Mega Thread 2019 List Management, Free Agency & Trade thread #2

[serial_thrilla]

As much as you don't want to believe it, I think AFL clubs football departments try and keep as friendly as possible with one another.

Freo and GWS have had quite a fruitful relationship and still do.

There was certainly some tension between them when the Cam McCarthy standoff occurred...

 

[Taylor]

There was certainly some tension between them when the Cam McCarthy standoff occurred...

There was, I'm not sure any of them are there now

 

[briztoon]

I’ve been on here, mostly in the Young Talent Time thread, for a few months.

Originally came here a week after the draft, not two, to talk about something I haven’t seen discussed.

If you don’t see it, that’s cool.

What's your point though? You come on here two weeks after the draft talking about why Carlton bid on Henry first like we are suppose to care, good for SOS if he got one up on us. We still drafted 3 players inside the top 10 and they ended up drafting 0.

 

[briztoon]

As much as you don't want to believe it, I think AFL clubs football departments try and keep as friendly as possible with one another.

Freo and GWS have had quite a fruitful relationship and still do.

Oh, I believe it. We’ve got David Noble as gm of football. His philosophy is, “just get the deal done”. Doesn’t matter if it looks like we over pay in trades.

 

[dont bowl there]

I’ve been on here, mostly in the Young Talent Time thread, for a few months.

Originally came here a week after the draft, not two, to talk about something I haven’t seen discussed.

If you don’t see it, that’s cool.

Cool

 

[Superkoops]

Have you factored in GWS losing their later picks, and moving your late picks up, thus you’re later picks would also have been worth more points and decreased your deficit further.

They don’t change.

We used I think 49, 52, 55, 58

GWS: 40 moves to 8 and 59 & 60 come after our bunch of picks.

 

[briztoon]

They don’t change.

We used I think 49, 52, 55, 58

GWS: 40 moves to 8 and 59 & 60 come after our bunch of picks.

That’s a pity. Though I thought we traded 52 and 55 to Port.

 

[raffrox]

Simple, if you teams management are not looking at gaining every competitive advantage for your team, both on and off the field, then you have the wrong people running your club, and they’re letting your club down.

I must have missed you self pontifying posts around this time last year.

Or is it that amazing Big Footy phenomenon where if you're team is doing better than another team it means that you know more about footy?

 

[Peel67skin]

Simple, if you teams management are not looking at gaining every competitive advantage for your team, both on and off the field, then you have the wrong people running your club, and they’re letting your club down.

Seriously you don't need to bring my name up and justified you going to Fremantle and Gold Coast board telling everybody how great Brisbane is in drafting and trading.
I apologise to Fremantle fans for posting here.

 

[wayToGo_]

I still think we rated the three top 10 players we got higher than Green which is the main reason why we didn't bid on him.

Most recruiters rated Young over Green so that one was a no brainer. But on reflection I think Serong fits our immediate needs so much more as well. You've got a guy who you can throw in the forward line to develop - he is a really good small forward. You get a Green or a Robertson and where do you put them? Play them out of position in the forward line or down at Peel to develop because the Freo midfield is already chock full with Tucker, Brayshaw and Cerra developing alongside Fyfe, Mundy and Walters?

And Henry is a no brainer. Given we would have matched a bid before #7 I think that's a very clear indication how we rated him.

 

[go_the_dockers]

I agree we should have bid on Green at 8. It would have saved 59 points better than a kick in the arse but ‘rather significantly’?

10 = 1395 x 0.8 = 1116
9 = 1469 x 0.8 = 1175

Our current deficit is 265. If we bid on Green and carried out the same trade our deficit would have been 206.

More than 56, as it moved all our other picks forward.

I think it was closer to 200 points.

 

[briztoon]

Seriously you don't need to bring my name up and justified you going to Fremantle and Gold Coast board telling everybody how great Brisbane is in drafting and trading.
I apologise to Fremantle fans for posting here.

I don’t believe I mentioned Brisbane’s drafting. Good or bad.

Just that teams have analytics guys, and used my own team as an example, because it’s the team I’m familiar with.

I must have missed you self pontifying posts around this time last year.

Or is it that amazing Big Footy phenomenon where if you're team is doing better than another team it means that you know more about footy?

First up, that comment wasn’t directed specifically at Fremantle.

It was actually pointing out SOS doing everything in his power to try and benefit his ex-club.

I’ve been on the draft page discussing different teams drafting for a few years.

I came here to specifically talk one aspect of Fremantle’s draft. Well more exactly Carlton possible manoeuvre with Fremantle.

Haven’t said anything about your draftees.

The only difference is I follow a different team. Otherwise every teams boards have people with different views.

 

[Superkoops]

More than 56, as it moved all our other picks forward.

I think it was closer to 200 points.

It didn’t move the picks we used forward at all. No change.

It is a 59 pt difference if we bid at 8 and Carlton bid Henry at 10. I’m in favour of bidding Green at 8 but wouldn’t have made the difference that some are projecting.

GWS had 40, 59, 60

We could only use 4 picks based on list spots after having used two picks already be it at 7 and 8 or at 7 and 9. Those picks were 49, 52, 55, 58. This has been done to death. We should have and could have .... What is done is done and we have three awesome players all worthy of their pick selection for mine at 7,8,9. Like Walls has said let’s hope it is a very long time before we again have three top 10 picks.

 

[eastfreo75]

There was certainly some tension between them when the Cam McCarthy standoff occurred...

Grubby has left and is at the Saints.

Champion of a guy.

 

[Paracleet]

It didn’t move the picks we used forward at all. No change.

It is a 59 pt difference if we bid at 8 and Carlton bid Henry at 10. I’m in favour of bidding Green at 8 but wouldn’t have made the difference that some are projecting.

GWS had 40, 59, 60

We could only use 4 picks based on list spots after having used two picks already be it at 7 and 8 or at 7 and 9. Those picks were 49, 52, 55, 58. This has been done to death. We should have and could have .... What is done is done and we have three awesome players all worthy of their pick selection for mine at 7,8,9. Like Walls has said let’s hope it is a very long time before we again have three top 10 picks.

No it would have changed, trust me I did a spreadsheet.
If we had bid then GWS's picks 59 and 60 being consumed would have increased the value of our later picks by just enough to tip the deficit under 200 (and thus be erased).

Doesn't mean we were wrong to not bid though as there are other factors at play.

 

[theGav56]

No it would have changed, trust me I did a spreadsheet.
If we had bid then GWS's picks 59 and 60 being consumed would have increased the value of our later picks by just enough to tip the deficit under 200 (and thus be erased).

Doesn't mean we were wrong to not bid though as there are other factors at play.

You are right, it doesn’t mean we were wrong. For me it (especially Henry bid on before Green) looked like a move that had not been predicted or factored in, so it is an opportunity to learn. The nature of the draft is changing and experience is a great teacher.

 

[wahooo]

Bloody hell, the reactions to Briztoon couldn't be more over the top, I thought we were a little less fragile than that. It's highly likely Carlton had a list of motivations in bidding on Henry. It's pretty damn to stubborn to be unwilling to accept that they may have bid to help themselves out next year

 

[Bender571]

No it would have changed, trust me I did a spreadsheet.
If we had bid then GWS's picks 59 and 60 being consumed would have increased the value of our later picks by just enough to tip the deficit under 200 (and thus be erased).

Doesn't mean we were wrong to not bid though as there are other factors at play.

I don't think we used picks later than 59 to match Henry though.

We could only use 4 picks, so we used 49, 52, 55, and 58. GWS using 59, and 62 wouldn't change those picks.

 

[Taylor]

Bloody hell, the reactions to Briztoon couldn't be more over the top, I thought we were a little less fragile than that. It's highly likely Carlton had a list of motivations in bidding on Henry. It's pretty damn to stubborn to be unwilling to accept that they may have bid to help themselves out next year

It isn't just next year that would see benefits for Carlton if Fremantle doesn't get access to another highly rated player, the Blues are going to be performing the same time we are, one gun player can turn a contest and they don't really want us pulling a rabbit out of the hat with a later pick we shouldn't have had if they bid on our academy player.

It shows the value of trading to get ahead of them. We get Serong for pick #22 and change, we wouldn't have that second player, pick #10 would have matched Henry.

So then Carlton get Martin for nothing, good for them. A player of that quality in the PSD is a massive advantage.

 

[wayToGo_]

Lol

 

[stax on the mull]

There was certainly some tension between them when the Cam McCarthy standoff occurred...

Then Campbell took over at GWS and he and Bond were good mates from their Richmond days. McCarthy was still had a year on his GWS contract when he traded to Fremantle.

 

[Paracleet]

I don't think we used picks later than 59 to match Henry though.

We could only use 4 picks, so we used 49, 52, 55, and 58. GWS using 59, and 62 wouldn't change those picks.

Looks like you might be right. The deficit is 265 rather than 256, which it would have been if we used what was originally 73 to match as well.

As far I can tell we carried 6 live picks in, with the Giro upgrade occurring pre draft (meaning Hughes must have been upgraded after on pre season draft day). This would mean we had 4 live picks to match, which would be why we didn't use 73.

 

[Bender571]

Just to add to the "should we have bid on Green" discussion, I think this table shows what not bidding on Green cost us.

(Assuming a bid on Green would result in a deficit of 206 points instead of the current 265 points)

Original Pick	Points value	subtract 265 points	New pick	subtract 206 points	New pick
1	3000	2735	1	2794	1
2	2517	2252	2	2311	2
3	2234	1969	5	2028	5
4	2034	1769	6	1828	6
5	1878	1613	8	1672	7
6	1751	1486	9	1545	9
7	1644	1379	11	1438	10
8	1551	1286	12	1345	11
9	1469	1204	14	1263	13
10	1395	1130	15	1189	14
11	1329	1064	17	1123	15
12	1268	1003	18	1062	17
13	1212	947	20	1006	18
14	1161	896	21	955	19
15	1112	847	22	906	21
16	1067	802	24	861	22
17	1025	760	25	819	23
18	985	720	27	779	25

 

[rgauci]

Just to add to the "should we have bid on Green" discussion, I think this table shows what not bidding on Green cost us.

(Assuming a bid on Green would result in a deficit of 206 points instead of the current 265 points)

Original Pick	Points value	subtract 265 points	New pick	subtract 206 points	New pick
1	3000	2735	1	2794	1
2	2517	2252	2	2311	2
3	2234	1969	5	2028	5
4	2034	1769	6	1828	6
5	1878	1613	8	1672	7
6	1751	1486	9	1545	9
7	1644	1379	11	1438	10
8	1551	1286	12	1345	11
9	1469	1204	14	1263	13
10	1395	1130	15	1189	14
11	1329	1064	17	1123	15
12	1268	1003	18	1062	17
13	1212	947	20	1006	18
14	1161	896	21	955	19
15	1112	847	22	906	21
16	1067	802	24	861	22
17	1025	760	25	819	23
18	985	720	27	779	25

I’ve learnt post draft there is an obscure rule I didn’t know. You need to achieve the full points equivalent to be awarded the pick. So even though we would still have more points than pick 2, pick 1 would still become pick 2. Because we have less than 3000 points. I hope that makes sense. But it adjusts everything a little.

 

[briztoon]

I’ve learnt post draft there is an obscure rule I didn’t know. You need to achieve the full points equivalent to be awarded the pick. So even though we would still have more points than pick 2, pick 1 would still become pick 2. Because we have less than 3000 points. I hope that makes sense. But it adjusts everything a little.

Thanks, I just learnt something new as well.

Just to add to the "should we have bid on Green" discussion, I think this table shows what not bidding on Green cost us.

(Assuming a bid on Green would result in a deficit of 206 points instead of the current 265 points)

Original Pick	Points value	subtract 265 points	New pick	subtract 206 points	New pick
1	3000	2735	1	2794	1
2	2517	2252	2	2311	2
3	2234	1969	5	2028	5
4	2034	1769	6	1828	6
5	1878	1613	8	1672	7
6	1751	1486	9	1545	9
7	1644	1379	11	1438	10
8	1551	1286	12	1345	11
9	1469	1204	14	1263	13
10	1395	1130	15	1189	14
11	1329	1064	17	1123	15
12	1268	1003	18	1062	17
13	1212	947	20	1006	18
14	1161	896	21	955	19
15	1112	847	22	906	21
16	1067	802	24	861	22
17	1025	760	25	819	23
18	985	720	27	779	25

Genuinely thought it would have a greater impact on picks between picks 6 and 10.