2018 Draft thread

[jackess]

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.

If you think he would've been a free agent then that is ignorant. Sorry but that's just the meaning of the word. You are ignorant about the free agency rules.

I don't like the trade as well so I have no issue with people feeling the same way about it unless it's because you're ignorant.

 

[WhiteLionFeva]

If Cameron had played a full year or close to it we'd be saying he was a bargain. As it is he was very good value for mine. The biggest knocks on him as I recall were his disposal and lack of a defensive game and both were more than acceptable this year. As well as being our leading goalscorer when he went down. Nothing to suggest it has compromised our draft strategy. How could it? We gave up pick 12 for a guy in the perfect age bracket for where we are right now. It's not as if we missed out on a Cam Rayner to get him.

 

[Fatcat08]

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).

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!

Does he though?

Players drafted in the same year
Neale - 135 games
Coniglio - 118 games
Wingard - 147 games
Haynes - 105
Greene - 126
Adams - 119
SMith - 131
Ellis - 153
Mitchell - 111
Ross - 102
Yeo - 131

I don't know if I'd consider any of those players to have an unreasonable amount of mileage given their age, even the more inside guys. He's an inside mid, but he's not a real crash and bash type like cripps, who's already at 81 games

Next year after
Whitfield - 114
Macrae - 118
Wines - 129
Mayes - 101
Daniher - 100
Vlastuin - 117
Grundy - 107

or even 2 years after
Kelly - 100
Bont - 104
Merrett - 103

Overall he's got about as much mileage as you'd expect topline player taken in his draft year. To me if re-inforces that he should be in that conversation with those top tier guys taken in his and the next draft year, he's played around the same number of games and with equal or better returns.

The debate on whether he would be there next year or not is always there, and really there's no way to really tell tbh. Im in the camp that if a player of that caliber wants to come to you then you make it happen when you can. 1 year is a long time and lots can change. What if he and his partner have a child in that time and realise how difficult it can be without family around, therefore decide to stay or go to SA instead? What if he just enjoys next year there and changes his mind. To me there's too many variables. Having said that I don't think 2 high first round picks will be necessary it will get done for less. I'd be fine with our first and second. If we can get away with our first than even better.

I'd say it will be our first and then some other picks shuffling around all over the place, which i'd be stoked with.

 

[M Malice]

Interesting listening to Callum Twomey's latest Road to the Draft Podcast that in his opinion Cameron Rayner would definitely go top 3 in this years draft. He thinks that Cam is a superstar and no player in this draft offers the qualities that Cam has.

 

[Harris Specter]

Interesting listening to Callum Twomey's latest Road to the Draft Podcast that in his opinion Cameron Rayner would definitely go top 3 in this years draft. He thinks that Cam is a superstar and no player in this draft offers the qualities that Cam has.

Agree. This year's draft doesn't look anywhere near as strong as last year's.

 

[M Malice]

Agree. This year's draft doesn't look anywhere near as strong as last year's.

Last years draft at this early stage is looking really good, hard to do but comparing the so called elite 8 this year with last years first 8.

1- Cameron Rayner.
2- Andrew Brayshaw.
3- Paddy Dow.
4- Luke Davies-Uniacke.
5- Adam Cerra.
6- Jaidyn Stephenson.
7- Hunter Clark.
8- Nick Coffield.

Elite 8 2018- Jack Lukosius, Sam Walsh, Izak Rankine, Bailey Smith, Max King, Ben King, Nick Blakey, Connor Rozee.

The only 2 from this season who haven't shown much are LDU and Clark. Time will tell but the 2017 class are looking good early.

 

[Tom14]

Paying 'overs' for Cameron was 6 draft spots compared with what most people thought was about his worth. The obsession to 'win' trades really frustrates me, and is a hangover from 2013 when we were on our knees and others took advantage of us.

In practical terms we missed out on a chance to get Darcy Fogarty (who we did rate highly) and instead got Bailey and Cameron (after pick swaps to get back up to pick 15). Maybe we could have got in Bailey, Fogarty and Cameron if we had used pick 18 instead but iirc other clubs liked Bailey too so he was no guarantee to be there at our last first round pick.

Do people think we really paid overs by bringing in Bailey instead of Fogarty? Particularly given that Bailey has already re-signed and is less of a flight risk being from the NT originally. Fully agree with POBT - I'd do the Cameron trade again in a heartbeat and think it has been a massive win. On a purely aesthetic perspective too, Cameron is easily our most exciting player to watch (Rayner second) and made watching us play much more fun for me.

 

[bungalow_bill]

I'm more than happy with pick 12 for Chuck. To be nominated for goal and mark of the year in 10 rounds is pretty impressive.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

Do people think we really paid overs by bringing in Bailey instead of Fogarty? Particularly given that Bailey has already re-signed and is less of a flight risk being from the NT originally. Fully agree with POBT - I'd do the Cameron trade again in a heartbeat and think it has been a massive win. On a purely aesthetic perspective too, Cameron is easily our most exciting player to watch (Rayner second) and made watching us play much more fun for me.

It's also worth noting that I believe quite confidently that the club would have taken Bailey with pick 12 anyway. We had him that high - so ultimately it really made no difference at all.

 

[jackess]

It's also worth noting that I believe quite confidently that the club would have taken Bailey with pick 12 anyway. We had him that high - so ultimately it really made no difference at all.

If we would have taken Starcevich with 15 as well the net result was the same if we spent 12 or 18 on Cameron

 

[spotthedog1]

It's also worth noting that I believe quite confidently that the club would have taken Bailey with pick 12 anyway. We had him that high - so ultimately it really made no difference at all.

People at the draft function reported that Fogarty was very high on our list. I'm aware our list would've been condensed substantially, but I would be pretty surprised if we had Bailey ahead of him.

 

[spotthedog1]

If you think he would've been a free agent then that is ignorant. Sorry but that's just the meaning of the word. You are ignorant about the free agency rules.

I don't like the trade as well so I have no issue with people feeling the same way about it unless it's because you're ignorant.

Mate - you need to cool it. You don't need to be rude and disrespectful to other posters. You're drawing a pretty long bow and you know it - you don't need to tear other people down to feel good about yourself.

 

[jackess]

Mate - you need to cool it. You don't need to be rude and disrespectful to other posters. You're drawing a pretty long bow and you know it - you don't need to tear other people down to feel good about yourself.

Then don't ask.

 

[irel]

At the time, I felt pick 12 was a high price to pay and pick 18 was about the fair price for Charlie. Adelaide played the obstinate, stubborn, obdurate, must win the trade role to perfection and yes, they extracted what appeared at the time more than a fair trade. However, I concur with all the points in favor of why the deal eventually had to be done using pick 12 and now I am glad our club did it and Charlie is on our list.

It is perplexing to me that within a sporting competition limited to just 18 clubs, the totally intransigent "Must Win the Trade" rather than a Win/Win” position is adopted by a number of clubs such as Adelaide, Fremantle and Essendon. I can understand it in Football (soccer) that for eg. If a good footballer is on the market there would be thousands of potential buyers and achieving a must win result is the prerequisite, because the likelihood of dealing with the same club again is limited. As we know in the future there is every likelihood that Adelaide will come after one of our players that may or may not be contracted and I am very, very sure that they will understand the language of “we want pick 2 or GTFOH” in return.

How many here are harboring a desire for the tables to be turned on the GH5 clubs and we are in the position of scavenging on their carcass. It will come as sure as night follows day. This is a limited competition and success and failure is cyclical. Our time will come.

So, I am glad that Noble and Ambrogio are more conciliatory but with a hard edge in their dealings and approach to trading. I believe that if we build positive and fair relationships with clubs in the long term we will be better for it.

 

[Flea_29]

Paying 'overs' for Cameron was 6 draft spots compared with what most people thought was about his worth. The obsession to 'win' trades really frustrates me, and is a hangover from 2013 when we were on our knees and others took advantage of us.

In practical terms we missed out on a chance to get Darcy Fogarty (who we did rate highly) and instead got Bailey and Cameron (after pick swaps to get back up to pick 15). Maybe we could have got in Bailey, Fogarty and Cameron if we had used pick 18 instead but iirc other clubs liked Bailey too so he was no guarantee to be there at our last first round pick.

Do people think we really paid overs by bringing in Bailey instead of Fogarty? Particularly given that Bailey has already re-signed and is less of a flight risk being from the NT originally. Fully agree with POBT - I'd do the Cameron trade again in a heartbeat and think it has been a massive win. On a purely aesthetic perspective too, Cameron is easily our most exciting player to watch (Rayner second) and made watching us play much more fun for me.

I think sometimes you need to pay 'overs' if it's a player you really want and need. Pick 12 for Cameron was definitely a great result for us. I also think we picked the right player at 15 in Bailey. Although he showed glimpses in most of his games, I felt that in the last 2 games (vs GCS & WCE) he was outstanding and showed what is he capable of.
Looking at players picked 12-15 (D. Fogarty, M. Ling & J.Brander), I think the club was going to pick Bailey regardless.

 

[spotthedog1]

I find the argument of "we only paid an extra 6 spots for Cameron" to be a strange argument. Pick 50 to 56 isn't a big change. Pick 1 to 7 is a huge change. Draft points place pick 12 about 30% higher than pick 18 - that's a pretty sizeable variance... And if I remember correctly pick 21 was the initial amount (our 2nd rounder) suggested by most in the media as about right. Then it was pick 18 (Rocky compo), then it was pick 12.

 

[PattyKwasagun]

I find the argument of "we only paid an extra 6 spots for Cameron" to be a strange argument. Pick 50 to 56 isn't a big change. Pick 1 to 7 is a huge change. Draft points place pick 12 about 30% higher than pick 18 - that's a pretty sizeable variance... And if I remember correctly pick 21 was the initial amount (our 2nd rounder) suggested by most in the media as about right. Then it was pick 18 (Rocky compo), then it was pick 12.

I believe Adelaide's initial request was our 2018 first rounder, so there was a bit of give from both sides to end up at pick 12. Either way, I don't think anybody would argue it's fair value now. With what he's shown, I'd pretty happily trade pick 5 this year for Charlie if we didn't have him yet.

 

[jackess]

I believe Adelaide's initial request was our 2018 first rounder, so there was a bit of give from both sides to end up at pick 12. Either way, I don't think anybody would argue it's fair value now. With what he's shown, I'd pretty happily trade pick 5 this year for Charlie if we didn't have him yet.

I think you’ve gone a bit far countering the overvaluing of draft picks.

 

[luthor]

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

Cam MCCarthy acted like a spoilt immature brat.

Didn't even play the "go home to mummy card" .Instead, played the "missing my sister card"

Couldn't get home so spat the dummy and sat the season out. Very poor form.

And has been very ordinary since his less than triumphant return "home"

If we acquired a player in those circumstances I would have grave reservations about his character

 

[Tom14]

I find the argument of "we only paid an extra 6 spots for Cameron" to be a strange argument. Pick 50 to 56 isn't a big change. Pick 1 to 7 is a huge change. Draft points place pick 12 about 30% higher than pick 18 - that's a pretty sizeable variance... And if I remember correctly pick 21 was the initial amount (our 2nd rounder) suggested by most in the media as about right. Then it was pick 18 (Rocky compo), then it was pick 12.

But the point is that if we viewed that part of the draft as relatively equivalent in talent, then the difference of 6 spots wasn't a big deal. In some circumstances (e.g pick 8 v pick 9 this year where some say there are 7-8 talents in the top tier) a difference of 6 might be an issue, but I don't think it was for us last year. It's the same reason why trading down to get multiple lower picks is the right thing to do sometimes, particularly if you don't think there is much difference in the quality available later on.

At the end of the day I just don't get why people still get annoyed by the Cameron trade - I assume it is the view that we gave 'overs' but we got in a quality player who was well on the way to an AA-quality year before being injured.

It's not like we traded pick 2 for Lachie Weller or anything

 

[PattyKwasagun]

I think you’ve gone a bit far countering the overvaluing of draft picks.

Perhaps - but it's worth noting that up until he got injured, Charlie was coming second in our BnF voting and was a likely AA squad member (possibly even final 22 member). Considering the fact he's under 25, I think you'd be pretty happy to get him with pick 5.

Comparison I guess is Izak Rankine seeing as he's expected to fall around pick 5. They're both similar players, but one is proven at AFL level, wants to be here, and is in his prime age-wise - I'd take Charlie over Rankine any day. So I don't think that trade idea is too absurd.

 

[Lace Out]

At the time thought 12 was value,may have stated,you could always look back I suppose on my history.

Now worth pick 3.

Charlie will be a key player in getting us out of this shit we have been in for a decade

 

[spotthedog1]

Luthor - completely agree that McCarthy was dumb.

But the point is that if we viewed that part of the draft as relatively equivalent in talent, then the difference of 6 spots wasn't a big deal. In some circumstances (e.g pick 8 v pick 9 this year where some say there are 7-8 talents in the top tier) a difference of 6 might be an issue, but I don't think it was for us last year. It's the same reason why trading down to get multiple lower picks is the right thing to do sometimes, particularly if you don't think there is much difference in the quality available later on.

At the end of the day I just don't get why people still get annoyed by the Cameron trade - I assume it is the view that we gave 'overs' but we got in a quality player who was well on the way to an AA-quality year before being injured.

It's not like we traded pick 2 for Lachie Weller or anything

I disagree that we viewed 12 as the same as 18. No proof of that anywhere.

I wasn't commenting to continue about the Cameron trade. I was commenting because people started using the Cameron trade to justify the Neale trade. Saying that people whinged about the Cameron trade and now theyre onboard, so clearly the Neale trade will be excellent. It's the same logic that says we screwed the Fev trade so we should never trade again.

 

[acuguy]

08- Michael Hurley
09-Cunnington
10-Polec
11-Buntine
12-J.Stringer
13-K.Koladajshni
14-De Goey
15-D.Parish
16- W. Setterfield

Nobody is doubting pick 5 is a great chance to get a good player. But history will show that L.Neale for pick 5 is more than likely to be a great move by our club.

The time to rise up the ladder is now. In footy there are always Ifs, if we got Neale in for and Cameron played a full season with a good injury run, then who knows where our exciting young team will end up next year.

 

[jackess]

Perhaps - but it's worth noting that up until he got injured, Charlie was coming second in our BnF voting and was a likely AA squad member (possibly even final 22 member). Considering the fact he's under 25, I think you'd be pretty happy to get him with pick 5.

Comparison I guess is Izak Rankine seeing as he's expected to fall around pick 5. They're both similar players, but one is proven at AFL level, wants to be here, and is in his prime age-wise - I'd take Charlie over Rankine any day. So I don't think that trade idea is too absurd.

We'll see how he goes next year because it's also worth noting that we were abysmal in the first half of the year and I thought the All Australian mention by whoever that journo was, was crazy.

I think by average points he would've been 7th or 8th in the BnF which is still pretty good