List Mgmt. 2023 Draft/Trade/FA thread

[A11dAtP0w3R]

Not sure if this was discussed earlier but HS posted a mock draft.

It has us taking Leake (6) and Windsor (11).

Still a few weeks to play out.

Love them both. Looking forward to being let down.

 

[Demon13304]

Bit rich to talk about others having a ‘melt’ when you’ve just had your very own one here

Haven't had one in a while so thought I'd have a little one

But seriously, melt or not, my point still stands and calling that a melt doesn't refute that

 

[mores]

Love them both. Looking forward to being let down.

You are such a positive person

 

[A11dAtP0w3R]

You are such a positive person

Better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all mores.

 

[BaliDemon]

Haven't had one in a while so thought I'd have a little one

But seriously, melt or not, my point still stands and calling that a melt doesn't refute that

Nothing wrong with a good melt once in a while. Believe it or not I’ve had one or two of my own on here previously

 

[Scythe]

I thought my argument that 1/4 of our 2021 premiership side was filled with blokes picked in the 25 - 40 range, was pretty solid.

I’m not sure I “happily trust” everything that Tim Lamb is doing at the moment (or of late). Keeping multiple spud forwards on the list too long plus this overreach for pick 1 has me doubting too many of his chess moves. The proof will be in the pudding but he’d want to be sure pick 11 is a bona fide gun and at least a full tier in quality above whoever’s picked at 14.

We’ve paid a hefty price for that ‘jump’.

Yes, but to create list space for those draft picks, you'd likely be needing to delist someone who was also drafted in that range, and has had years of development put into them. Plus, unless they're Melksham or AMW, you'd be paying out their contract too. So again, why would you bother doing that for mid-late second rounders?

I dare say he is feeling pretty certain that he'd be selecting someone at 11* who is comfortably better than 14*, especially since bids for Croft and Rogers, plus potentially McCabe will come in between those two picks. The perceived drop off after the first 13-14 picks in this draft has been pretty well publicised.

Because in a competitive setting where you have finite resources then it is in the club's interest to maximise value.

The pick swap trade is akin to spending $10 on a can of coke. Sure, you could argue that you got the can of coke that you coveted but it does not excuse that you overpaid for it by a fair margin.

I don't understand why criticising the poor value of this trade is such a controversial idea. Particularly when pick swaps can happen right up until draft night. It was not as if there was a burning platform to close out the deal during trade week.

Moving up those 3 spots was to have a crack at Harley Reid. That gambit failed. There was no specific target that they were moving up the board for.

Pick 14+27+35 have a draft index points equivalent around pick 3. I understand that draft index points are not the best indicator, but it just highlights how much capital we are burning.

Ok, where has it been confirmed that those picks were being used for Reid? Do you honestly think that the club would've made that pick trade purely to position themselves for Reid, without asking West Coast first? That would be unbelievably stupid. We've said our priority was moving up the draft board and taking two picks, which we've done.

We had a stab at Reid, sure, but the fact that West Coast said no is a pretty fair indicator that nothing was agreed upon prior, therefore I highly doubt there were no other prospects who we had considered moving up for.

Finally, draft index points are functionally meaningless when there's not an academy player/bid involved. Do you think any team would ever trade #3 for #14, #27 and #35?

 

[Scythe]

It was only a few weeks ago that me saying that '...maybe Bartlett had a point' went from being controversial and shouted down, to having people starting to agree when all the bad press started.

I think having different opinions on a discussion forum is great for discourse, but others prefer an echo chamber.

Absolutely, hence my history of encouraging those discussions on our board. You also would've noticed how critical I've been of the club recently, I'm sure.

When there's a history of melting purely for the sake of it though, it gets tiring. Especially when valid counterpoints with evidence are provided, yet are dismissed/ignored altogether in favour of whinging about every little thing imaginable.

 

[BaliDemon]

Ok, where has it been confirmed that those picks were being used for Reid? Do you honestly think that the club would've made that pick trade purely to position themselves for Reid, without asking West Coast first? That would be unbelievably stupid. We've said our priority was moving up the draft board and taking two picks, which we've done.

We had a stab at Reid, sure, but the fact that West Coast said no is a pretty fair indicator that nothing was agreed upon prior, therefore I highly doubt there were no other prospects who we had considered moving up for.

I actually do think Lamb/Taylor have been that stupid on this occasion. Believe it or not they are capable of making some crap decisions. It’s been clear for weeks they’ve had this tunnel vision to get Harley Reid and it totally clouded their judgment during trade week.

Almost as soon as trading got underway they sold off 27 & 35 for a bag of chips and then packaged up a deal to pitch to WC to try and gazump whatever North were going to try and offer. It was all done in great haste without them ever really coming to an honest assessment about their actual chances of WC agreeing to it (close to nil).

Afterwards, we were left with a sh1tty three spot jump from 14 to 11 and are now pretending to know that there’s definitely a gun at pick 11 who’ll be streets ahead of the kid available at 14.

It’s bollocks. We made a silly, unrealistic play for pick 1 and cost ourselves quality draft capital in the process. Paid $10 for can of Coke, just like TheBoss says. If that’s not worth a whinge I don’t know what is.

 

[markm106]

If Curtin is there at our pick I’d take him. Unless you absolutely think he’ll go home in 2-3 years. But how do you know that unless he says it which I doubt he would.
Plenty to play out before the draft. HS saying Leake and Windsor. They address needs but still think we should be looking at someone who can kick goals or a key defender with one of the picks.

 

[Daemon]

I enjoy listening to opinions different to mine, even if I think they are wrong.

I don't enjoy listening to the same opinions repeated by the same posters for pages on end, arguing with others for the sake of arguing. Case in point - the last 5 pages of this thread.

 

[Dory_77]

It’s bollocks. We made a silly, unrealistic play for pick 1 and cost ourselves quality draft capital in the process. Paid $10 for can of Coke, just like TheBoss says. If that’s not worth a whinge I don’t know what is.

I get the analogy, but it's a bit simplistic. If Reid is as good as he's alleged, then it's not like buying a can of coke which is ubiquitous, but a vintage bottle of wine. Something rare, potentially the only one in the country. Of course there's a big markup for that. And if that wine pairs perfectly with the rest of your collection then you're going to go extra hard for it.

Maybe a few cheaper non-vintage ones are just as good? I don't know, I'm no sommelier and its a bit eye of the beholder. There'll probably be some solid players picked up in the second round and as you pointed out, we had plenty in our flag side. But most of the blokes you listed were footsoldiers in that side. Fritta and Gawn were huge for us, sure. Sparrow, Spargo, Rivers, and ANB weren't the difference makers for us in '21. JJ was around that mark too and didn't even get on the ground!

As a comparison, in the 2018 draft - Sparrow and JJ were 27 and 33 respectively. 14 was Jackson Hately. 11 was Jye Caldwell and 12 was Zak Butters. Easy to pick in hindsight, yes, but shows the value that could be unlocked from trading up just a few spots

 

[BaliDemon]

I get the analogy, but it's a bit simplistic. If Reid is as good as he's alleged, then it's not like buying a can of coke which is ubiquitous, but a vintage bottle of wine. Something rare, potentially the only one in the country. Of course there's a big markup for that. And if that wine pairs perfectly with the rest of your collection then you're going to go extra hard for it.

But WC were never going to accept 6, 11 & F1. It was a near pointless gambit.

In this instance the ‘can of Coke’ we paid $10 for isn’t the fine wine of Harley Reid, it’s the flat Pepsi 3 spot jump from 14 to 11.

I also think your underrating the quality of players we’ve previously recruited in that pick 25 - 40 range. Not world beaters but significant first 18 players in a top 4 side. Plus Fritsch who’s a star.

Anyway, all grist for the mill now. Hopefully pick 11 is a star. Pressure certainly has gone up on Taylor/Lamb now for that to be the outcome.

 

[BaliDemon]

I enjoy listening to opinions different to mine, even if I think they are wrong.

I don't enjoy listening to the same opinions repeated by the same posters for pages on end, arguing with others for the sake of arguing. Case in point - the last 5 pages of this thread.

It’s called a back and forth discussion.

Why don’t you offer your opinion if you’re over reading others’? Add to the milieu!

 

[TheBoss]

When there's a history of melting purely for the sake of it though, it gets tiring. Especially when valid counterpoints with evidence are provided, yet are dismissed/ignored altogether in favour of whinging about every little thing imaginable.

I think we are at cross purposes.

Consensus on the board that the trade is fine because we blew up picks we were not going to use.

My contention is that the trade is a poor allocation of draft capital.

Finally, draft index points are functionally meaningless when there's not an academy player/bid involved.

I agree, but it gives context to the value of picks before they are attached to player. Comparing pick 11 against 14 is really just a masturbation exercise until both players are 5 years into their career.

Look at the Bulldogs/Suns pick swap for example.

Bulldogs gave 10+17+F1 in exchange for pick 4. The value of those points are equivalent to pick 1.

We paid the equivalent of pick 3 to get the 11th pick. Tim Lamb got boned.

North paid an end of future F1 (currently pick 20) to get pick 18 from the Suns this year.

 

[TheBoss]

I get the analogy, but it's a bit simplistic. If Reid is as good as he's alleged, then it's not like buying a can of coke which is ubiquitous, but a vintage bottle of wine.

Reid is not the can of coke.

Moving up from pick 14 to 11 is the coke.

 

[dazzledavey36]

If Curtin is there at our pick I’d take him. Unless you absolutely think he’ll go home in 2-3 years. But how do you know that unless he says it which I doubt he would.
Plenty to play out before the draft. HS saying Leake and Windsor. They address needs but still think we should be looking at someone who can kick goals or a key defender with one of the picks.

Leake is more than capable of kicking goals as a half forward option, hes peoven that at Coates League level. He's a unique player with his strong aerial contest and ability to take strong contested marks but also use his speed and athleticism at ground level.

Remind me who was Collingwoods leading goal kicker in the grand final?

 

[BaliDemon]

Reid is not the can of coke.

Moving up from pick 14 to 11 is the coke.

I also pointed this out to Dory. It’s an important correction.

I just don’t see how anyone can look at themselves in the mirror and straight-faced defend that trade. It was a shocker.

 

[deeman87]

Just commenting on that HS mock. if we seriously were to take Leake at 6 with Curtin and Caddy on the board after trading 27 and 35 to move up from 14 when we could prob get Leake at 14...It would make this an all time bad off season. I know its just a mock but they start to get pretty accurate as you get close. Like if JT thinks hes BPA and can play a diff position than HB fine, but we would surely trade back from 6 if that was the case right...right....?????!?!?!?!?!!?!? Not even Lamb is that Dumb surely.................................. (Each dot represents all Tim Lamb brain cells or something. WC would prob trade their future first for Curtin, there's tons of teams that would trade up for him, not to mention that we could certainly use him with May being as old as he is and Petty with 1 foot and the other out the door. If we think hes flight risk then take Caddy. Just please dont let us take f k n Leake at 6 for the love of god! Like we do not need half backs...Its the position were most set at, Salem, Bowie, Rivers & Mcvee. Basically should be set at that positon for the next 4-6 years, those are possibly our 4 best ball users too, no need for another half back just do anything else at 6. There's a pretty set top 8 group in this draft from everything ive read and if we dont take one of them it better be another Oliver like pick. Regardless trade back plsssssssssssss. That is all.

 

[Scythe]

I think we are at cross purposes.

Consensus on the board that the trade is fine because we blew up picks we were not going to use.

My contention is that the trade is a poor allocation of draft capital.



I agree, but it gives context to the value of picks before they are attached to player. Comparing pick 11 against 14 is really just a masturbation exercise until both players are 5 years into their career.

Look at the Bulldogs/Suns pick swap for example.

Bulldogs gave 10+17+F1 in exchange for pick 4. The value of those points are equivalent to pick 1.

We paid the equivalent of pick 3 to get the 11th pick. Tim Lamb got boned.

North paid an end of future F1 (currently pick 20) to get pick 18 from the Suns this year.

I get the argument you're making, but if you want to use the Bulldogs trade as an example, the points equivalent would've been Pick 1 and Pick 23. Important distinction.

 

[Demon 16]

Is anyone able to share the HS phantom draft order in full?

 

[deeman87]

Also in regards to Caddy, i dont get why we wouldnt take him. He's staring us in the face. Dunno about you, but all year my dad and i just kept saying "man if had of just taken Curnow instead of Wiedeman it wouldve meant 3 premierships not 1." Now theres a player there who is likened to him and were just gonna take some HB? Its so difficult to get a good KPF via trade, ye we have JVR and Jefferson and maybe theyll both be really good for 10+ years but no one ever said oh no we have too many good key forwards. There will be two players from the top group to make it through to our pick, one will prob be him, rkn hes worth the gamble, just keep throwing darts at the board and well end up with a couple good key fwds to build around, not to mention JVR insurance since half the interstate kids go home in the end at some point.

 

[Demon 16]

First-round Phantom Draft - who your club could pick on night 1

The 2023 AFL Draft is less than a month away, and with players traded and picks swapped, Jasper Chellappah has released his latest Phantom Draft. Who does your club pick up on the first night? Plus where every team is looking with their draft hand.

www.espn.com.au

8. Melbourne - Dan Curtin

There's always a slider on draft night, but it won't be for a lack of talent if it's Curtin. WA's premier prospect was their best performer at the carnival where he averaged 23.5 disposals and 6.5 marks as an inside midfielder. He does his best work as an intercepting defender but also kicks crucial goals as a forward, and it would be difficult for the Dees to pass his talent up at this spot. Nate Caddy would also be heavily considered given the Dees' dearth of key forward options last season.

14. Melbourne - Lance Collard

The draft bolter could be mercurial WA goalsneak Collard, who kicked 10 goals in his two WAFL Colts finals games and tested superbly at the combine. He's quick and difficult to tackle, and has extraordinary goal sense in the tightest of spots. Collard moves a little like [PLAYERCARD]Shai Bolton[/PLAYERCARD] and that enticing ceiling has clubs considering him in the first round. West Coast and Fremantle are heavily linked to the small forward but his rising stock means a club could pounce even earlier than this spot with the Dees.

 

[Demon 16]

Not sure about overlooking Leake, but Collard does fit a need in my opinion.

 

[deeman87]

Not sure about overlooking Leake, but Collard does fit a need in my opinion.

Yeh do like the sound of him tbh, we badly need more dangerous small fwds.

 

[Scythe]

Just commenting on that HS mock. if we seriously were to take Leake at 6 with Curtin and Caddy on the board after trading 27 and 35 to move up from 14 when we could prob get Leake at 14...It would make this an all time bad off season. I know its just a mock but they start to get pretty accurate as you get close. Like if JT thinks hes BPA and can play a diff position than HB fine, but we would surely trade back from 6 if that was the case right...right....?????!?!?!?!?!!?!? Not even Lamb is that Dumb surely.................................. (Each dot represents all Tim Lamb brain cells or something. WC would prob trade their future first for Curtin, there's tons of teams that would trade up for him, not to mention that we could certainly use him with May being as old as he is and Petty with 1 foot and the other out the door. If we think hes flight risk then take Caddy. Just please dont let us take f k n Leake at 6 for the love of god! Like we do not need half backs...Its the position were most set at, Salem, Bowie, Rivers & Mcvee. Basically should be set at that positon for the next 4-6 years, those are possibly our 4 best ball users too, no need for another half back just do anything else at 6. There's a pretty set top 8 group in this draft from everything ive read and if we dont take one of them it better be another Oliver like pick. Regardless trade back plsssssssssssss. That is all.

I'm not going to deconstruct all of this, but the three clubs rumoured to be heavily into Leake are us (#6), GWS (#7) and Geelong (#8). He won't be there at 11.

Also Leake has played on all three lines this year, and played well in each role. Not just a half-back.