894/afl-draft-2018-************-winners-losers

@knitghmare doesnt rate Quaynor or Kelly as highly as others. Each year I organise some of the better u18 talent watchers and do a dra and he did Pies. He passed on Quaynor at #13 and Kelly at #30 because he had others rated higher. To be fair to him he was consistent with that all year and that's what we want. Peoples opinions.

That probably explains why he had us down the order because on his rankings because he believed their were better players available.

I thought they both went about where expected. Quaynor I thought was probably 4-5 to high but Collingwood had signalled clearly they were committed to him and GIANTS were keen to make them pay. No love lost there.

Kelly I thought was spot on.

Atu was one Knightmare rated from the start of the year. I wasnt as hot on him but by the end of the year I was on board. I think he has some terrific traits.

 

[Snoop Dog]

I thought GC would have picked him up for sure. One we’ll be eyeing mid season draft perhaps.

Yeah I think so. I like the initiative bc it gives players something to work to pretty quickly.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

@knitghmare doesnt rate Quaynor or Kelly as highly as others. Each year I organise some of the better u18 talent watchers and do a dra and he did Pies. He passed on Quaynor at #13 and Kelly at #30 because he had others rated higher. To be fair to him he was consistent with that all year and that's what we want. Peoples opinions.

That probably explains why he had us down the order because on his rankings because he believed their were better players available.

I thought they both went about where expected. Quaynor I thought was probably 4-5 to high but Collingwood had signalled clearly they were committed to him and GIANTS were keen to make them pay. No love lost there.

Kelly I thought was spot on.

Atu was one Knightmare rated from the start of the year. I wasnt as hot on him but by the end of the year I was on board. I think he has some terrific traits.

One matter I just don’t quite understand?

If we can only access the level of talent via matching bids (Quaynor/ Kelly) then passing on them means by extension that picks 41,42 etc (that range) can net better players?
As long as the club would have taken them by that stage because the really wanted them can’t see any reason not to match.

Unless there are two players better available at later picks (unclear there was) wouldn’t it be madness not to match?

As an example:
Was there a better key long term back than Kelly in the 40s?

Should we have passed on Kelly for s Hail Mary if the belief was Kelly is the long term replacement for Dunn etc?

 

[jonbe54]

@knitghmare doesnt rate Quaynor or Kelly as highly as others. Each year I organise some of the better u18 talent watchers and do a dra and he did Pies. He passed on Quaynor at #13 and Kelly at #30 because he had others rated higher. To be fair to him he was consistent with that all year and that's what we want. Peoples opinions.

That probably explains why he had us down the order because on his rankings because he believed their were better players available.

I thought they both went about where expected. Quaynor I thought was probably 4-5 to high but Collingwood had signalled clearly they were committed to him and GIANTS were keen to make them pay. No love lost there.

Kelly I thought was spot on.

Atu was one Knightmare rated from the start of the year. I wasnt as hot on him but by the end of the year I was on board. I think he has some terrific traits.

Giants need to remember that what goes around, comes around.

Karma baby it's coming for ya.

 

[Knightmare]

@knitghmare doesnt rate Quaynor or Kelly as highly as others. Each year I organise some of the better u18 talent watchers and do a dra and he did Pies. He passed on Quaynor at #13 and Kelly at #30 because he had others rated higher. To be fair to him he was consistent with that all year and that's what we want. Peoples opinions.

That probably explains why he had us down the order because on his rankings because he believed their were better players available.

I thought they both went about where expected. Quaynor I thought was probably 4-5 to high but Collingwood had signalled clearly they were committed to him and GIANTS were keen to make them pay. No love lost there.

Kelly I thought was spot on.

Atu was one Knightmare rated from the start of the year. I wasnt as hot on him but by the end of the year I was on board. I think he has some terrific traits.

Atu I have no qualms with taking late. He's has some traits and is potentially developable. Perhaps something inbetween Brad Dick/Caolan Mooney for perspective for those who haven't seen him.

 

[swoop42]

IMO, the washup of this draft period is simply an opportunity for KM to re-assess his rating of NGA and FS. As it is I’ll back his views on underagers tenfold over almost every nuffy on BigFooty and given his ratings for 2018 his draft grade was generous. Definitely not worth touching on club support either way!

Personally I'll back the judgement of our head recruiter in Derek Hine over a semi-professional talent spotter and bigfooty poster.

With all due respect to Knightmare I stopped taking his post draft review all that seriously when he awarded Essendon an A rating in comparison to our C.

Given that the club recruiters who placed a bid on Quaynor and Kelly were awarded a B+ and A rating by him perhaps he needs to contemplate if he has missed something that at least 2 AFL recruiters have identified and liked in Quaynor and Kelly.

 

[Snoop Dog]

One matter I just don’t quite understand?

If we can only access the level of talent via matching bids (Quaynor/ Kelly) then passing on them means by extension that picks 41,42 etc (that range) can net better players?
As long as the club would have taken them by that stage because the really wanted them can’t see any reason not to match.

Unless there are two players better available at later picks (unclear there was) wouldn’t it be madness not to match?

As an example:
Was there a better key long term back than Kelly in the 40s?

Should we have passed on Kelly for s Hail Mary if the belief was Kelly is the long term replacement for Dunn etc?

Yeah that was probably my view. We had traded back so aggressively for points that you really had to pass on both to access to the first picks so therefore you would need a lot of conviction something you rated would be there. I would have to go back but I think guys like Gown / Ross were a couple he rated pretty high (as did I). He (I suspect) would argue that he would back in say a Gown / Ross and something else that fell at the next pick were better prospects than Isaac and Will.

 

[Saintly Viewed]

Yeah that was probably my view. We had traded back so aggressively for points that you really had to pass on both to access to the first picks so therefore you would need a lot of conviction something you rated would be there. I would have to go back but I think guys like Gown / Ross were a couple he rated pretty high (as did I). He (I suspect) would argue that he would back in say a Gown / Ross and something else that fell at the next pick were better prospects than Isaac and Will.

Just to contine the theme

If you had a choice which couplet would you take:

Quaynor/ Kelly

V

Gown/ Ross

?

 

[Scodog10]

Personally I'll back the judgement of our head recruiter in Derek Hine over a semi-professional talent spotter and bigfooty poster.

With all due respect to Knightmare I stopped taking his post draft review all that seriously when he awarded Essendon an A rating in comparison to our C.

Given that the club recruiters who placed a bid on Quaynor and Kelly were awarded a B+ and A rating by him perhaps he needs to contemplate if he has missed something that at least 2 AFL recruiters have identified and liked in Quaynor and Kelly.

I think we would all back in Hine over KM. Unfortunately though Hine is yet to release a single draft grade in his time with the club and I’d expect it would be A+ each year anyway!

I don’t follow any of KM’s stuff anymore so where did he rate the likes of Mosquito, Gown and Ham? If he had them all rated much higher than they were taken the A grade makes perfect sense. On KM’s ratings I can’t comment and I have to assume you can’t either. Realistically there’s about half a dozen posters on the website that can.

I have to agree though that KM appears to consistently underrate some NGA and FS v the industry. I suspect it’s got nothing to do with what KM can assess and moreso intangibles behind the scenes i.e. character, coachability, commitment, drive etc. The game is shifting and talent only gets you so far so clubs are investing further in those traits above. Perhaps KM needs to ask different questions of those who get the access he can’t, but I’m not in a position to judge what might need to change and can only suggest there’s something.

 

[jackcass]

We had another option, that is use the pick in a decent draft pool and get Atu anyway with the same pick we ended up using on him.

I just find it bemusing that we keep overpaying to get deals done even if it is a nothing pick the principal of it after the Treloar, Murray and Beams deals all being overpriced we go and add another to the list.

And yes I know Beams pick would of went to Quaynor for those of you reading... but that doesn't stop us trading that pick for something and using future 1st and steak knives on Beams or 2018 first rnd and 2019 2ND ETC..

The only way we could have done that would have been to renege on our commitment to re-draft Broomy or Murray in the RD. We didn't have the list spots otherwise for Atu +1.

We had 1 list spot to fill, decided to use that on Atu, knew we could get him with our last pick so rather than waste pick 63 (or whatever it was) to get him and not use the later pick, we used 63 to upgrade our 5th round pick in 2019. I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with it. Very astute trading.

 

[loki04]

The only way we could have done that would have been to renege on our commitment to re-draft Broomy or Murray in the RD. We didn't have the list spots otherwise for Atu +1.

We had 1 list spot to fill, decided to use that on Atu, knew we could get him with our last pick so rather than waste pick 63 (or whatever it was) to get him and not use the later pick, we used 63 to upgrade our 5th round pick in 2019. I'm not sure why anyone would have an issue with it. Very astute trading.

So it was an option then? Murray will be banned very shortly.

My issue is that we always over pay to make trades happen, we are push overs. Most clubs would of just straight up switched 4th's, Hawks obviously were keen on someone at that range or they wouldn't of did it even if we initiated it. Yes I know its a nothing pick but it is the principal of it, combined with our recent overpaying trade history it annoys me.

 

[Crazy Tails]

I really wanted Alex Woodward to get a go somewhere though.

He could still be a chance to be picked up by us. Having previously been on a senior list at Hawthorn we could take him in the pre-season SSP to replace Murray couldn't we?

 

[Scodog10]

So it was an option then? Murray will be banned very shortly.

My issue is that we always over pay to make trades happen, we are push overs. Most clubs would of just straight up switched 4th's, Hawks obviously were keen on someone at that range or they wouldn't of did it even if we initiated it. Yes I know its a nothing pick but it is the principal of it, combined with our recent overpaying trade history it annoys me.

I can certainly see why the appearance of overpaying annoys you Loki, but I think this is one that isn’t worth being concerned over. The club obviously felt there was a dearth of options available at that point so they decided to get some value out of it.

There were only a further 7 blokes drafted in the ND that were available out of the underage system the rest were FS, NGA or mature agers so available fresh talent was thin on the ground and we likely had no one ranked near R2. Personally I would have targeted their future 2nd for ours because I’m certain we’ll finish ahead of them, but that’s just me and not worth being bothered with, IMO.

FWIW of the deals that it’s perceived we’ve stuffed up dating back the past few years the Murray trade is the only one that we really shit the bed on causing ramifications down the line. Even the Witts trade hasn’t hurt. We’ll be fine!

 

[Saintly Viewed]

For those keen have a look at some former phantom draft previous years

Google year with phantom draft of the poster and see what comes up.

Funny thing some years and the talent turned out to be quite thin.
Some years not so and quite rich.

 

[sr36]

So it was an option then? Murray will be banned very shortly.

My issue is that we always over pay to make trades happen, we are push overs. Most clubs would of just straight up switched 4th's, Hawks obviously were keen on someone at that range or they wouldn't of did it even if we initiated it. Yes I know its a nothing pick but it is the principal of it, combined with our recent overpaying trade history it annoys me.

It wasn't an option. You don't go back on your word and undermine trust from the playing group in order to add someone that you don't rate particularly highly.

We didn't overpay. As I pointed out the other day, when we traded it, pick 63 effectively had no academy points attached, because you no longer needed points to match, thus it had less value than a 4th rounder from next year which still has academy points attached. We traded a fourth rounder with no points attached, which we had no advantage in keeping for a 4th rounder with points attached in next year's draft. We traded something that had no value to us for an upgrade in next year's draft, which could also be a small trade chip for a club that needs academy points. It was a good deal. If you can't see that, you're not looking closely enough.

 

[jackcass]

So it was an option then? Murray will be banned very shortly.

My issue is that we always over pay to make trades happen, we are push overs. Most clubs would of just straight up switched 4th's, Hawks obviously were keen on someone at that range or they wouldn't of did it even if we initiated it. Yes I know its a nothing pick but it is the principal of it, combined with our recent overpaying trade history it annoys me.

When was the last time the club reneged on a commitment like that? Where would that leave the club in the unlikely scenario that Murray doesn't get banned?

The only real option to free up that additional spot was that another club snavelled either Broomy or Murray in the RD before our picks, and I'm not sure how we could have predicted that during the ND.