Opinion Beams Trade [Officially derailed: Now disussing the folly of gambling, net negative players and the merit of Sier]

[jackcass]

If IQ was a regular draftee and we had pick 18, we'd probably pick him anyway.

If it so happens that hes NOT picked first round then thats a good thing not a bad thing. It just means we get him cheaper. Either way he and Kelly and a couple of other academy kids fit the brief of making sure we are bringing youth in. It doesnt matter that they arent coming to us via the national draft or via the academy route. We are getting them (or at least, two minimum)

Nice hypothetical. I think you should revisit Hine's comments on our NGA & FS prospects mid season.

I wasn't suggesting IQ sliding was a bad thing, just expressing an opinion on where I think he'll be taken. Happy for you to disagree.

 

[DaVe86]

Not too convinced about your stated objectives. Doubt Beams was even on our radar until quite late. Langdon's re-signing was delayed which may equally suggest he was a player we'd be prepared to sacrifice for the right outcome (ie: Lynch, May). Hine was less than effusive on IQ & Kelly earlier in the year and I'd like to know who these purported draft experts are. Cal Twomey?

From the few mock drafts I've read, I think the lack of KPP types in that potential 10-30 range means it's incredibly even in terms of talent and predominantly midfield prospects. Where IQ fits into that time will tell and it'll the needs of individual teams that come into play. Kelly as a genuine KPP type might actually attract earlier attention.

In relation to Beams, that's why I had him as 3rd priority. I think if we were able to secure Lynch or May, that would've been a priority over Beams. Then again, if an A grade player like Beams says he wants to come to your club, you try and find a way.

Hine never gives anything away in relation to picks. I remember him been equally effusive with Brown, Daicos and Moore. Didn't commit to taking them at any point.

I think whether this trade period was a success or not may largely depend where the bids come. if the bids come very early, then we are not going to have enough points and may have to sacrifice. If the bids come late, then we have done very very well because we'll have more than enough points.

Given our pick was not until 18, I think we've done well as it's not like that pick was super high anyway.

I agree that I would have preferred May or Lynch over Beams...but you don't get them all...and it was always going to be hard to attract May without a top 10 pick. Whilst I don't think our salary cap is as big an issue as what people say, the fact we had to re-sign De Goey, Moore and Langdon must have tightened things up enough to impact our plays on Lynch in particular.

Regardless, the point on this thread is whether we overpaid for Beams. As I said, on paper we did, but in reality we didn't.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I think whether this trade period was a success or not may largely depend where the bids come. if the bids come very early, then we are not going to have enough points and may have to sacrifice. If the bids come late, then we have done very very well because we'll have more than enough points.

Sacrifice what?
How is it possible for us not to have enough points?

 

[jhndos]

Marginal overpayment.
We needed a 2nd round back + 3rd round back, instead of two 3rd rounders.

However if we get Quaynor and Kelly without going into deficit, it will be a win-win.

The Sam Murray trade stuffed us. Regardless of his drug suspension, which obviously made thing worse.

For a rookie listed player, who never played an AFL game, we should of never swapped our 2nd round pick out.

I look at a previous post with regards to Beams .
"Yes we did overpay, whether this overpay is worth it or not is another story and only time will tell."
I guess we can say the same about Crisp when he was steak knives in the original Beams deal, and look how he turned out.
I would be hoping the Club may have seen the same in Murray. Right now though it is a bad move, but early on when he was breaking lines, did it look like a master stroke ?.

 

[jackcass]

In relation to Beams, that's why I had him as 3rd priority. I think if we were able to secure Lynch or May, that would've been a priority over Beams. Then again, if an A grade player like Beams says he wants to come to your club, you try and find a way.

Hine never gives anything away in relation to picks. I remember him been equally effusive with Brown, Daicos and Moore. Didn't commit to taking them at any point.

I think whether this trade period was a success or not may largely depend where the bids come. if the bids come very early, then we are not going to have enough points and may have to sacrifice. If the bids come late, then we have done very very well because we'll have more than enough points.

Given our pick was not until 18, I think we've done well as it's not like that pick was super high anyway.

I agree that I would have preferred May or Lynch over Beams...but you don't get them all...and it was always going to be hard to attract May without a top 10 pick. Whilst I don't think our salary cap is as big an issue as what people say, the fact we had to re-sign De Goey, Moore and Langdon must have tightened things up enough to impact our plays on Lynch in particular.

Regardless, the point on this thread is whether we overpaid for Beams. As I said, on paper we did, but in reality we didn't.

I'm more than happy to call our trade period a success. Added 1 of the best mids in the league and more than useful depth. We've improved our best 22 for 2019 without relying upon improvement from within and we'll still gain some players via the draft. Doesn't mean it's what I would have done or liked us to do.

I wasn't big on May, doubt he's worth anything like what he cost. If I was a Dees supporter I'd rather still have Hogan.

Lynch as a freebie would have been nice but as we've seen with the Tigas it would have meant some significant list cuts if we'd got him. Not sure the players I'd be willing to cut can be cut. So on balance I'm happy that we missed.

 

[EddiesBigBucks]

Currently, I don't think we overpaid.

However, I don't think we can answer this question fully until 5 years down the track.

 

[elpickle]

Currently, I don't think we overpaid.

However, I don't think we can answer this question fully until 5 years down the track.

You wouldn't ever be able to answer this question for any trade involving picks then. At the time of this trade it seems like a fair deal

 

[sloth6]

Why would you care what about a ‘draft experts’ opinion on list management trade decisions?

Just asking FFS mate

 

[Bad Horse]

On first look, slightly.

If it jeopardises our ability to bring in our F/S and academy selections, definitely yes.

At this stage though, the one that has me scratching my head a bit is Roughead. List spots are going to be a factor too, and I think if I am calculating right, Roughead in means we basically have to cut McLarty. Id rather the latter.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

On first look, slightly.

If it jeopardises our ability to bring in our F/S and academy selections, definitely yes.

At this stage though, the one that has me scratching my head a bit is Roughead. List spots are going to be a factor too, and I think if I am calculating right, Roughead in means we basically have to cut McLarty. Id rather the latter.

How did you arrive at McLarty and not some other fringe player?

 

[doppleganger]

Just asking FFS mate

And I was just asking why you would care about his opinion?

 

[PIEWITHSAUCE]

So, with two late teen picks we got.
1. Beams - A grade mid right now
2. Top 15 talent in Quaynor
3. Top 20 KPP and the best KPP in this draft in Kelly

Not Trading for Beams and we would have got
1. Top 15 talent in Quaynor
2. Top 20 KPP and the best KPP in this draft - in Kelly
3. some random kid for a pick in the late teens next year

We Never had the currency for May unless we tipped out a Moore or another top 10 talent.
They have said a few times the priority was keeping out list together given the performance last year - I like that

We have Talented kids now that are going to have to work hard to get a game - which is good for the med/long turm. We have a heap of KPP kids now to develop.

Good result

I don't know all that much about the draft kids but aren't both King brothers (not to mention Lukosius) rated much higher than Kelly?? If memory serves correct one of them gave Kelly a belting one on one?

 

[legendstatus]

Listening to Mike Sheahan this morning on SEN, he reckons only Beams would be in his top 10 of players had he rated his top 50. Saying his is Pies number 1 midfielder
Good enough for me


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Bad Horse]

How did you arrive at McLarty and not some other fringe player?

Process of elimination.

 

[DaVe86]

On first look, slightly.

If it jeopardises our ability to bring in our F/S and academy selections, definitely yes.

At this stage though, the one that has me scratching my head a bit is Roughead. List spots are going to be a factor too, and I think if I am calculating right, Roughead in means we basically have to cut McLarty. Id rather the latter.

I think if I had to run out to play a Grand Final tomorrow and had a choice between Roughead or McLarty, I would take Roughead. He is a premiership player afterall.

I think he is a much safer bet. I hope McLarty doesn't have to make way, but I think I share your view that it will be him. Other guys that I would rather delist are contracted from my understanding (Wills and Crocker)

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Process of elimination.

Fair enough, IMV Blair, Crocker, Kirby, Smith and Wills might be ahead of McLarty

 

[loki04]

I would be hoping the Club may have seen the same in Murray. Right now though it is a bad move, but early on when he was breaking lines, did it look like a master stroke ?.

No. Given he was a non afl experienced rookie listed player it was over paid regardless of early form.

 

[Bad Horse]

I think if I had to run out to play a Grand Final tomorrow and had a choice between Roughead or McLarty, I would take Roughead. He is a premiership player afterall.

I think he is a much safer bet. I hope McLarty doesn't have to make way, but I think I share your view that it will be him. Other guys that I would rather delist are contracted from my understanding (Wills and Crocker)

Same feeling, McLarty has much more value for the future I believe.

I would rather lose Wills, Crocker, or Greenwood, but the first 2 are contracted and I thought we had made a one year offer to the last. If we haven't already, and in the light of acquiring Beams, I would be looking to move Greenwood on.

Actually, if I could do anything it would be to retire Wells and pay out, I just think his body will not be up to AFL football in 2019.

 

[Bad Horse]

Fair enough, IMV Blair, Crocker, Kirby, Smith and Wills might be ahead of McLarty

I'm assuming Kirby, Blair, Smith are gone, and that's not enough. Crocker and Wills are contracted for 2019, so unless they consented to drop to the rookie list, are not in the frame.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

I'm assuming Kirby, Blair, Smith are gone, and that's not enough. Crocker and Wills are contracted for 2019, so unless they consented to drop to the rookie list, are not in the frame.

Are you under the impression Contracted players cannot be delisted?

 

[Bad Horse]

Are you under the impression Contracted players cannot be delisted?

If it came to that, the one I would do it to is Wells. His body is done. The others can I believe be useful if required.

 

[doppleganger]

Listening to Mike Sheahan this morning on SEN, he reckons only Beams would be in his top 10 of players had he rated his top 50. Saying his is Pies number 1 midfielder
Good enough for me

Yep.

Despite having a pretty strong list, if Beams is fit for 2019 he would be strong fav to win our BnF.

That is a huge addition to the team

 

[Baltimore Jack]

If it came to that, the one I would do it to is Wells. His body is done. The others can I believe be useful if required.

Yep, I understand, although it appears Wells is back training
But I guess the wider issue is that we do have options and are not confined to, what may appear to be, the obvious

 

[unplugged]

Yep.

Despite having a pretty strong list, if Beams is fit for 2019 he would be strong fav to win our BnF.

That is a huge addition to the team

Agree. I think that's being overlooked by some who are saying "we didn't need a midfielder" or "he'll be 29 next year" or whatever. Quite simply he will be in our top few players. Can't bloody wait for round 1.

 

[TKiL]

In relation to Beams, that's why I had him as 3rd priority. I think if we were able to secure Lynch or May, that would've been a priority over Beams. Then again, if an A grade player like Beams says he wants to come to your club, you try and find a way. ...................................................... Regardless, the point on this thread is whether we overpaid for Beams. As I said, on paper we did, but in reality we didn't.

in this instance what is the difference between "paper" and "reality"?