List Mgmt. 2025 List Management

[serial_thrilla]

 

[freo_leo29]

If GC end up with Norths 2x 20 picks, they'll also be sold for points, would've been yet another avenue to secure the mcvee deal

 

[s_wd6]

Wait and see

Had a nasty injury that hasn't helped


North have like 5 players unsigned

Yup just read the latest inside trading and it mentioned him.

With Brodie leaving I was just thinking about how a lot of below average players acted like they were so hard done by Freo after moving. Tucker, Logue, Hamling, Lobb.

 

[Eski3]

If GC end up with Norths 2x 20 picks, they'll also be sold for points, would've been yet another avenue to secure the mcvee deal

Trading pick 12 for two picks in the 20s would have been a worse outcome for us - we'd have slid 12 back to a mid 20s pick

 

[freo_leo29]

How so? Say if we'd slid back from 12 to 16 and got a pick in the 30s, what would the trade for McVee have been?

Tap the shoulder of any of GC, Don, Blues, Brissy, whoever has a pick in the 20s and wants points (GC most likely if they trade with north)

 

[freo_leo29]

Trading pick 12 for two picks in the 20s would have been a worse outcome for us - we'd have slid 12 back to a mid 20s pick

12 should've been 19 and 23 by itself

We also should be working the other way, trading up to gc mid 20s picks

 

[Eski3]

12 should've been 19 and 23 by itself

We also should be working the other way, trading up to gc mid 20s picks

That was very clearly never ever on the table though.

Again, this comes back to how the trade was announced making it seem like how the trade was negotiated. We didn't throw 33 in to get 12 to 19 and 23 over the line. We upgraded 33 to a pick for McVee

 

[Ge3ks]

5 years for mcvee is bonkers

No it isn't. 5 is the new 3.

10 years would be bonkers.

 

[Bradesmaen]

No it isn't. 5 is the new 3.

10 years would be bonkers.

No contract matters anymore the way players are demanding trades.

 

[Paracleet]

You mean the opposite right?


Further evidence that our trade was dog shit

I don't see how anyone can claim they are being reasonable if they don't at least sort of admit it suggests the value was close to market. It's definatley not the opposite. Claiming the opposite is just being obtuse. The difference in value between 12 and 33 for 19 and 23 v 15 for 25 and 26 is nothing material.

Again, the unexplained part of the trade is 44 and 50 for 46. Of course once the draft is over and we haven't go anything for what we gave up for nothing (the eqivelent of an mid third rounder from giving up a late third plus some points) then my eyebrows will be waggling. Untill then I'd let it pass, just like the media have.

 

[Paracleet]

Put it another way the premium on 12 for 19 and 23 is double that of 15 for 25 and 26. If the former was the market rate this year then you'd be wanting 2 early to mid 20's picks for 15, not two mid to late 20s picks.

 

[malpaso]

That was very clearly never ever on the table though.

Again, this comes back to how the trade was announced making it seem like how the trade was negotiated. We didn't throw 33 in to get 12 to 19 and 23 over the line. We upgraded 33 to a pick for McVee

How do you know all of the above?

 

[Docker82]

Yup just read the latest inside trading and it mentioned him.

With Brodie leaving I was just thinking about how a lot of below average players acted like they were so hard done by Freo after moving. Tucker, Logue, Hamling, Lobb.

Add Reidy to that list as well.

Pittonet is twice the player he is so really the only difference is there's one significantly better ruck ahead of him instead of two.

And yes I'm fully aware Pittonet isn't half the player Darcy or Jackson are.

Guess there's a small amount of hope there for Reidy now but I think reality is about to strike within a season or two.

Can see Carlton targeting a best 23 ruck to replace Pittonet as soon as next year.

 

[FreoGirl]

Both Port and Carlton this trade period picking their spuds.

Arguably WC as well?

 

[DQ 4EVER]

Who do we like in the draft at 103?

Straughanie

 

[Eski3]

How do you know all of the above?

Because our original offer for McVee was 33, which Melbourne did not accept and was probably unders. We therefore had to work to upgrade 33 to a pick in the early 20s, and the only asset we had was pick 12.

We could have either traded pick 12 for 2 mid-late 20s picks (which subsequent trades have shown to be the market rate) and then have a mid-late 20s pick and pick 33, or moved 33 up by sliding 12 back to a pick towards the back end of the first round. We chose the latter

 

[freo_leo29]

No it isn't. 5 is the new 3.

10 years would be bonkers.

5 years for a role player is still bonkers

 

[Eski3]

Would we rather have pick 25-30ish and pick 33, or pick 19 and 46? I'd prefer 19 and 46 personally

 

[nurries]

5 years for a role player is still bonkers

I doubt he is on huge coin. Sometimes spreading a 3 year size deal over 5 years can suit the club especially with some other big names to sign up in the next few years (Serong)

 

[go_the_dockers]

Snuffaluphagus

 

[Eski3]

I think we also clearly need to look at our draft strategy. We have 2 live picks, and one of them will be almost certainly be used on Whan. We are expecting a bid on Whan before 46, but I think if nobody does we will just draft him with 46 anyway. So in essence, in all likelihood we are taking one "live" non-Whan pick to the draft

We therefore just needed to get McVee and keep a pick in the first round

 

[Ge3ks]

5 years for a role player is still bonkers

I don't think you know what bonkers means.

 

[Superkoops]

12 should've been 19 and 23 by itself

We also should be working the other way, trading up to gc mid 20s picks

I think something like:
20,24,47 > 13,34,51
Equal on points.

I don’t really like it because I agree with Snuff and others that trading up should cost an added premium but I can wear it because I think in reality there will be a couple of picks between 13 and 20 that will be used to match bids in the top 5.

I’m not fussed about 51 but would prefer that be retained instead of 69 but I can’t get my head around why we just threw Brisbane pick 45 for no good reason. We were already doing them a favour and lower on the points comparison without chucking away 45.

 

[Snuffaluphagus]

Would we rather have pick 25-30ish and pick 33, or pick 19 and 46? I'd prefer 19 and 46 personally

I'd rather have kept 34 like we should have. Watch the mathematical magic.

Dogs/GWS trade

Rumoured GC/North trade


Allen compo adjusted Freo Pick Swap Trade


Freo pick swap trade TAKING out pick 33...

 

[Ge3ks]

Snuffaluphagus

the Suns have their next pick available for sliding back for more points.

Pick 20 and 101 for Suns pick 15.

It all makes sense now, Wallsy.

 

[malpaso]

Because our original offer for McVee was 33, which Melbourne did not accept and was probably unders. We therefore had to work to upgrade 33 to a pick in the early 20s, and the only asset we had was pick 12.

We could have either traded pick 12 for 2 mid-late 20s picks (which subsequent trades have shown to be the market rate) and then have a mid-late 20s pick and pick 33, or moved 33 up by sliding 12 back to a pick towards the back end of the first round. We chose the latter

Your using a "market rate" that happened a week later. A lot fluctuates and but hey we are all 'experts' on here. Your original post used the word 'seem' extensively and looked like your guessing.