2018 Draft thread

[Crusha]

Vanilla milkshakes are my favourite flavour.

Has anyone ever seen TheBrownDog & Dylan12 in the same room ...... at the same time ....????

........... I don’t post a whole lot, but still spend way more time on this site than is healthy. Unfortunately it often ends up with pages of the same point followed by a post by someone like Dylan12 then pages of people playing the man. .....

Or, for that matter ......... "Dylan" & "The Chief" ....... ????

 

[Dylan12]

I see, that makes more sense to me then. But then you go and argue he’s vanilla at best which I can’t agree with. For argument sake, what kind of player would you be comfortable in giving our first and second rounder?

My summation of Neale being vanilla is that he doesn't have any stand out qualities that is worthy of such a high pick. Only my opinion though.

In terms of who / what type of player I'd be comfortable giving up a first and second rounder for; I'd keep it reserved for upper echelon players such as Kelly (GWS), Cripps / Curnow (Carlton), Wines (Port), Tom Mitchell, Buddy Franklin / Dangerfield (3 years ago).

I like Neale, I'm not saying I don't, but if it is a first rounder, I don't think he is worth a sub pick 10 pick, hence why I think pick 4-5 is too high and why I'd be more comfortable if we traded that pick (and say our third rounder) to a club such as Adelaide for their 7 & 14 or Port for their 9 & 10 (Polec) and then moved on a pick 10 / 14 to Freo whilst also retaining another decent pick.

 

[James North]

Remember when Cameron was no good?

 

[jackess]

Vanilla, no standout qualities

Lachie Neale, Fremantle. 22 games in 2018. 251 kicks, 79 marks, 416 handballs (Second in the AFL in total handballs and second in the AFL in total disposals) averaging 11.4 kicks, 3.6 marks, 18.9 handballs. 10 goals, six Behinds. 156 clearances (Third in the AFL in total clearances), 78 inside 50m, 32 rebound 50m. 93 tackles.

Also sixth for contested possessions.

 

[a mayes ing]

My summation of Neale being vanilla is that he doesn't have any stand out qualities that is worthy of such a high pick. Only my opinion though.

In terms of who / what type of player I'd be comfortable giving up a first and second rounder for; I'd keep it reserved for upper echelon players such as Kelly (GWS), Cripps / Curnow (Carlton), Wines (Port), Tom Mitchell, Buddy Franklin / Dangerfield (3 years ago).

I like Neale, I'm not saying I don't, but if it is a first rounder, I don't think he is worth a sub pick 10 pick, hence why I think pick 4-5 is too high and why I'd be more comfortable if we traded that pick (and say our third rounder) to a club such as Adelaide for their 7 & 14 or Port for their 9 & 10 (Polec) and then moved on a pick 10 / 14 to Freo whilst also retaining another decent pick.

If you had pick 4, would you hope it turns out to be someone of the calibre of Neale?
Also, we have to remember that he is still under contract for next year, so we do need to cough up overs if we want him this coming year. Pick 4 just isn;'t going to do it because if they wait next year ,they will get a top 5 pick next year due to FA

 

[Scubaveg]

My summation of Neale being vanilla is that he doesn't have any stand out qualities that is worthy of such a high pick. Only my opinion though.

In terms of who / what type of player I'd be comfortable giving up a first and second rounder for; I'd keep it reserved for upper echelon players such as Kelly (GWS), Cripps / Curnow (Carlton), Wines (Port), Tom Mitchell, Buddy Franklin / Dangerfield (3 years ago).

I like Neale, I'm not saying I don't, but if it is a first rounder, I don't think he is worth a sub pick 10 pick, hence why I think pick 4-5 is too high and why I'd be more comfortable if we traded that pick (and say our third rounder) to a club such as Adelaide for their 7 & 14 or Port for their 9 & 10 (Polec) and then moved on a pick 10 / 14 to Freo whilst also retaining another decent pick.

Just wandering Dylan, in your opinion what standout qualities do you see in Tom Mitchell?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[charles202]

I think the board is being a bit rough an Dylan, the trade value of Neale is really not black and white.

Firstly, let me say that Neale is a very good player and fills a great need in our team (I classify him as very good). However, there are some drawback with Neale in that his career is almost half over and he has some high mileage on him despite his young years. There is also the chance that whatever we pay for Neale may only be one year as he may be a free agent in one season and cost us nothing (more on that later).

The issue here is cost:

Pick 5 - This should be a very good player, there are risks inolved (i will classify as above average (hopefully better))
Pick 22 - A fair amount of risk here but we have picked up some second round gems so the value can't be discounted. We picked up Witho with a similar pick, so this shouldnt be discounted as a throway pick (average player)
Free Agent - The Neale discussions have identifed that we have the better part of $1M in cap space, while Neale may not be available in 12 months that kind of money can attract a good to very good Free Agent (good player) . A midfield with an extra couple of draft picks (5 and 22 above) should only make us more attractive.

So for me the question is Neale (very good player) = to Pick 5 (above average player), Pick 22 (averge player) & Free Agent (good player). I guess that's why they say beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Ive got a lot of faith in the people running the club at the moment, so if they think Neale is worth the capital then so be it, but the rescources it would take to get him are signficant....and its not like we have anyhting better to do this week then debtate it!

 

[SizeMatters]

Vanilla, no standout qualities

Lachie Neale, Fremantle. 22 games in 2018. 251 kicks, 79 marks, 416 handballs (Second in the AFL in total handballs and second in the AFL in total disposals) averaging 11.4 kicks, 3.6 marks, 18.9 handballs. 10 goals, six Behinds. 156 clearances (Third in the AFL in total clearances), 78 inside 50m, 32 rebound 50m. 93 tackles.

Also sixth for contested possessions.

while very good you have to consider the Ross Lyon effect. He coaches those type of teams where contested possessions and stoppages are king.

 

[dlanod]

while very good you have to consider the Ross Lyon effect. He coaches those type of teams where contested possessions and stoppages are king.

Fremantle was 5th last for stoppages in their games this season. We were 8th. They were 3rd last in contested possessions, we were 4th last.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

Fremantle was 5th last for stoppages in their games this season. We were 8th. They were 3rd last in contested possessions, we were 4th last.

Sack Ross Lyon. The players aren't listening.

 

[trikster]

There is also the chance that whatever we pay for Neale may only be one year as he may be a free agent

I would expect Neale signing a multi year deal will be part of the agreement of him coming across.

 

[charles202]

I would expect Neale signing a multi year deal will be part of the agreement of him coming across.

Tricks poorly written on my behalf the one year reference is in relation to the cost of having him now rather than in a year as a free agent. Agree any signing would be as a multi year contract

 

[Lazza16]

Remember when Cameron was no good?

Just thinking the same reading these comments....I reckon 75% on here had a whinge about paying overs for Cameron n now he is their love child lol. How fickle supporters are blah blah blah

 

[chopperduck]

You do have to keep in mind that with players and picks you are comparing apples and oranges, one isnt really the same as the other so it is hard to find a value. A draft pick, no matter where is all about potential. The potential of the player you get, the lower down the order the pick, the less chance you get in getting stand out players. Most players then take a good 5 years to develop before hitting their prime for about 5 years (ages 23-28ish). Next 5 years 28-33 is a mix of slow decline depending on genetic roulette, but as Hodge has shown good players still have good value and are generally still really good players, even though not at their peak.

Ideally you want to trade in a player around 22-23. I agree with Dylan on this, it maximises their value and you get more seasons from them. You should be paying absolute top dollar, 2 first round picks for the true star players, but this isnt always possible, and getting a player around 26 odd is still going to deliver you a player, in their prime and you will probably get a solid 6 seasons from them. Id consider 6 seasons a decent window, even for a young team if you want that player playing finals with you. Reckon a 1st and a 2nd round pick is still fair value for this kind of player, especially when they are rating top 10 in stat categories in the competition.

A draft pick will ALWAYS give you more time with that player, but the first 5 years they typically arent at their best anyway (some are, some are even solid for the first 5 even if they arent totally breakout guns, Hugh, Berry, Rayner great examples of this i think). Outside of the fun in watching these players developing, really doesnt matter if you miss the first 5 or so years.

We have drafted very well recently that we can afford to essentially skip a draft to bring in a top 10 player in the AFL. Whilst the cost is high, you pay more for a sure thing then you do for a ticket at a chance of a sure thing in 5 years time. You also get that top performing player NOW, not 5 years for now. We already have players who will likely be guns in 5 years time. If we wait to try get him as a FA he might get poached by another club and we lose 1 more season without him.

 

[winged1]

Has anyone ever seen TheBrownDog & Dylan12 in the same room ...... at the same time ....????

Out of curiosity, which one is Clark Kent and which one is Superman?

 

[spotthedog1]

Just thinking the same reading these comments....I reckon 75% on here had a whinge about paying overs for Cameron n now he is their love child lol. How fickle supporters are blah blah blah

What about those of us who had a whinge about paying overs for Cameron, and still think we paid overs for him, given we got about 10 games out of him and he would've been FA now (and given the narrative, would've been a decent chance to still want to come to us)?

I think he played better this year than I expected and contributed well to the team, but having him for 10 games didn't really impact a lot on our season - he was involved in one win, and we still finished bottom 4...

 

[jackess]

What about those of us who had a whinge about paying overs for Cameron, and still think we paid overs for him, given we got about 10 games out of him and he would've been FA now (and given the narrative, would've been a decent chance to still want to come to us)?

I think he played better this year than I expected and contributed well to the team, but having him for 10 games didn't really impact a lot on our season - he was involved in one win, and we still finished bottom 4...

Then you're a bit ignorant because he wouldn't have been a free agent

 

[POBT]

What about those of us who had a whinge about paying overs for Cameron, and still think we paid overs for him, given we got about 10 games out of him and he would've been FA now (and given the narrative, would've been a decent chance to still want to come to us)?

I think he played better this year than I expected and contributed well to the team, but having him for 10 games didn't really impact a lot on our season - he was involved in one win, and we still finished bottom 4...

Running the line that we would have been a decent chance to get Cameron through free agency is an exercise in futility. I could equally say if Cameron had stayed, Adelaide wouldn’t have imploded, would have won the flag and Cameron decided to stay. Both our scenarios are possible but neither really adds to whether trading for Cameron was the right call.

I also think that using his injury as a reason why we supposedly paid overs is a bit silly. Firstly, it isn’t as though that was an injury that we should have been wary of when we signed him. Secondly, it is one injury in a potential career of 8-10 years with us. Valuing him based on one year doesn’t make much sense.

Also, citing our win/loss record is ridiculous. We won bugger all games for the year. I very much doubt we expected our win/loss record to improve in a single year based on one player’s recruitment.

Right now, based on what we saw, we’ve got an out and out gun for a mid-late first round pick. Most neutral supporters had him in AA contention before his injury. Any time you recruit someone like that, you are onto a winner.

Quite frankly, the success of this trade is such a no-brainer for me right now that I simply cannot get my head around anyone who tries to argue otherwise.

 

[Hollow Knight]

Running the line that we would have been a decent chance to get Cameron through free agency is an exercise in futility.

More of an exercise in lying or straight-out completely being wrong. He would have been out-of-contract but not a free agent. We had to trade for him whether it was last eyar or this year which makes spotthedog1's argument go from weak to essentially nonsensical.

I'd also say that Gold Coast are much more equipped than us this year to make a trade for a Queensland bound Charlie Cameron. The whole thing very much could have gone **** up if we got cocky and tried to wait in order to get an "uncontracted" discount.

EDIT: Beaten by jackess.

 

[luthor]

I'd also say that Gold Coast are much more equipped than us this year to make a trade for a Queensland bound Charlie Cameron. The whole thing very much could have gone **** up if we got cocky and tried to wait in order to get an "uncontracted" discount.

I'm flat out trying to recall an instance where (if a player wants to move to club X) then that club has tried to play it cute by waiting it out so they can get him on the cheap later.

I supposse there was the Bryce Gibbs to Adelaide trade that happened a year "late" but that whole thing was kinda unique. Carlton wanted a goldmine in 2016 and Adelaide wouldn't pay so the were was a total impasse. The passage of the subsequent 12 months I tink, helped bioth clubs to a nore sensible compromise.

 

[POBT]

Some people were bent out of shape by the trade price we eventually paid for Cameron. I do get that as it was higher than what I saw as reasonable at the time.

However, and I said this at the time, I don’t know how you go from doing your utmost as a club to convince a player to move to your club and then say to them “sorry, we aren’t willing to give up the draft pick which is 6 picks higher than what we’ve offered. But we’re all good for next year, right?” How do we expect a player, who has just made a fairly momentous decision to even agree move clubs and cities, to wait on the line for 12 months in that scenario?

 

[spotthedog1]

Then you're a bit ignorant because he wouldn't have been a free agent

Play the ball not the man, jackess. If I got a detail wrong 12 months after the fact, that's fine and I'll cop it. No need for the namecalling.

Running the line that we would have been a decent chance to get Cameron through free agency is an exercise in futility. I could equally say if Cameron had stayed, Adelaide wouldn’t have imploded, would have won the flag and Cameron decided to stay. Both our scenarios are possible but neither really adds to whether trading for Cameron was the right call.

I also think that using his injury as a reason why we supposedly paid overs is a bit silly. Firstly, it isn’t as though that was an injury that we should have been wary of when we signed him. Secondly, it is one injury in a potential career of 8-10 years with us. Valuing him based on one year doesn’t make much sense.

Also, citing our win/loss record is ridiculous. We won bugger all games for the year. I very much doubt we expected our win/loss record to improve in a single year based on one player’s recruitment.

Right now, based on what we saw, we’ve got an out and out gun for a mid-late first round pick. Most neutral supporters had him in AA contention before his injury. Any time you recruit someone like that, you are onto a winner.

Quite frankly, the success of this trade is such a no-brainer for me right now that I simply cannot get my head around anyone who tries to argue otherwise.

Think you may have misinterpreted.

Didn't say we overpaid because he got injured. I said we overpaid last year because we paid too much based on one year still contracted, and that Adelaide basically did what Freo did in the Weller trade, and didn't bother negotiating. We negotiated against ourselves until we just gave them their original ask.

My point about win/loss was also not about the significance of Cameron. It was about the significance of saying that we must trade for him last year instead of 12 months later. I completely understand and agree that if we hadn't picked him up last year, there is a material chance that he'd have re-signed with Adelaide, or been willing to trade elsewhere. It's why I'm not against trading for Neale this year, despite the possibility of getting him for free next year. But there has to be a price at which you walk away. In my view, we exceeded that last year.

In hindsight, Cameron did better this year than I expected. He pushed his value up with a great finals series last year. Apart from that, he'd have been worth a mid-2nd rounder. My big concern was that his finals flash-in-the-pan wouldn't be replicated. He came here with some good form, so I'm glad to have him on our list. I still think we paid based on an optimistic hope. In my head, the comparison isn't Cameron vs pick 12, it's Cameron vs [Darcy Fogarty plus the significant possibility that a would-be-uncontracted Cameron could still have come to us].

That said, the past is the past, and you don't know how one thing impacts another. Our draft last year would've been different, our list would've been different, and who knows whether changing the personnel would've impacted other players staying or any number of things. Who knows, maybe Cameron wanting to come here has helped Neale's impression of us, and without that trade, Neale might not want to come here at all. Impossible to know.

My reason for posting was simply that I didn't appreciate posters using the hindsight of the Cameron trade not being a complete disaster as a justification to slag off other posters, and much more thought it unnecessarily harsh to use a past disagreement to minimise the viewpoints of other posters who have concerns about a possible future trade.

 

[jackess]

Play the ball not the man, jackess. If I got a detail wrong 12 months after the fact, that's fine and I'll cop it. No need for the namecalling.

Think you may have misinterpreted.

Didn't say we overpaid because he got injured. I said we overpaid last year because we paid too much based on one year still contracted, and that Adelaide basically did what Freo did in the Weller trade, and didn't bother negotiating. We negotiated against ourselves until we just gave them their original ask.

My point about win/loss was also not about the significance of Cameron. It was about the significance of saying that we must trade for him last year instead of 12 months later. I completely understand and agree that if we hadn't picked him up last year, there is a material chance that he'd have re-signed with Adelaide, or been willing to trade elsewhere. It's why I'm not against trading for Neale this year, despite the possibility of getting him for free next year. But there has to be a price at which you walk away. In my view, we exceeded that last year.

In hindsight, Cameron did better this year than I expected. He pushed his value up with a great finals series last year. Apart from that, he'd have been worth a mid-2nd rounder. My big concern was that his finals flash-in-the-pan wouldn't be replicated. He came here with some good form, so I'm glad to have him on our list. I still think we paid based on an optimistic hope. In my head, the comparison isn't Cameron vs pick 12, it's Cameron vs [Darcy Fogarty plus the significant possibility that a would-be-uncontracted Cameron could still have come to us].

That said, the past is the past, and you don't know how one thing impacts another. Our draft last year would've been different, our list would've been different, and who knows whether changing the personnel would've impacted other players staying or any number of things. Who knows, maybe Cameron wanting to come here has helped Neale's impression of us, and without that trade, Neale might not want to come here at all. Impossible to know.

My reason for posting was simply that I didn't appreciate posters using the hindsight of the Cameron trade not being a complete disaster as a justification to slag off other posters, and much more thought it unnecessarily harsh to use a past disagreement to minimise the viewpoints of other posters who have concerns about a possible future trade.

Well you asked what about us....?

 

[spotthedog1]

I'm flat out trying to recall an instance where (if a player wants to move to club X) then that club has tried to play it cute by waiting it out so they can get him on the cheap later.

I supposse there was the Bryce Gibbs to Adelaide trade that happened a year "late" but that whole thing was kinda unique. Carlton wanted a goldmine in 2016 and Adelaide wouldn't pay so the were was a total impasse. The passage of the subsequent 12 months I tink, helped bioth clubs to a nore sensible compromise.

Cam McCarthy comes to mind. Again though, I'm not saying that we should now be trying to play it cute.

Some people were bent out of shape by the trade price we eventually paid for Cameron. I do get that as it was higher than what I saw as reasonable at the time.

However, and I said this at the time, I don’t know how you go from doing your utmost as a club to convince a player to move to your club and then say to them “sorry, we aren’t willing to give up the draft pick which is 6 picks higher than what we’ve offered. But we’re all good for next year, right?” How do we expect a player, who has just made a fairly momentous decision to even agree move clubs and cities, to wait on the line for 12 months in that scenario?

Narrative actually was that Cameron was surprised we were willing to pay so much. You've got a situation where Adelaide refused to budge, Brisbane kept compromising, Charlie Cameron came out in the media and asked Adelaide to help him out as he was having a tough time, and Adelaide still refused to budge. I could easily imagine a conversation where you talk to the guy, say "look, we upped our offer as much as we could. We just couldn't go any higher without compromising our list strategy. We're really sorry but we couldn't get them to come to the party, and if you're still interested next year, we'll do whatever we can.

I'm not saying it would've worked, but i'm not saying it wouldn't.

 

[spotthedog1]

Well you asked what about us....?

And you still simply resorted to namecalling rather than actually addressing the issue. What about us that still think we overpaid for Cameron? Well, I know that you don't like me and like to attack those who disagree with you, but I don't know your opinion on the actual issue.